[gramar]

A few months ago I let my K-30 +18-135WR go they had served me well. Just before Christmas I bought a new K-70 body (only £395 in the UK) and have been trying it out with my old DA50-200.

I've had the DA 50-200 since I bought my first DSLR, a Pentax K100D followed by a K-30 and now the K-70. It has always given good results despite it's budget tag and it's still working great on the K-70 too.

I'm tempted to get a 18-55WR as I'm not a fan of the 18-135 which had on the K-30 and I'm not willing to buy the expensive 16-85. Anyone using the 18-55 still? and what reasonable price alternatives are there. I'm looking for a sharp lens on a budget I suppose.

[Paul the Sunman]

The 18-55 can be had for almost nothing. Honestly, if you didn't like the 18-135, you'll hate the 18-55. It really is a couple of rungs down the ladder. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 might be a better choice in the FL range, although not WR.

[HYS]

Congratulations! If I may speak to the topic try Pentax HD 20-40. Not so broad in the focal range but giving excellent quality. Just my personal opinion. Happy New Year!

[Scout]

Hello,
I have the 18-55 WR, I feel it's a good lens, not too far from the 17-50 tamron especially when used around f5.6 , it s lighter, stronger mechanics for me, and much more versatile as a WR point of view.
I bought it on the bay for 60 €, to prepare a travel in a cold country, much later after the purchase of a 17-50 tamron on my K5. I never regret that choice. Tamron mechanics are broken now and I ll keep the standard Pentax lens just for having one WR. I added plastics wonders to the quiver.
Thanks.
(I am looking at a cheap 24 takumar for the future)

Envoyé de mon Redmi Note 3 en utilisant Tapatalk

[gump]

I have the DA L 18-55 kit with my K-70. It does OK in the middle of the range. There is, of course, the DA 18-55 which apparently is better constructed but the reviews on this site (which I find very useful) only give it a slightly higher score. (I think some sellers are a bit careless in noting whether a lens is DA L or DA.) If I was in the market for a replacement for my 18-55, and I probably will be someday, I think I would invest a couple of hundred extra dollars, pounds, euros, in a proven higher quality lens.

[ChristianRock]

There's always the DA 16-45, I love mine...

[Docrwm]

As has been said, if you did not like the 18-135 there's little hope for the 18-55 (any version). The 18-135 is just better in many ways, and more expensive. Once I got my 18-135 all my 18-55s were sold off. Perhaps you're a Prime shooter.

[Caribe]

I had the 18-135 with the K-30. It was ok. Took some great shots with it. Wasn't 100% satisfied. When I had the money bought the K3. They made a good hiking and walk around pair. Better than with the K-30. Now I have the KP, seems better to me. The difference isn't only image quality (my niece has the K-30 now with the DA 50 1.8 and has great results), but more consistent autofocus too. The 18-135 is very convenient especially for some type of photography. It has its compromises. Same goes to the 18-55. Although the 18-135 is better. My point is that the 18-135 should be better with your K-70 than on your K-30, I think. At least in autofocus. Sigma and Tamron have good lens in the 18-55 range. I got the 20-40 during this years Pentax Black Friday/cybermonday extravaganza and it's looking good!

---

Last edited by Caribe; 12-30-2018 at 07:12 AM.

[Adam]

Congrats! If you weren't a fan of the 18-135mm, you could go for the 18-50mm along with the 55-300mm PLM. In my opinion, once you get the latter lens, you'll never look back! The DA 50 and 35mm lenses are also worth checking out.

[reh321]

A few months ago I let my K-30 +18-135WR go they had served me well. Just before Christmas I bought a new K-70 body (only £395 in the UK) and have been trying it out with my old DA50-200.

I've had the DA 50-200 since I bought my first DSLR, a Pentax K100D followed by a K-30 and now the K-70. It has always given good results despite it's budget tag and it's still working great on the K-70 too.

I'm tempted to get a 18-55WR as I'm not a fan of the 18-135 which had on the K-30 and I'm not willing to buy the expensive 16-85. Anyone using the 18-55 still? and what reasonable price alternatives are there. I'm looking for a sharp lens on a budget I suppose.

Apparently we differ. My K-30 was kitted with a 18-55 lens, which I hated, so my first additional purchase was a 18-135 which I loved and is now in use on my KP.

[jimr-pdx]

I tried three 18-135 copies and it was always a decent 18-80mm with issues beyond my liking above that. I wanted to like it, but I dislike carrying bonus zoom range when I won't use it. I've had no issues with any copy of the 18-55 other than a bit of distortion at the widest setting, which really bothers me not at all. To suggest the 18-50 over the 18-55 .. wow. Guess it's quieter. I've yet to see a friendly review of the 18-50, always a caveat or two.

Just to 'prove' I'm nuts: I agree with you on the 50-200, perhaps not deadly sharp but I've always liked the character of images it captured.

[Kozlok]

The 16-50/2.8 is available used quite cheaply. So are the Tamron/Sigma 17-50/2.8’s.

The 16-85 is better in the corners than the 18-135, but in the center not really any better.

Can you post examples from the 18-135 you didn’t care for or think a better lens would fix? If we understand what you don’t like more specifically , we can better advise what to use to replace it.

[jumbleview]

There's always the DA 16-45, I love mine...

One more vote for Pentax 16-45. It is not WR but otherwise better than 18-55. You cannot buy it new but used is really affordable.

[reh321]

I tried three 18-135 copies and it was always a decent 18-80mm with issues beyond my liking above that. I wanted to like it, but I dislike carrying bonus zoom range when I won't use it. I've had no issues with any copy of the 18-55 other than a bit of distortion at the widest setting, which really bothers me not at all. To suggest the 18-50 over the 18-55 .. wow. Guess it's quieter. I've yet to see a friendly review of the 18-50, always a caveat or two.

Just to 'prove' I'm nuts: I agree with you on the 50-200, perhaps not deadly sharp but I've always liked the character of images it captured.

I also have the 55-300mm PLM, so I seldom use the 18-135mm beyond 70mm. It doesn't seem much larger than the 18-55mm, and it is so quiet {as is the PLM}

[Thagomizer]

I've had good results from the 18-50 on my K-S2, but maybe I just have lower standards!