[bdery]

I want to have a good sturdy weather proof camera for my journeys.

You are looking at the right brand.

First landscape and nature when i´m travelling and secondly pictures at the museum (i work at the museum) when we have events.

Image stabilization will help you in the museum.

I think to have a weatherproof kit it is good to have one of the WR kit lenses. I´m unsure if the 300,00 € that i have to invest to get the 18-135mm cannot be spent more wisely on other lenses.

For what you have in mind, I would go this way : K-3 with the 18-55 for WR (that lens is small and a good performer, though obviously not the best) and then select either a faster zoom or a few primes for low light. I would wait a bit for the second part, experimenting with the 18-55 to see which focal lengths you like, if you feel like changing lenses on the spot is feasible for you or not, etc. Then you could either go for a lens such as the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 17-10, or a prime or primes. A fast 50mm is always a good choice, or a 35mm, or wider if you prefer that. If you want a longer zoom there are many options also.

I would wait before picking up a lens such as the 50-135 that was recommended. While it's a fine lens, give yourself time to learn what you like and don't like.

[Stone G.]

I would prefer to buy one good body now and put my money into better lenses in the years to come. I am not very much into "beginners gear" for all my activities. (i would tend to give all the bad results to the "bad quality beginners gear", i try top avoid this excuse by buying good gear from the get go) Thats why tend to buy the new K-3 instead of a cheaper model. It feels great and what i read about it seems to be very impressive.

I kind of endorse your strategy; however, you should realize that if you are not much into "beginners' gear" that goes as much for the lenses as for the camera bodies. A professional photographer once told me that he treated his camera bodies like dirt and his lenses like jewels. Lenses were to his mind life-time investments, while camera bodies were "consumables".

So, whatever camera body you feel comfortable with (K-30, K-50, K-5II, K-3 are all great cameras) do get at least one good lens to begin with and then build up your lens collection over time:

• 350 EURO extra for a bundle with the 18-135 seems a fair deal to me if your first choice is WR and outdoor uses.

• If your first choice is low-light museum photography, go for something as fast as or faster than f/2.8 and let WR wait until your next purchase.

[TER-OR]

OK, my two cents worth:

The 18-135 is my most used lens on the K5. For longer use I have the 55-300, which is great for the price. But one lens not to overlook is the DA 16-45 which is very nice indoors, the range is about perfect for events.

I did rent a Sigma 8-16 last year and still think about it. I have the DA10-17 fisheye but the 8-16 is just different. I do have Sigma's 28mm macro f1.8 which I didn't think I'd use wide-open, but I do - in a darker room the lens is outstanding. It's also great at taking stills of things, making it good for subject pictures.

Remember you can rent lenses, though I have no idea where in Germany... but for expensive lenses it may be worth doing to see if they're even useful for you.

Oh, by the way, $350 for the 18-135 is a great price. That's what is sells for used over here. You're not getting ripped off.

[normhead]

I do have Sigma's 28mm macro f1.8 which I didn't think I'd use wide-open, but I do - in a darker room the lens is outstanding.

That sounds interesting… why haven't I heard more about this lens?

[TER-OR]

I don't know. I rented it once because the DA35 ltd was late returning. I found I really liked it and bought a used one. It's only big drawback is it's a beast, with a 77mm filter diameter. It's very responsive, though, and has a great "eye view" IMO - it sees what you see. I think their 30mm gets more press, and is supposed to be good too.

[normhead]

I don't know. I rented it once because the DA35 ltd was late returning. I found I really liked it and bought a used one. It's only big drawback is it's a beast, with a 77mm filter diameter. It's very responsive, though, and has a great "eye view" IMO - it sees what you see. I think their 30mm gets more press, and is supposed to be good too.

I might have to put that on my "buy a sussed one" list. 77mm filter diameter, holy cajolie.

[Bagga_Txips]

K-5 ii
The K-5 is so good in low light you should get a prime with f1.4 to f2. There is a lot of love for the 31 f1.9. So you can take excellent shots without flash in the museum.
Ignore the 18-55 because it is a lens you will want to sell soon, get the 18-135WR.
The 18-135 is a little bit lacking at 100 and above, and for the museum you might want to do some macro work, So Tamron 90 or better still Pentax 100 WR macro.

Don't forget the extras that salesman love to sell due to higher profit margins:

Flash... Yongnuo560? Sigma 610?
Tripod... Manfrotto? Sirui 0025 carbon fibre?

I have no idea about the cost of the above, but my advice is usually to buy a manufacturer's second rank body and top rank lenses. The 18-135 is a paradox because there is nothing quite like it as a walk around lens.

[Byrd-2020]

Everyone has their say.. we are so good at spending other people's money.

My advice would be K-5 IIs, 18-135 for outdoors , and Tamron 17-50 for your indoor work. If you want a longer lens later go for a Sigma or Tamron 70-200 2.8, or DA*60250. I'm not sure what you shoot in the museum, but if you want macro get a Tamron 90 macro. Great for close up detail. Those are all lenses that will give you great results on a budget. (If you don't include the DA*60-250, definitely not a budget lens.)

My choice for outdoors is DA 18-135 WR and DA*60-250 ƒ4 WR. A lot more range than the 16-50 and 50-135, for the most part better IQ and probably cheaper. Indoors I prefer the Tamron 17-50 to the DA* 16-50, and it's less than half the price.

I agree with Normhead. Save money on the body. The K-5iis will be very close in performance to the K-3. The 18-135 is a great outdoor lens. If you prefer zooms to primes, the Tamron 17-50 is also a good choice, as is the macro. If you need low-light performance, though, you might want to look at one of Sigma's f1.4 offerings. I would probably go with the 18-135 combined with the Sigma 50mm f1.4. Just a thought.

I

[Bagga_Txips]

K-5 ii
The K-5 is so good in low light you should get a prime with f1.4 to f2. There is a lot of love for the 31 f1.9. So you can take excellent shots without flash in the museum.
Ignore the 18-55 because it is a lens you will want to sell soon, get the 18-135WR.
The 18-135 is a little bit lacking at 100 and above, and for the museum you might want to do some macro work, So Tamron 90 or better still Pentax 100 WR macro.

Don't forget the extras that salesman love to sell due to higher profit margins:

Flash... Yongnuo560? Sigma 610?
Tripod... Manfrotto? Sirui 0025 carbon fibre?

I have no idea about the cost of the above, but my advice is usually to buy a manufacturer's second rank body and top rank lenses. The 18-135 is a paradox because there is nothing quite like it as a walk around lens.

[soslifeguard]

In regards to your inquiry, I would personally choose the 18-135mm lens. I purchased this as an all around lens after I had purchased my first Pentax DSLR (K-r). It goes everywhere with me. While it isn't the fastest lens, it is a superb lens that gives amazing results! It is quiet when focusing, has minor chromatic aberrations, very minor barrel distortions, and is a very well-made weather-sealed lens. It is still my number 1 lens even with my upgraded K-3.

As far as lenses to purchase in the future, I would like to recommend a couple prime lenses. I would suggest a 50mm prime for your collection which is a fantastic portrait lens (it's also very fast especially in low-light conditions) but maybe a 35mm would suit you best as it gives a more realistic picture of what the eye sees which could be ideal for your museum photos. I would then recommend a good wide-angle lens for your landscapes. I chose the 14mm prime f2.8 over the 12-24mm f4.0. I have used both lenses, and will say that the 12-24mm does do a better job with providing crisp images, but I needed a lens that was faster especially for my night shots which lead me to purchasing the 14mm. I have not had any issues with it. I use this lens almost exclusively when taking dramatic landscapes, but I do still pull out my trusty 18-135mm for many shots when I'm needing a little more zoom.


Hope this helps, and I welcome you to the Pentax family; you will have many years of great fun with your new camera!


--Heath--

[koper]

pentax k3 +lenses 18-270
in the museum you mai need tripod or flash

[RonHendriks1966]

Now here is my dilemma.
I´m new at DSLRs. I used some from friends at some points, but never got my own.
I want to have a good sturdy weather proof camera for my journeys. I want to take fotos in two different environments. First landscape and nature when i´m travelling and secondly pictures at the museum (i work at the museum) when we have events.
I would prefer to buy one good body now and put my money into better lenses in the years to come. I am not very much into "beginners gear" for all my activities. (i would tend to give all the bad results to the "bad quality beginners gear", i try top avoid this excuse by buying good gear from the get go) Thats why tend to buy the new K-3 instead of a cheaper model. It feels great and what i read about it seems to be very impressive.

Well I'm not a fan for the kitlenses. I also considder your budget not large, since you state that you want the real thing! You want to work indoors (with not much light) and outdoors (either landscape or travel images).

For indoor it might come in handy some extra light to catch on your sensor with the lens. Also a little more wide-angle to catch something in the room, but not to much, since there might be some people in it.
- Pentax HD DA20-40mm/f2.8-4 WR is a very good lens for this.
- Pentax DA35mm/f2.4 and DA50mm/f1.8 are good choices when the budget is smaller, but light is more important.
- Pentax FA 31mm/f1.8 Ltd is probably the best lens for this purpose!

For landscape you probably need something wheaterseald and or wide-angle (not nessacery, but most like the wide-angle for landscaping, but you can do that also with longer lenses).
- Pentax HD DA20-40mm/f2.8-4 WR does meet your needs by giving a nice wide-angle with the wheatersealing.
- Pentax DA12-24mm/f4 (or one off the Sigma wide-angle lenses) would give you nice options, but no sealing.
- Pentax DA*16-50mm/f2.8 would give you wide-angle and wheatersealing (BUT NO RECOMMENDATION FROM ME FOR THIS LENS, IT NEEDS AN UPDATE BEFORE I EVER RECOMMENT THIS LENS TO ANYONE)

For travelimages you probably want a lot. You want some zoom, some extra long reach, you want it all. That is Always difficult, since then you could go for some travelzoom with all in one solutions.
- Pentax DA*50-135mm/f2.8 is a nice lightweight zoom with excellent image quality and wheatersealing.
- Pentax DA18-135mm WR is the all you need lens for travelling.
- Pentax DA*60-250mm/f4 is a nice, but also allready heavier lens to carry around all day, but the winner in this range when it comes IQ.


So my advice to this one is to look into your budget:
- Pentax K-3
- Pentax HD DA20-40mm/f2.8-4 WR
- Pentax DA*50-135mm
You will have a fantastic set that wil last for lots off years.

[Canada_Rockies]

I would miss the 16mm end of the spectrum, so my take would be K-3, DA* 16-50/2.8, DA* 60-250/4 for a two lens kit that would just do everything except my birds. The 16-50/2.8 is great indoors. Use DxO for raw processing and the lens moves into the top bracket, honestly. Both lenses are silent focus motors, both lenses are weather resistant, and the K-3 is arguably the best APS-C digital camera out there.

There are those that knock the DA*16-50, but my experience with it has been all good. I've had mine since November 2007. I'm keeping it.

[mattb123]

I think you should get the 18-135 and either a K-3, or a K-5 variant (original, ii, iis).

The 18-135 will be great outdoors and give you weather sealing. It will also give you a chance to see what focal lengths suit you best for the museum. It's not great indoors, but it's often adequate unless it's quite dark. Once you decide if you prefer the wider or longer ends, then shop for your better indoor lens.

The type of museum and exhibits will be a factor in what lens(es) would work best for you as well as if you are thinking of shooting individual people vs. groups of people, vs. people as just part of a bigger picture. Individuals often work best with longer lenses (like a DA 50, DA* 55, DA 70 Ltd, Or maybe a DA 100mm macro) whereas photos of the whole scene or exhibit that may just include people would probably work better with a wider lens (DA 15 Ltd, DA 20 Ltd, DA* 16-50, DA 12-24, Tamron wide zoom...).

Also keep in mind if you will be shooting much textiles (rugs, tapestries) the K-5 iis may not be a good choice because of moire. But if that won't be a big part of what you do then it's a non-issue. The K-3 solves this with it's selectable AA filter simulator and the K-5 ii (and previous models) don't have the issue but they won't be quite as sharp because of their AA filters.

[normhead]

I would miss the 16mm end of the spectrum, so my take would be K-3, DA* 16-50/2.8, DA* 60-250/4 for a two lens kit that would just do everything except my birds. The 16-50/2.8 is great indoors. Use DxO for raw processing and the lens moves into the top bracket, honestly. Both lenses are silent focus motors, both lenses are weather resistant, and the K-3 is arguably the best APS-C digital camera out there.

There are those that knock the DA*16-50, but my experience with it has been all good. I've had mine since November 2007. I'm keeping it.

People either seem to love or hate that DA 16-50. If I had the money I'd buy one, just to give it a go. I tried one out at the Pentax Booth at Henry's EXPOsure and analyzed the images after, and it just didn't impress me. Ended up going with the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 8-16. But so many people really like it, I have to think there must be something about it.

So if you need wider than the 18-135, why not get a DA 15? To me, the big problem with the 16-50 is it's not long enough for a walk around. ANd to make up the range of the 18-135, I have to buy two lenses and go through lens changes… $2000 against $400. To me, if those lenses are making me money, it might be worth it, ( the might part being, I might find the lens changes so annoying I end up ditching them both) to carry around on holiday, I'd like to keep my $1600.

Even if I ad a 15 ltd, it's still half the price.