[albanna47]

Hello,

I recently bought a yellow Pentax K-01 with 18-55mm & 50-200mm Lenses

1) which of the following should I get and why? and are those pricey a bit? will they be useful? more importantly will they work? anywhere else online I can order them from?

52 mm : Megakit (Wide Angle, Macro and Telephoto Kit) for Pentax K-01

62 mm : Megakit (Wide Angle, Macro and Telephoto Kit) for Pentax K-01

2) I am looking for an OVF, but I can't find any "inexpensive" ones online, or any that would ship to my country. similar to this https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-mirrorless-camera-discussion/21156...-q-k-01-a.html

3) Anything else anyone would suggest I can get?

Thank you and I appreciate any help and suggestions ^^,

[jatrax]

That link goes to digitalTOYshop, emphasis on the TOY. Please do not waste your money on those. That type of 'lens' (not really a lens) just screws onto the front of your existing lens using an adapter which they promise to sell you for 'free'. The image quality from those will range from awful down to looking through the bottom of a drinking glass. You can pick up essentially the same thing on ebay for $30. So not only are they a waste that site is also a rip-off.

For that money you can get a decent lens.

What are you trying to take pictures of? And what lens do you already have?

[civiletti]

What jatrax wrote.

You have a wide rage covered already. Find out what kind of photography interests you. Macro, birds, landscape, portraits, whatever. Get lenses that work well for that work. For now, just make lots of images and look at them closely.

[jon404]

You already have a fine range with those two kit lenses!

But if you want to extend it a bit at each end, I'd recommend the 16-45 zoom, which has a macro setting... and the 55-300 zoom, for a longer telephoto.

As for the OVF... they will work OK with wide-to-normal lenses... but aren't much good with telephotos.

[wanderography]

oh wow, 89 in euro monies for macro and tele adapters. Ya stay away, the best thing I can say is if your asking questions like this you actually don't need anything besides what you already have, learn what you have, you already have pretty much all ranges covered with the two kits besides like extreme tele and extreme wide. Shoot with what you have and learn how you shoot and overtime things will make more sense and you'll have a better idea of what you actually need, a spend a few months reading about gear to get an idea of whats out there, best place to start is in the reviews on this very site. Almost everything pentax related has been reviewed on this site and just looking at them will give you an idea of whats out there and how it is used in the field.

[ripit]

Lenses like that are not completely unusable, but the off brand ones like that are total garbage. Just like a regular slr lens, ones with good glass are not cheap. Ones that are cheap have bad glass and terrible image quality. I have tons of lenses like that ranging from garbage to ones that cost about 600$ (including a couple or more rare and or obscure ones). I used to use them a lot on fixed lens cameras (typical point and shoot digital though some were pretty good).

The macro ones are by far the most likely to give acceptable results. Raynox makes a popular one.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/74221-raynox-macro-club.html

Despite having so many, and having gotten a few more to play with since I got a dslr, I just don't ever use them. Dedicated lenses just work a lot better and or are easier to deal with. The only pics I have that I can quick access are taken on a $300 point and shoot (taken 10 years ago before I had a dslr).

My olympus macro (similar to the raynox but mine will vignette on many lenses)

flash_difuser Photo Gallery by Richard Homeyer at pbase.com
newmacro-ol Photo Gallery by Richard Homeyer at pbase.com

And a picture of the lens itself (in the first pic its the bigger one)

macrolensfilter Photo Gallery by Richard Homeyer at pbase.com
diffuser Photo Gallery by Richard Homeyer at pbase.com

Here is an example of some crappy ones
If the pic says wide or 3x, then its just the camera I think (it was a 3x zoom camera). If it says 1.5x or 3.5x those are teleconverters (I think). Those two are on the crappier side but still probably better than the ones you linked to. I actually don't know for certain what lenses are used but in the pic with the camera it is those 2 lenses (pics were taken 10 years ago).

gradient1 Photo Gallery by Richard Homeyer at pbase.com

Here is am olympus 0.8x wide angle (last image). Olympus makes some decent lenses but they have a rep so some sell for a lot.
wide Photo Gallery by Richard Homeyer at pbase.com

Ultimately, its probably not worth the money for good glass if you have a dsrl (or k-01). It would be better spent on slr lenses (even old AF film ones if you are on a budget). Even the crappier rated lenses that are not reviewed well would look better than a cheap front mount telconverter. If you do care to try some, one possibility would be to look for ones on ebay that fit old obsolete cameras (many have filter thread mounts so they still screw on). They sometimes sell for very little as the cameras they were designed for are obsolete. It is a huge crap shoot what will work though. Most are to small diameter to work on a dslr.

When I get some free time, I'll post some pics on the k-01 with some (maybe tonight if I stay up late but I wouldn't count on it). .

[ripit]

Here are some wide angle lenses. I chose a tamron 28-200mm xr (not xr di) locked @28m as it is the only AF lens I could find with internal focusing, and I'm not quite confident enough in my ability to MF with the camera yet. Internal focusing mattered because the heaviest of these is 1lb 7.3 oz and I didn't want a lens to try and auto focus with that much weight hanging on the moving parts. Most of these are very expensive (I don't have that many wide angle but they tend to be better ones). The first pair is the camera and tamron only. They were just quit hand held snapshots in p mode (still learning the camera). They range from 0.6x to 0.8x. The first lens vignettes as the lens itself is to small around. If any of the rest vignette, its because I was using 4-7 step rings (didn't have the right size handy so I had to go back and forth to get to the right size). Despite what these lenses cost new, I didn't pay that much in relation. One is even a bayonet mount. I made a bayonet out of the plastic ring off a cheap chines hood to make a bayonet, and then the appropriate step rings and a reverse macro adapter ring. Can you guess the cheaper ones? I'll post what the lenses are later.


wide_2 Photo Gallery by Richard Homeyer at pbase.com

In case you are not familiar with pbase, click the thumbnail, then you can click original at the bottom of the picture to see the original (and click large at the bottom to go back to that).