[LegOverHead]

Hey everybody i was wonder what is a good lense for a wide and sharp quality?

[Adam]

Take a look at these primes: Pentax DA Prime Lense Lens Reviews and Specifications - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[blackcloudbrew]

All depends on how much money you want to spend and what kinds of things you want to shoot. Presuming you have say the kit lens and you want better quality, look at the DA*16-50 f2.8 lens or for a bit less the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 lens. If you want wider, look at lenses like the DA 12-24,Tamron 10-24, or Sigma 10-20. It you just want primes, there are many to choose from. What do you want to do?

[Chaos_Realm]

First of all you will need to be a little more specific, some details such as what you want to shoot , Zoom for flexibility or prime for optimum quality, what price range your looking at and maybe a focal range your looking at.

You can find alot of useful info over at the Lens database on all the pentax and 3rd party brand lenses.

Edit: what adam said...

[LegOverHead]

Sorry for not letting you guys know about my price range, but it's around 100 - 400$ currently. And mainly lenses to shoot car's and scenery. Thanks guys!

[Chaos_Realm]

in that price range to give you a bit of flexibility as scenery and cars (assuming display cars not racing, as racing requires a lot more reach) can require a bit of variation in Focal lengths I'd lean toward the DA 16-45 f/4 It gives a useful range and is quite sharp. It doesn't have the weather seals of the 18-55 WR but it has a bit better sharpness. you could look into the primes but they might limit you a little in terms of flexibility.

[Ash]

+1 for the DA 16-45, but you'll have to look around the marketplace or trading places for one.
There's also the Tamron 17-50, which is slightly more expensive, but faster and optically excellent.
You might be able to squeeze in Sigma's latest offering within your budget, the 17-50 HSM (if you like silent focusing).

[GlennG]

Sigma's newest is $600+, so well north of OP's range. I'm currently with DA 17-70, bought used here for $330. It seems pretty good and I'm happy, but I'm continually intrigued by the 16-45 and Tamron 17-50 - those might have been even better choices, though. I did not opt for the Tammy as I perceived some reviewers cited a need for focus adjustment, which the K100dS does not have.

[Marc Sabatella]

This question is more about lenses than cameras - a lens good for a K100DS is a lens good for anything other Pentax DSLR - and hence is not approriate for the DSLR forum. But given this is more a generic beginner's question, I'm moving it to that forum rather than the lens forum

BTW, the most important question to answer is this: what is it about the lens that came with your camera that you are finding insufficient? That is what you need to ascertain before it makes to investigate alternatives.

[PxK1Gee]

BTW, the most important question to answer is this: what is it about the lens that came with your camera that you are finding insufficient? That is what you need to ascertain before it makes to investigate alternatives.

I agree. Back in film's hey-day when I acquired my K1000, it came with the 50mm/f2, the kit lens. But normal lenses proved unsuitable for telephoto applications, so next payday I got my 135mm/f3.5.

Some time later, the limitations of those lenses having been discovered, I wanted more telephoto reach. I opted for an Albinar 80-205mm zoom, and was a happy camper for a long while.

Then one day I decided 50mm wasn't short enough any more, but still wanted to play with zooms. So I got the Albinar-A 28-80mm. Then I quit while I could, to avoid LBA.

Why Albinars? They were the least expensive bite out of my blue-collar salary, the Best Products showroom near my neighborhood had them in stock, and I wasn't that savvy a consumer of lenses. But for my purposes, they've served very well these 30+ years.

And now I'm re-discovering the lenses' abilities and limitations all over again with the Super.