[kphillippo]

Maybe we need to make a Chicago club here somewhere!

Great photos and absolutely beautiful dogs; thanks for sharing! I'd love to get a Chicago group going on here. I'm sure there are plenty of us!

[schnitzer79]

when i bought my k-50, i had the option of 18-55 and 50-200(or 55-300) or go with the 18-135.i went for the latter and couldnt be happier after seeing the quality of the images.plus its a great walkaround lens. whenever i go on holiday, i like to travel light and is always the lens i take with me. if price is an issue, you could always go with the k-30 and 18-135.

[kphillippo]

when i bought my k-50, i had the option of 18-55 and 50-200(or 55-300) or go with the 18-135.i went for the latter and couldnt be happier after seeing the quality of the images.plus its a great walkaround lens. whenever i go on holiday, i like to travel light and is always the lens i take with me. if price is an issue, you could always go with the k-30 and 18-135.

Thanks for the advice! So you went with the 50-200? I'm thinking I'll have to purchase that lens eventually. Also, the f-stop on my lens is 3.5-5.6; is it worth it to upgrade to something smaller right away?

[dmc]

I think he went with the 18-135. I have used this lens for a couple of years now and I highly recommend it.

[kphillippo]

I think he went with the 18-135. I have used this lens for a couple of years now and I highly recommend it.

Thanks! What kind of restrictions should I expect to run into with my 18-55?

[TER-OR]

Mostly reach with the 18-55, though if you compare it with something like a prime lens the resolution difference will be apparent.

Use the lenses you have until you figure out what you'd like to do better. You might want a better portrait lens, something optimized for that 50ish mm range, or a wide-angle if the 18mm isn't wide enough. Or if you're going birding and want something with more reach, there are options for that. Don't get ahead of yourself, though.

The 18-135 advantage is reach beyond 55mm, a frankly unbelievably fast and silent focus and weather resistance. (if your kit is WR, there's no difference). Many figure the 18-135 is a close to ideal "walkaround" lens for when you don't know what you're going to take pictures of.

The first lens I bought was a 16-45, since my K10 came with the first gen 18-55. Then a Tamron 70-300, then the FA100mm f2.8 macro. That was my kit for a while until I rented a 10-17 fisheye and bought one soon thereafter. The 70-300 performed terribly on the K5, so it was replaced with a DA 55-300 which is really good.

This is a period of a few years, though, it's all budget and requiremnts.

[schnitzer79]

Thanks for the advice! So you went with the 50-200? I'm thinking I'll have to purchase that lens eventually. Also, the f-stop on my lens is 3.5-5.6; is it worth it to upgrade to something smaller right away?

i went for the 18-135. basically it all depends on your needs.if u take a lot of pictures of birds and want that extra reach then go for 55-300. if u want an all rounder then go for 18-135.i also think a fast prime as a 2nd lens is a must. u can get get some really decent ones for dirt cheap

[kphillippo]

Mostly reach with the 18-55, though if you compare it with something like a prime lens the resolution difference will be apparent.

Use the lenses you have until you figure out what you'd like to do better. You might want a better portrait lens, something optimized for that 50ish mm range, or a wide-angle if the 18mm isn't wide enough. Or if you're going birding and want something with more reach, there are options for that. Don't get ahead of yourself, though.

The 18-135 advantage is reach beyond 55mm, a frankly unbelievably fast and silent focus and weather resistance. (if your kit is WR, there's no difference). Many figure the 18-135 is a close to ideal "walkaround" lens for when you don't know what you're going to take pictures of.

The first lens I bought was a 16-45, since my K10 came with the first gen 18-55. Then a Tamron 70-300, then the FA100mm f2.8 macro. That was my kit for a while until I rented a 10-17 fisheye and bought one soon thereafter. The 70-300 performed terribly on the K5, so it was replaced with a DA 55-300 which is really good.

This is a period of a few years, though, it's all budget and requiremnts.

This is great information. I'll stick with the 18-55 for starters. It seems like lenses are okay to buy used, but please correct me if I'm wrong! Once I see see how this handles with my photos, I'll be able to determine my next lens. For now, I photograph a lot of food/drink and landscapes. I rarely need to zoom for something like birds, etc. Thanks again! I'm learning so much and I haven't even received my K-50 yet (should arrive today)!

[kphillippo]

i went for the 18-135. basically it all depends on your needs.if u take a lot of pictures of birds and want that extra reach then go for 55-300. if u want an all rounder then go for 18-135.i also think a fast prime as a 2nd lens is a must. u can get get some really decent ones for dirt cheap

Great. I shouldn't need the extra reach for starters, but it's good to know that I can always add lenses as needed! Thanks for your help!

[TER-OR]

I haven't bought any lenses new. Replacement lens hoods on the other hand...keep an eye on those things.

[TER-OR]

Chicago Pentaxians - PentaxForums.com

I think it's time to revive this sleepy group.

[kphillippo]

Chicago Pentaxians - PentaxForums.com

I think it's time to revive this sleepy group.

Wow - it exists! Yes, we need to get this group up and running again!

[Des]

Also, the f-stop on my lens is 3.5-5.6; is it worth it to upgrade to something smaller right away?

I have never had a lens faster than f3.5 until recently. For most photography, you can live with a slowish lens, especially if shooting outdoors. Recent cameras like the K-50 with image stabilization and good higher-ISO rendering allow you to use slow shutter speeds and higher ISO for low-light shooting even if the lens isn't fast. Also, for landscapes and buildings, you often want more depth of field anyway. If you need shallow DOF (e.g. for still-life and portraits) get a cheap prime (eg I just got a Pentax-A 50mm f1.7 for $A75).

Faster lenses (ie bigger apertures) are generally bigger, heavier and more expensive, esp at longer focal lengths - e.g. 200mm f2.8 will weigh more than 1kg (2.5lb), whereas the DA 55-300mm lens weighs half that. The difference sounds mdest but makes a big difference to usability.

[kphillippo]

I have never had a lens faster than f3.5 until recently. For most photography, you can live with a slowish lens, especially if shooting outdoors. Recent cameras like the K-50 with image stabilization and good higher-ISO rendering allow you to use slow shutter speeds and higher ISO for low-light shooting even if the lens isn't fast. Also, for landscapes and buildings, you often want more depth of field anyway. If you need shallow DOF (e.g. for still-life and portraits) get a cheap prime (eg I just got a Pentax-A 50mm f1.7 for $A75).

Faster lenses (ie bigger apertures) are generally bigger, heavier and more expensive, esp at longer focal lengths - e.g. 200mm f2.8 will weigh more than 1kg (2.5lb), whereas the DA 55-300mm lens weighs half that. The difference sounds mdest but makes a big difference to usability.

This is so helpful; thank you! My next lens will definitely be something like the one you mentioned. I don't need anything major just yet, so this one seems like the best (most affordable) option for my next lens! I plan on shooting a lot of food/drink, so I think I'll need this soon. I'll keep my 18-55 for landscapes, etc.