[rp_dxn]

Hello again guys, noob here asking for advices.

Can you suggest a lens combo for K30? you can also include third party lenses (Pentax-k mount)
For general use:
For Macro:
For Landscape:
For Portrait:
For Zoom:

if possible, please dont suggest the uber expensive. hehe
i prefer old manual (eg. smc pentax-a 50mm 1.4)

Thanks guys. Looking forward to your response

[Na Horuk]

For Macro, for portrait:
100mm macro, either the DFA or FA or F or A. Each has more automation than the previous. Depends on your needs and budget.

General use and landscape:
DA 35mm f2.4 or DA 40mm f2.8 XS. Both are sharp, normal FoV, compact and have fast AF. Maybe you want something wider, like a manual Pentax 24mm or 28mm, but I dont have experience with those.

Zoom:
Stick with a WR zoom, like the DA WR 18-135mm or DA WR 50-200mm. That way you have the best flexibility for your camera. A zoom lens that goes above 70mm can also be good for portraits and near focus (the 50-200mm isn't true macro, but it still has a pretty high maximum magnification. It might be enough for your needs)

[pxpaulx]

Hello again guys, noob here asking for advices.

Can you suggest a lens combo for K30? you can also include third party lenses (Pentax-k mount)
For general use:
For Macro:
For Landscape:
For Portrait:
For Zoom:

if possible, please dont suggest the uber expensive. hehe
i prefer old manual (eg. smc pentax-a 50mm 1.4)

Thanks guys. Looking forward to your response

General Purpose: 18-135 is hard to be with WR, 18-55mm if you want WR on a budget, if WR is not needed either a tamron or sigma 17/18-50 2.8 (or tamron 28-75mm 2.8).
MAcro - I'd say you can go even further back even the m42 50mm or 100mm f4 macros are amazing lenses, but something like an A or M 50mm or 100mm f2.8(/4) is going to be your best bang for the buck. AF isn't a necessity for most macro work.
Landscape - sigma 10-20mm, tamron 10-24mm second (likely slightly cheaper)
portrait - a 50mm 1.7 AF or the newer dal 50mm 1.8 will be the best option
zoom - 55-300mm DA or DAL all day long.

[seventysixersfan]

Another good general use lens is the new Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.0 Contemporary lens. Read the conclusion from Adam's review, available here:
Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 Contemporary - Conclusion - PentaxForums.com

"We'll get straight to the point and say that if we were limited to having only one walkaround lens, this would be the one. While it does not offer quite as much reach as the Pentax 18-135mm, we prefer it for is versatility (faster aperture and macro capabilities) and improved image quality."

Of course, if you want or need WR, then the DA 18-135 or DA 18-55 should both be strongly considered.

[rbefly]

Hello rp_dxn, Welcome to the Forum!
Some good suggestions so far, I'll throw out a couple others.
I started with the M-series 100mm f/4.0 Macro and it's a very good all-manual macro lens. However, they sell for $100USD or more now, people have begun to realize their true value. For around the same price you can get the Cosina-badged version of the FA 100mm f/3.5 Macro, which has auto and manual focus, auto aperture (but it does have an aperture ring, unlike many modern lenses, so full manual still available) and is very sharp. Also makes a fine 100mm telephoto.
The Pentax version sells for $150-$200, the Cosina about $125-$150. These are virtually the same lenses, a few cosmetic differences.
Another good budget lens is the F 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 with macro function. This is a handy walk-around zoom that can also be used as a 'close-up' or semi-macro lens, very sharp when stopped down.
An A-series 28mm would be a good choice for landscapes. Other suggestions for a landscape prime are the Sigma Super-wide 24mm f/2.8 or Miranda 24mm f/2.8, both available in PK mount. These are auto-aperture, manual focus lenses. Both usually under $200, the Miranda slightly less expensive.
I agree that either the 18-55mm 'kit' lens or 18-135mm zoom would give you a real weather-resistant combo on the K-30, if you need it.
last, I find my fast fifties are great for head-and-shoulders portraits, considering the APS-C crop factor. FWIW I have an M-series 50mm f/1.4 listed for sale.
Good Luck!
Ron

[hnikesch]

For me the 18-135 covers everything except the macro. For that I just removed the glass from a cheap old 2X converter (extension tube for $5.00)

Hans

[EarlVonTapia]

After cycling through a couple dozen lenses within the past year, this is the current setup I would get myself if I was starting out right now.

The prices are what you can expect to find in the marketplace. I have no idea what they go for new.

$400 - Sigma 18-250 Macro: General use, tele, macro.
$400 - Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6: Landscapes and architecture.
$350 - Sigma 30 1.4: Low light, portrait, landscape, general use.

And that would be it. Until you start specializing, you could roll with this set for as long as you need to. The prices might be off a bit, as I'm not sure how they've fluctuated since I last checked, but to get all three of these lenses total should cost just a little over $1000, and then you would basically be set to do almost any type of photography you want to try.

[VisualDarkness]

For me general use and portrait IS the Da* 55mm F1.4 in 70-80% of the cases. In second place comes the Sigma 20mm F1.8. I have trouble to adjust to the focal lenghts in between those two. The Sigma is also good for landscapes, almost macro etc and is pretty cheap used.

[Sagitta]

I think he's thinking really budget, vintage type glass, in which case my only real recommendation is to try to stick to A mount glass until you get used to manual focus unless something stupid cheap pops up for you.

Any old 50mm will probably be decent, regardless of make or model. They seem to be universally on the decent side since they've always been easy to make.

Buy a reversing ring, and use the abovementioned 50mm for your macros.

For landscapes - if you're on a budget - then stick with the DA18-55mm or 18-whatever kit lens your camera would come with. If you didn't opt for a kit lens, then maybe hunt down a DA18-55mm on the used market. They tend to be cheapish (around $50 or so or less). Get the WR version if you can, even if it costs a bit more.

For portraits, I'd combine that with an old 70/75-whatever zoom lens (again, an A mount or better is really recommended here). Once you figure out what your favorite focal lengths are, then start picking up primes that compliment that range, as primes will (almost) always outperform budget zooms any day of the week.

FWIW, I have about 2 dozen assorted old lenses which I paid at most about $200 for (ie, 200 for everything, not each). The only expensive lens I own is my Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, and that was basically a treat to myself last tax season.

If I were to pick and choose from my own gear using your criteria, I'd probably go as follows:

Macro: I have plenty of faux-macro lenses, and they all perform about the same. If your intent is to get the super close bug photos, then I'd again suggest a reversal ring and a cheap 50mm. Otherwise, just get any old lens that says 'macro' on it and you should be OK as its 1980's marketing lingo for 'this thing focuses close'.

Landscape: My Sigma 10-20mm, but that cost me $600. That said, you said 'cheap' in which case I'd use my DA18-55mm that came with my K-x years ago. You won't find anything wider than 28mm cheap in vintage glass unless you get VERY lucky.

Portrait: That depends on how I want to go about my portraiture. Personally, I'd just keep my assorted primes for this (Sears 28mm macro, $15, Pentax-M 50mm f1.4, $12, but it was pure luck at that price, if I exclude that, then my Sears 50mm f/1.7; $15, Sears 135mm f/2.8 $20 and Pentax-M 200mm; $100) If I was really trying to combine everything, I'd use my Sears PKA mount 70-210 f/4 macro ($15) combined with its 28-70 f3.5-4.5 macro cousin ($15).

Zoom: I don't have any really huge ranging zooms, so I'd probably just keep the 18-55 and the abovementioned 70-210mm. I also have a Sigma 75-300mm, but its slower, bulkier, and has a busted grip to it - but the thing only cost me $30 which places it firmly in the 'buying it on the cheap' camp.

If I could make a suggestion though, if you're buying on a budget, get the DA18-55 (or, better, the 18-135mm if its in your budget range) and the FA r DA zoom lens of choice to cover beyond 55mm. (the 18-55/55-300 combination immediately pops to mind). Go out, have fun with the modern(ish) lens(es) and shoot whatever you want to with it, and see where your shooting preferences drift towards as far as types of scenes and focal lengths.

If you find yourself shooting a lot around 35mm, then go hunting for a good 35mm prime. If you find yourself wishing you could shoot more in darker situations, go hunting for an f1.4 or 1.7 prime. If you find yourself wishing for more reach THEN go hunting for that zoom or prime beyond your upper limits of your lens.

If you go out and buy a half dozen lenses all at once, you'll (probably) quickly find yourself noticing yourself only using one or two while the rest collect dust, and the cash spent on those paperweight lenses could have been better used towards buying a better quality lens that serves your shooting style more.

[ramseybuckeye]

Hello again guys, noob here asking for advices.

Can you suggest a lens combo for K30? you can also include third party lenses (Pentax-k mount)
For general use:
For Macro:
For Landscape:
For Portrait:
For Zoom:

if possible, please dont suggest the uber expensive. hehe
i prefer old manual (eg. smc pentax-a 50mm 1.4)

Thanks guys. Looking forward to your response

For me the 18-135 covers everything except the macro.
Hans

Yes it does and it does it well.

If you want a cheap manual prime for landscapes find a Kiron 28/2, it has outstanding IQ, I had one and regret selling it.

[VisualDarkness]

<p>

Hello again guys, noob here asking for advices.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Can you suggest a lens combo for K30? you can also include third party lenses (Pentax-k mount)</p>
<p>For general use:</p>
<p>For Macro:</p>
<p>For Landscape:</p>
<p>For Portrait:</p>
<p>For Zoom:</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>if possible, please dont suggest the uber expensive. hehe</p>
<p>i prefer old manual (eg. smc pentax-a 50mm 1.4)</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Thanks guys. Looking forward to your response

</p>
<p>the Auto-Chinon 50mm F1.7 is really nice too and really cheap. I kind of miss my old one as it had really Nice colors and Nice out of focus areas.</p>

[rp_dxn]

Oh good gracious! Not only pentax is a great camera, it has a very helpful community as well.. hehe Thank you so much guys!!! ill be noting each lenses mentioned here and will try as best as i can to find a review...heheh
You guys are really helpful!!!!!!

[SteveB]

The older Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 screw drive is no slouch if you can find one cheap. To summarise in one line LOL, mine is a notch from prime quality wide open 24-70mm, there at f5.6 but obvious;y a prime will do it at a wider aperture, sharp enough but not prime quality at f8@17mm, sharp at f4 from about 20mm.

[formercanuck]

You could try a cheap Rokinon / Samyang 85mm 1.4 if you're looking for a really cheap portrait lens.