Think I finally decided on lenses

TJWest · 07-21-2012, 10:30 AM

After very much research and tons of thought, I have decided on these lenses for the k30 I am getting next month.

Kit 18 - 55 WR
40mm Limited pancake
Tamron 90mm Macro (Typo fixed!)
an old M mount or two for landscapes where I can take my time

Reasons? I aim to take it hiking in the snow and summer rains (hence the WR kit), and almost all of the reviews I have read say the 18 - 55 is much better than the 18 - 135mm kit lens. I also like candid street photos, landscape and infrared photography, and ofc I love Macro and portraits.

I really was tempted to go for the DA* 50 -135mm WR but seeing more than one should reviews about failing AF on Amazon, and the recently published failure survey, I am more than happy to take two well tested and respected primes at just over half the cost of a potentially faulty zoom.

Cheers,
TJWest

Last edited by TJWest; 07-21-2012 at 11:11 AM.

top-quark · 07-21-2012, 10:44 AM

Any review that said the 18-55 WR was better than the 18-135 WR was lying to you. If you want a basic, all-weather setup, the 18-135 is more than adequate and much better than the basic zoom.

I'm guessing you mean the Tamron 90mm macro. No arguments there. If you're saving cash by not buying the 50-135, you might consider the DFA 100mm WR.

jimr-pdx · 07-21-2012, 10:45 AM - **1 Like**

I'm surprised that 'almost all' reviews prefer the 18-55, most of what I see goes the other way. The 18-55 v 18-135 is strictly a copy-to-copy thing: I have a very good 18-55wr and had a poor 18-135, but it's clear on this site that's a minority opinion. I may give the latter another go at some point but want to see the 2012 roadmap lenses appear first. The M's are very nice to have, I've the 135/3.5 and 200/4 but most commonly my telephoto will be covered by the Rikenon 70-150/4.

And yes I wonder about that 70mm too; Sigma does 70, Tamron prefers 90. Both excellent though!

TJWest · 07-21-2012, 11:11 AM

Hi,

photozone gave the nod to the 18 - 55 over the 18 - 135. The May edition of the magazine ColorFoto did as well, I trust both of those sources. Honestly, if a kit is going to suck, and let's face it, they both do, I prefer to spend less on it. I wouldn't get it at all if it were not for the WR. I am not so fond of the WR primes Pentax makes to date or I would opt for those instead. I just do not think the 18 - 135 is worth 500 bones from what I have read.

Sorry, typo, yes, I meant the 90mm Tamron. The 100mm WR was obviously considered as well!

Cheers,

TJWest

Docrwm · 07-21-2012, 11:56 AM - **1 Like**

To each their own. I own both the 18-55 and 18-135 and the 18-135 is better. It does cost more and that can be a factor but its not worse optically than the 18-55. Oh, and have you ever used a Canon kit lens? Our kit lenses are golden compared to those.

TJWest · 07-21-2012, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

To each their own. I own both the 18-55 and 18-135 and the 18-135 is better. It does cost more and that can be a factor but its not worse optically than the 18-55. Oh, and have you ever used a Canon kit lens? Our kit lenses are golden compared to those.

Thanks Doc for the feedback! Dag nabbit...I am now questioning my choice! Hmm...I could go for the new cheap 50mm prime instead of the 40mm limited and take the 18 - 135mm kit instead...

Docrwm · 07-21-2012, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by TJWest

Thanks Doc for the feedback! Dag nabbit...I am now questioning my choice! Hmm...I could go for the new cheap 50mm prime instead of the 40mm limited and take the 18 - 135mm kit instead...

Perhaps. Just saying that there has been a lot of BS about that lens out there and many are repeating the same flawed conclusions from the initial review. As for the 50/1.8, aside from perspective, how do you know if it will be better or worse than the 40 limited? It is faster. It seems to me that all too many people go by price and prejudge lenses. Good luck with your purchases.

TJWest · 07-21-2012, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Perhaps. Just saying that there has been a lot of BS about that lens out there and many are repeating the same flawed conclusions from the initial review. As for the 50/1.8, aside from perspective, how do you know if it will be better or worse than the 40 limited? It is faster. It seems to me that all too many people go by price and prejudge lenses. Good luck with your purchases.

Thanks Doc,

It would be a question of budget at that point. The 18 - 55 kit allows me WR + two solid primes(40mm L + the Tamron) , the 18 - 135 would allow me one solid prime (the Tamron) and I would have to compromise on the lower prime. The limited should be better, but who knows...thanks for the kind wishes!

Skog · 07-21-2012, 01:16 PM

Good choices I think. The WR kit for hiking and the 40 for image quality when you want to travel light. The 18.55 kit is ok, and will do the job. However, I have both the 18-55 and the 18-135 and the latter is a much better lens (sorry

). It's got a much much better focus (DC motor vs screw drive) which is totally silent. A much more useful zoom range, and yes, it is considerably sharper (especially in the tele end). If it's worth the extra $ is up to you, but I haven't used my 18-55 since getting the 18-135 a year a go.

Docrwm · 07-21-2012, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by TJWest

Thanks Doc,

It would be a question of budget at that point. The 18 - 55 kit allows me WR + two solid primes(40mm L + the Tamron) , the 18 - 135 would allow me one solid prime (the Tamron) and I would have to compromise on the lower prime. The limited should be better, but who knows...thanks for the kind wishes!

That's certainly a consideration. I find the 18-55 to be a very competent lens myself. The 40Ltd is very well liked and I frankly find 50 a bit too tight for use indoors under most circumstances. If I were looking and on a budget I'd consider the 35/2.4. It really is an amazing lens in its own right, so sharp, and it costs so little relative to the others. I also find the 35mm perspective more useful for me indoors typically than even the 40 that is only 5mm away. If you aren't sure try the 18-55 at each for a little walk around your house and watch the corners and edges of the frame. I think you'll see that 35 is more functional in a typical home or classroom than the 40 from the standpoint of perspective and framing of the areas. The Tamron 90 Macro is very well thought of and is supposed to be an amazing lens. I own 4 Tamron lenses and am very happy with each of them. However, for Macro I find manual focus lenses to better suit me and have both the 50/4 and 100/4 macros in M and like each of them. You can get the M versions of those lenses for ~$100+-.

TJWest · 07-21-2012, 02:24 PM

HI Doc,

hmmm... It would allow me to get the 18 - 135 and a good 35mm prime, a tick faster than the 40mm limited and the Tamron macro...sounds like a solid suggestion

Docrwm · 07-21-2012, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by TJWest

HI Doc,

hmmm... It would allow me to get the 18 - 135 and a good 35mm prime, a tick faster than the 40mm limited and the Tamron macro...sounds like a solid suggestion

Take a look at both the reviews of the 35/2.4 and the upladed pictures before you comit to it.

davallree · 07-21-2012, 06:55 PM

Hey everyone,

just wondering, I really want the white body AND the 18-55 WR as the kit lens.

Where can I find this kit??? Am I missing it somewhere? The only WR kit I have seen is the BLACK body with 18-135 WR.

Thank you

David Allin

audiobomber · 07-21-2012, 07:23 PM

Photozone tested a bum copy of the 18-135. Read the In-Depth review on this site for a more accurate assessment.

Pentax-DA 18-135mm Zoom Review - Overview - PentaxForums.com

I have a couple of 18-55's (original & DA L). The 18-135 has slightly better IQ and radically better mechanical performance (quick & silent AF, better build quality, rounded blades for smoother bokeh). I've been using the 18-135 with supporting primes for specialty work and highest IQ, and I like that kit a lot.

TJWest · 07-22-2012, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

Photozone tested a bum copy of the 18-135. Read the In-Depth review on this site for a more accurate assessment.

Pentax-DA 18-135mm Zoom Review - Overview - PentaxForums.com

I have a couple of 18-55's (original & DA L). The 18-135 has slightly better IQ and radically better mechanical performance (quick & silent AF, better build quality, rounded blades for smoother bokeh). I've been using the 18-135 with supporting primes for specialty work and highest IQ, and I like that kit a lot.

Hi, it does look like this is what I will be doing as well. Thanks for all the tips everyone!

07-21-2012, 10:30 AM	#1
TJWest Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 116	Think I finally decided on lenses After very much research and tons of thought, I have decided on these lenses for the k30 I am getting next month. Kit 18 - 55 WR 40mm Limited pancake Tamron 90mm Macro (Typo fixed!) an old M mount or two for landscapes where I can take my time Reasons? I aim to take it hiking in the snow and summer rains (hence the WR kit), and almost all of the reviews I have read say the 18 - 55 is much better than the 18 - 135mm kit lens. I also like candid street photos, landscape and infrared photography, and ofc I love Macro and portraits. I really was tempted to go for the DA* 50 -135mm WR but seeing more than one should reviews about failing AF on Amazon, and the recently published failure survey, I am more than happy to take two well tested and respected primes at just over half the cost of a potentially faulty zoom. Cheers, TJWest Last edited by TJWest; 07-21-2012 at 11:11 AM.

07-21-2012, 06:55 PM	#13
davallree New Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Florida Posts: 5	Where to find 18-55 WR Kit Hey everyone, just wondering, I really want the white body AND the 18-55 WR as the kit lens. Where can I find this kit??? Am I missing it somewhere? The only WR kit I have seen is the BLACK body with 18-135 WR. Thank you David Allin

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Finally decided it's time to join.	hollywoodfred	Welcomes and Introductions	9	01-22-2012 07:38 AM
People So finally I decided to share my gallery with you :)	concobebe	Post Your Photos!	11	07-02-2011 11:57 AM
Lenses came...finally	Shuttershane	Pentax Medium Format	7	12-21-2010 01:26 PM
Finally Bought Some Decent Lenses!	Colorado CJ	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	12-05-2010 12:11 PM
Decided to choose Lenses over K7 Body...	Mark Morb	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	07-11-2009 02:14 AM

07-21-2012, 10:44 AM	#2
top-quark Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Aylesbury, Bucks Photos: Albums Posts: 492	Any review that said the 18-55 WR was better than the 18-135 WR was lying to you. If you want a basic, all-weather setup, the 18-135 is more than adequate and much better than the basic zoom. I'm guessing you mean the Tamron 90mm macro. No arguments there. If you're saving cash by not buying the 50-135, you might consider the DFA 100mm WR.

07-21-2012, 10:45 AM - 1 Like	#3
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	I'm surprised that 'almost all' reviews prefer the 18-55, most of what I see goes the other way. The 18-55 v 18-135 is strictly a copy-to-copy thing: I have a very good 18-55wr and had a poor 18-135, but it's clear on this site that's a minority opinion. I may give the latter another go at some point but want to see the 2012 roadmap lenses appear first. The M's are very nice to have, I've the 135/3.5 and 200/4 but most commonly my telephoto will be covered by the Rikenon 70-150/4. And yes I wonder about that 70mm too; Sigma does 70, Tamron prefers 90. Both excellent though!

07-21-2012, 11:11 AM	#4
TJWest Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 116 Original Poster	Hi, photozone gave the nod to the 18 - 55 over the 18 - 135. The May edition of the magazine ColorFoto did as well, I trust both of those sources. Honestly, if a kit is going to suck, and let's face it, they both do, I prefer to spend less on it. I wouldn't get it at all if it were not for the WR. I am not so fond of the WR primes Pentax makes to date or I would opt for those instead. I just do not think the 18 - 135 is worth 500 bones from what I have read. Sorry, typo, yes, I meant the 90mm Tamron. The 100mm WR was obviously considered as well! Cheers, TJWest

07-21-2012, 11:56 AM - 1 Like	#5
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	To each their own. I own both the 18-55 and 18-135 and the 18-135 is better. It does cost more and that can be a factor but its not worse optically than the 18-55. Oh, and have you ever used a Canon kit lens? Our kit lenses are golden compared to those.

07-21-2012, 12:21 PM	#6
TJWest Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 116 Original Poster	Originally posted by Docrwm To each their own. I own both the 18-55 and 18-135 and the 18-135 is better. It does cost more and that can be a factor but its not worse optically than the 18-55. Oh, and have you ever used a Canon kit lens? Our kit lenses are golden compared to those. Thanks Doc for the feedback! Dag nabbit...I am now questioning my choice! Hmm...I could go for the new cheap 50mm prime instead of the 40mm limited and take the 18 - 135mm kit instead...

07-21-2012, 12:25 PM	#7
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by TJWest Thanks Doc for the feedback! Dag nabbit...I am now questioning my choice! Hmm...I could go for the new cheap 50mm prime instead of the 40mm limited and take the 18 - 135mm kit instead... Perhaps. Just saying that there has been a lot of BS about that lens out there and many are repeating the same flawed conclusions from the initial review. As for the 50/1.8, aside from perspective, how do you know if it will be better or worse than the 40 limited? It is faster. It seems to me that all too many people go by price and prejudge lenses. Good luck with your purchases.

07-21-2012, 01:10 PM	#8
TJWest Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 116 Original Poster	Originally posted by Docrwm Perhaps. Just saying that there has been a lot of BS about that lens out there and many are repeating the same flawed conclusions from the initial review. As for the 50/1.8, aside from perspective, how do you know if it will be better or worse than the 40 limited? It is faster. It seems to me that all too many people go by price and prejudge lenses. Good luck with your purchases. Thanks Doc, It would be a question of budget at that point. The 18 - 55 kit allows me WR + two solid primes(40mm L + the Tamron) , the 18 - 135 would allow me one solid prime (the Tamron) and I would have to compromise on the lower prime. The limited should be better, but who knows...thanks for the kind wishes!

07-21-2012, 01:16 PM	#9
Skog Inactive Account Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 167	Good choices I think. The WR kit for hiking and the 40 for image quality when you want to travel light. The 18.55 kit is ok, and will do the job. However, I have both the 18-55 and the 18-135 and the latter is a much better lens (sorry ). It's got a much much better focus (DC motor vs screw drive) which is totally silent. A much more useful zoom range, and yes, it is considerably sharper (especially in the tele end). If it's worth the extra $ is up to you, but I haven't used my 18-55 since getting the 18-135 a year a go.

07-21-2012, 01:31 PM	#10
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by TJWest Thanks Doc, It would be a question of budget at that point. The 18 - 55 kit allows me WR + two solid primes(40mm L + the Tamron) , the 18 - 135 would allow me one solid prime (the Tamron) and I would have to compromise on the lower prime. The limited should be better, but who knows...thanks for the kind wishes! That's certainly a consideration. I find the 18-55 to be a very competent lens myself. The 40Ltd is very well liked and I frankly find 50 a bit too tight for use indoors under most circumstances. If I were looking and on a budget I'd consider the 35/2.4. It really is an amazing lens in its own right, so sharp, and it costs so little relative to the others. I also find the 35mm perspective more useful for me indoors typically than even the 40 that is only 5mm away. If you aren't sure try the 18-55 at each for a little walk around your house and watch the corners and edges of the frame. I think you'll see that 35 is more functional in a typical home or classroom than the 40 from the standpoint of perspective and framing of the areas. The Tamron 90 Macro is very well thought of and is supposed to be an amazing lens. I own 4 Tamron lenses and am very happy with each of them. However, for Macro I find manual focus lenses to better suit me and have both the 50/4 and 100/4 macros in M and like each of them. You can get the M versions of those lenses for ~$100+-.

07-21-2012, 02:24 PM	#11
TJWest Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 116 Original Poster	HI Doc, hmmm... It would allow me to get the 18 - 135 and a good 35mm prime, a tick faster than the 40mm limited and the Tamron macro...sounds like a solid suggestion

07-21-2012, 05:58 PM	#12
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by TJWest HI Doc, hmmm... It would allow me to get the 18 - 135 and a good 35mm prime, a tick faster than the 40mm limited and the Tamron macro...sounds like a solid suggestion Take a look at both the reviews of the 35/2.4 and the upladed pictures before you comit to it.

07-21-2012, 07:23 PM	#14
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Photozone tested a bum copy of the 18-135. Read the In-Depth review on this site for a more accurate assessment. Pentax-DA 18-135mm Zoom Review - Overview - PentaxForums.com I have a couple of 18-55's (original & DA L). The 18-135 has slightly better IQ and radically better mechanical performance (quick & silent AF, better build quality, rounded blades for smoother bokeh). I've been using the 18-135 with supporting primes for specialty work and highest IQ, and I like that kit a lot.

07-22-2012, 12:10 AM	#15
TJWest Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 116 Original Poster	Originally posted by audiobomber Photozone tested a bum copy of the 18-135. Read the In-Depth review on this site for a more accurate assessment. Pentax-DA 18-135mm Zoom Review - Overview - PentaxForums.com I have a couple of 18-55's (original & DA L). The 18-135 has slightly better IQ and radically better mechanical performance (quick & silent AF, better build quality, rounded blades for smoother bokeh). I've been using the 18-135 with supporting primes for specialty work and highest IQ, and I like that kit a lot. Hi, it does look like this is what I will be doing as well. Thanks for all the tips everyone!