[Gimbal]

It's the crappy and cheap 1:2. The 1:1.2 costs like $400

I think the 1:2 is underrated, it's cheap but not crappy at all imho.

[amorificus]

I think the 1:2 is underrated, it's cheap but not crappy at all imho.

I don't know, I've only received 3 lenses so far: the 14mm rokinon, da 17-70 and today i just got the takumar-A 70-200 which looks bad and the zoom is very loose so I'm going to return it.
Tomorrow the k-5 body should get here and then later this week and next week the rest of my stuff.

What lenses do professionals usually use on their pentaxes??? I would assume mostly the ones from DA* series???

[Mike Cash]

Wouldn't it have been better to ask around about lenses before spending most of your lens budget.

Fifteen hundred bucks would have gotten you an outstanding collection of Takumar primes.....with probably close to a thousand left to stick back in your pocket or spend on some nice modern autofocus zooms.

[amorificus]

Wouldn't it have been better to ask around about lenses before spending most of your lens budget.

Fifteen hundred bucks would have gotten you an outstanding collection of Takumar primes.....with probably close to a thousand left to stick back in your pocket or spend on some nice modern autofocus zooms.

Well, I did read reviews before buying them. I bought them based on reviews and pictures taken with them. But, I can also return or resell those lenses. What takumar primes are you talking about????? I'm very interested in those. Could you please tell me which ones are good? Thank you.

[bkpix]

You might have jumped a little fast on buying lenses, but you haven't done anything at all disastrous. If you have a fairly painless way to return some of the manual focus primes, do so.

Otherwise, stop buying and selling lenses and start taking pictures.

You have quite a bit to learn from your equipment, and better to spend your time taking photos than spending hours on line trying to decide, based on abstract information, which lens is best for what.

Any of those lenses that are not returnable will hold their used value just fine for a year or so. They're also fine to shoot with. That gives you the opportunity to shoot with a wide range of lenses and figure out what YOU like. Then you can make a much more coherent decision about which way to go.

Have fun,

Bob

[FrancisK7]

Who do I have to bribe (or kill) to buy a smc 50mm f1.2?

[amorificus]

You might have jumped a little fast on buying lenses, but you haven't done anything at all disastrous. If you have a fairly painless way to return some of the manual focus primes, do so.

Otherwise, stop buying and selling lenses and start taking pictures.

You have quite a bit to learn from your equipment, and better to spend your time taking photos than spending hours on line trying to decide, based on abstract information, which lens is best for what.

Any of those lenses that are not returnable will hold their used value just fine for a year or so. They're also fine to shoot with. That gives you the opportunity to shoot with a wide range of lenses and figure out what YOU like. Then you can make a much more coherent decision about which way to go.

Have fun,

Bob

Sooo true. Everyone has their own opinion and preferences. Some people say old lenses are still good and you should only buy used, others say you should buy new ones and old lenses are junk. Of course there's good and bad in both categories. I need to just get used to the cameras with those lenses first and then decide which ones I like or what else I need.
The total cost of all the used lenses was $ 335 and the owner of the Takumar-A 70-200 agreed to take it back (i bought that lense by accident thinking it was the F version).
I just feel sad that I spent so much time doing research trying to get the best lenses for my money but obviously I mostly got junk. And it sucks because I've never used pentax or any lenses for it so I don't know what's good and what isn't and EVERYONE says different things about them. So confusing.

[amorificus]

Who do I have to bribe (or kill) to buy a smc 50mm f1.2?

lol I could return the 17-70mm ($480) and buy a 50mm 1.2 instead... but only if the tamron 35-80mm is as good as people say it is... i don't even know anymore

[melvis2]

I'm trying to decide between a few differnt lenses right now and I think it is getting to the point now where I'm more stressed out from trying to decide than I was when my wife gave birth to our last child. Looking back on the last few weeks it seems totally crazy that I've spent this much time reviewing lenses. UGHHHHH

[FrancisK7]

lol I could return the 17-70mm ($480) and buy a 50mm 1.2 instead... but only if the tamron 35-80mm is as good as people say it is... i don't even know anymore

The problem is not the money, it's finding one. They're very rare!

[amorificus]

I'm trying to decide between a few differnt lenses right now and I think it is getting to the point now where I'm more stressed out from trying to decide than I was when my wife gave birth to our last child. Looking back on the last few weeks it seems totally crazy that I've spent this much time reviewing lenses. UGHHHHH

Same!!! I barely slept when I was shopping for lenses. It's just ridiculous because there are so many of them out there and when you find one, 50% of people say it's the best lens in the universe

and then the other 50% say it's worst lens they've ever had... go figure

[Deiberson]

I would dismiss the 1.2 altogether. You could get a FA 50 1.4 for about 250 bucks used on the marketplace. You'd have a solid piece of fast glass for a budget price and it will shine on that K5.
Conceivably, you could land the FA 50 1.4, Tamron 70-200 2.8 and DA 35 2.4 for a grand. The DA 35 is about 170 brand new. Leaving 500 bucks for a nice landscape lens...like the Sigma 10-20.
More importantly....you'd have reasonably fast lenses ALL with auto focus.
This range of lenses would have you covered in low light (50mm), indoors (35mm), telephoto in low light (70-200), and landscape.

If you didn't already know....the FA 31, 43 and 77 ltd's are the best we offer. But a little pricier than the above listed glass.

[mikeSF]

congrats and welcome to the forum!
It is a thrill to get a big box of lenses to go thru and i am sure over time you will probably keep some and sell some, so some overlap is not a bad thing. I am not sure why everyone is talking about the 50/1.2 when you didn't order it and it is fairly hard to come by anyhow. I'd highly recommend the Pentax M 50/1.7 ($45) or 1.4 for somewhat more money. I really love the Takumars in M42 mount; check those out as Mike C suggested. The S-M-C variety are multicoated.
This forum is rich with lens reviews and discussion of older lenses, so read up and enjoy!!

[jimr-pdx]

I knew I didn't have the good 50mm because it only cost me about $50.
I sort of thought the old primes would be decent despite their prices, but it seems like the only primes worth buying nowadays are 35mm f2 and 50mm 1.2, but they're both around $400 each.

Anyway, at first I just wanted to start out with 2 good zooms from about 18-135/200mm(combined), a fixed wide angle which I already have (rokinon 14mm) and a couple of primes preferably with large aperture for indoors and low light. My budget for lenses is about $1500 give or take, but I've already spent $1200 on all those lenses I listed. I plan to take pictures of landscapes, nature and wildlife mostly.

Thanks everyone for your suggestions.

I've saved $$ with the Sears and Rikenon brands (Sears in fact are often Rikenon too). I picked up the Sears 50/1.4 for $60 and a Rikenon 28/2.8 for less than that. They definitely show flare with the older coatings, but I've had SMC-M lenses nearly as poor; only the 21st-century lenses really get coating right on digital camera, I'm thinking.

I have tried many other low- to mid-price zooms and the 18-55wr and 55-300 are the two I am happy with.. until I can afford a 16-50 or some other superior WR gear. You should enjoy that 14mm; I have been contemplating that or the really wide 8mm fisheye.

[melvis2]

Sorry for the typos above, it is Monday.