[VoiceOfReason]

The Sigma 24-70 got some negative reviews and everybody says is overpriced.

Check out the first few pages in the marketplace. It shows one under 300. I don't know about others experience, but mine has been that the lens focuses fast and gives nice sharp images that I can pixel peep on. There is also the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Another thing to think of is that these lenses are considered more of a professional grade lens than the variable aperture ones, so will be most likely sharper, but held to much higher standards than ones others have named.

[Canada_Rockies]

I suggest an EXIF tool that will list out the percentage of shots by focal length after a few days using either the kit zoom or the 28-300. I think EXIFTool actually does that. That will tell you what you want. If all your shots with the kit lens are at 18, then you need a wider lens ... that sort of thing. We can all spend all your money in no time flat, here. When it comes to a light 2 lens kit, I am actually not overly displeased with the DA 12-24 and the DA 55-300. I don't seem to miss the gap at all. They both fit into a LowePro 100 AW with enough room for a DA* 16-50 as well.

[ramseybuckeye]

For street photography any of the Pentax primes under 50mm will work, but a zoom is much more versatile. If you really want to save money find a used Tamron AF (IF) 28-105mm F4-5.6, or Pentax, or Promaster (all the same Tamron built lens), it's very good lens you may find for $50-$75, long enough for portraits too. Make sure you find a hood, many of these on the used market don't have a hood any longer.

[VoiceOfReason]

Actually if you wanted weather sealed, didn't mind variable aperture, and image quality far beyond your Tamron 28-300, then I'll have to suggest the DA 18-135 WR. There's a long thread on here showing sample pics. I've used mine indoors at an anime con and was quite surprised. You can likely get it and the DA 50 both for under your 500 dollar budget.

[Cosmin]

I had the ocasion to buy the k-50 with a 18-135 for only 100$ more and I regret that I didn't bought that kit for some time ...
Thank you all for your answers . I think I will get a Sigma 18-70 because it seems to have everything I need .
I wonder if Sigma lenses are as good as I hope them to be because Tamron ones are not really what I expected ( and I am not the only one to be disappointed by a Tamron )

[dakight]

Don't equate any one brand with quality or lack of... look at the individual lens, read the reviews and examine the sample photos. There are fairly wide variations within all the brands. There are both Sigma and Tamron lenses that are top-notch and some of each that are decidedly sub-par.

[normhead]

I had the ocasion to buy the k-50 with a 18-135 for only 100$ more and I regret that I didn't bought that kit for some time ...
Thank you all for your answers . I think I will get a Sigma 18-70 because it seems to have everything I need .
I wonder if Sigma lenses are as good as I hope them to be because Tamron ones are not really what I expected ( and I am not the only one to be disappointed by a Tamron )

As noted, trust no one. One of my favourite lenses is a Tamron 90 an the Tamron 70-200 is a very well thought of lens. My Sigma 70-300 is hardly well thought of by anyone. It's a good cheap lens, but the day you step up a bit, you'll wonder what took you so long.

[micromacro]

It's a good cheap lens, but the day you step up a bit, you'll wonder what took you so long.

That should be written in every camera department, on every photo site. Stop! You are entering budget risk territory! Think first

[mee]

I had the ocasion to buy the k-50 with a 18-135 for only 100$ more and I regret that I didn't bought that kit for some time ...
Thank you all for your answers . I think I will get a Sigma 18-70 because it seems to have everything I need .
I wonder if Sigma lenses are as good as I hope them to be because Tamron ones are not really what I expected ( and I am not the only one to be disappointed by a Tamron )

Yes, I am disappointed by most Tamron lenses too. Their 90mm MACRO is well regarded though... I wouldn't have any issue using that one.

That said, modern Sigma lenses (made in the past 4-5 years) are much better than Sigma lenses made earlier than that (in general). My 5 year old Sigma 105mm f/2.8 MACRO lens is still the sharpest, most contrasty and enjoyable lens I own (and I have a lot of Pentax glass now). That 17-70mm Sigma should do you good, if I wasn't concerned about weather sealing (and I didn't already have several lenses in that focal range), I'd buy one myself!

[zoolander]

Advice: don't keep to a budget, its a mistake. I bought a few lenses being on a "budget", and they weren't very good. Its money lost or locked up in a bad idea.

On a budget or not on a budget, for $150-$180 new - the DA 50mm 1.8 could be your first choice. Incredibly sharp from f/4-f/8 check out the Lenstip review: Pentax smc DA 50 mm f/1.8 review - Introduction - Lenstip.com

The DA 70mm 2.4 is also fantastic and pin sharp. You might find a cheap used copy.

There is a DA* 50mm 1.4 on the forum for a little over $500.

The DA* 50-135mm 2.8. You might get one used for a little over $500. I've got this one and it'll really impress you. Its on my K-3 all the time. It'll close focus for macro, and do wonderful portraits, better than my 50mm 1.4's.

[robgski]

Since you mentioned portrait and street, I'll suggest the 40mm XS. IT does a nice job with portraits, but is also is a little wider so you can take in more of a street scene.

Otherwise, I agree with the others, get a 50mm, there's a reason it was the standard lens for so long, it's versatile.

Also, don't assume your 18-55 kit lens is not a good lens, it's a good quality lens, and versatile as well, limited only by its aperture range.

[dakight]

Remember this... the worst lens in your arsenal is head and shoulders better than anything the masters of a generation ago had. Skill and creativity can overcome almost any limitation of equipment.

[micromacro]

Remember this... the worst lens in your arsenal is head and shoulders better than anything the masters of a generation ago had. .

Having vintage and modern lenses, I disagree. Really good vintage lens is waaay! better than the cheapest modern low quality lens.
That can be true only for the same quality level lens, not just for old vs modern.

[Bagga_Txips]

I agree with micromacro. I have a SMC M50 f1.4, and it is much better than several of the other lenses in my armoury at the same focal length. In fact it is the main reason I am still a pentaxian - I used to use it on my Samsung GX1, couldn't bear to sell it for peanuts when I emigrated to China, and it was my only prime when I got rich enough to return to the DSLR fold after my Lumix P&S started to fail. Now I have about 10 lenses, 50/50 primes vs zooms, and the 50 f1.4 is still one of the best.


It isn't designed to modern concepts maybe, but it still does what it was designed for better than any lens I currently own. I would like a DA*55 f1.4, but doubt I can get one for the ? 15 dollars the old lens cost me!

[robgski]

If you are willing to live without autofocus, there are a lot of great 50mm lenses available at very low prices. I also stayed with Pentax in transitioning from fillm to DSLR, and mostly because I could continue to use old lenses. 60% of my lenses are manual, a few don't even allow me to use the camera's aperture adjustment, I miss a few shots, but it makes me concentrate on what I am doing before I trip the shutter, and that usually results in a better picture.