[twitch]

A tamron 17-50 f2.8 is ~$500. Great option and far better than the kit (except for WR)

[Ken T]

The Pentax kit lens DA 18-55 rubbish or not, look at this and tell yourself .

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/45425-kit-lens-club.html

[Rainy Day]

That is rather nice. A little more than nice, that lens does take rather good pictures. I hereby scrap anything to do with saying the kit lens is rubbish :P just to put it up there.

Sadly I'm no closer to deciding on a lens to get. :/

Too much awesome advice!

For macro I'm considering the Sigma 17-70mm or DFA 100/2.8 macro WR.

Still tossing up for an all-round lens. Maybe kit lens? Urgh, so hard to decide.

[Ken T]

Rainy Day,
Since you've never owned a DSLR then you don't know what focal length you'll use the most. The safe bet is you get the DA 18-55 and DA 55-300, they are not at the level of the Ltd but for sure they won't make you disappointed. Then later on when you know which focal length you shoot the most, you can get a prime at that focal length.
I have the DA 18-55 AL, DA 18-55 AL II, and also Sigma 17-70. The Sigma is really really sharp, but somehow I like the color rendition of the DA than the Sigma. Last week I just got a DA 18-55 AL WR from Abe's of Maine for $100, so I can mount it on my K20D and go to the beach (quite frequently) and not to worry about dirt or water getting inside .

This was taken with the DA 18-55 AL II


This one with the DFA 100 mm f/2.8

[Stratman]

Since it is not THAT much more expensive to get the Kit Lens bundled with a new camera, I say you should get it. For one, you WILL have a weather resistant lens in your arsenal, so you can shoot without concern if there is a little rain falling...sure, it isn't as good as the $1k 16-50, but, despite what your friends said, it is far from rubbish.

[WMBP]

I've decided to bite the bullet and get myself a Pentax K7. I do not, however want to get a kit lens, as I've been dissuaded by many mates who regard them as rubbish. Fair enough! But there's a small problem.

I think it's just plain wrong to describe the kit lens that comes with the K-7 as "rubbish." Actually, from all reports it's quite a decent lens, especially considering what you're paying for it. No reason in the world you couldn't take a prize-winning photo with the kit lens.

The primary use for my camera will probably be portraiture with minimal landscape shots, and anything else. So at this stage I probably think getting two lenses: some sort of macro/prime lens as well as an all-purpose lens.

Why do you need a macro lens? Do you plan to photograph lots of flowers and insects?

So I need some advice as to what I should get. My budget is probably $500 per lens; don't reaaally want to spend any more than that. As I said, this will be my first DSLR, so I want to be modest when I do lash out and buy this stuff.

Hmmm. OK, here are a couple recommendations.

1. Give serious consideration to the recently announced Pentax 35 f/2.4 prime lens. It's VERY reasonably priced and sounds like a brilliant first lens. Personally I think Pentax should in fact use this lens as its default kit lens.
2. If you prefer to get a zoom, the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 DC macro would be a perfect all-purpose zoom lens. I like this lens because it's both wider AND longer than the Pentax 18-55 kit lens. 90% of my shooting is done with focal lengths between 17 and 70mm.

But here's the problem. You have a LOT of choices—lots of great primes including some very fast ones (like the Sigma 28 f/1.8 or the Sigma 30 f/1.4), and lots of other very good zooms. There's no way you can know for sure which focal lengths you will end up liking best. I use primes almost exclusively now—but it took me a while to come to that. That's why the kit lens is really NOT such a bad idea. It costs only $200, it's a great starter lens, and it's WEATHER-SEALED. IF I were buying for myself, and if I knew everything I know now but did NOT already have a large collection of lenses, I'd probably buy the new Pentax 35 f/2.4. But for you, I'd say the kit lens is easily the safest bet. I have no hesitation recommending the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4, as it's a very nice lens, the new version has HSM (fast quiet focusing), and the lens is faster at the wide end than the Pentax kit lens, which is nice. But the Sigma is over twice as expensive, and might turn out NOT to be what you want. And the Sigma isn't weather-resistant.

Since the K-7 is weather-resistant, it would be nice to have a weather-resistant lens. When I bought my first Pentax DSLR about five years ago, the kit lens wasn't weather-resistant. If it had been, I would probably have hung on to it.

Good luck,

Will

[Rainy Day]

Well, having had a lot of advice here and there, I reckon I'll go with the DA 18-55mm kit lens.... never thought I would! But seems like a smart move, if the kit lens club thread is anything to go by :P

Thanks for all the advice! It is MUCH appreciated. I'll be sticking around when my camera work is up and working. And as I said, this will be a first lens, I'd really like a prime lens sometime in the future. Probably will just start another thread! lol

Anyway, many thanks all, I'll see you round...

[reeftool]

The DA 18-55 kit lens does a pretty nice job and is a good lens to start with. For the price, it is well worth having. I have since purchased other lenses but the kit lens remains in my bag.