Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-18-2013, 09:27 AM   #16
dms
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,614
I suggest you also get the 50mm f/1.7 (M)--used about $50. Excellent lens for low light (indoor potraits, etc.), As well as a general use longer FL.

06-18-2013, 09:29 AM - 1 Like   #17
Pentaxian
seventysixersfan's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 1,709
QuoteOriginally posted by dms Quote
I suggest you also get the 50mm f/1.7 (M)--used about $50. Excellent lens for low light (indoor potraits, etc.), As well as a general use longer FL.
That's a good option. Get the DA 18-55 WR bundle with the K-30. Then get a fast, cheap prime-- either manual lens if you're comfortable with that, or maybe the DA 35 f/2.4 if you want AF. The DA 35 is a very nice focal length and offers fast aperture for indoor shooting. Or consider the DA 50 f/1.8 for portrait shots.
06-18-2013, 09:32 AM - 2 Likes   #18
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by RyanS Quote
The 18-135mm would have the same low light characteristics, correct? It gets better reviews and I can get it and the body for a total of $850. More than I'd like to spend, but something to think about.
It is a much better lens all around. Optically its a little better but it is much longer, is WR, and allows you to carry one lens for most typical situations that will allow you to keep the weather resistance. Mine is always in my bag in case of inclement weather even though I have Limited Primes that are MUCH better optically.
06-18-2013, 09:34 AM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 139
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by seventysixersfan Quote
That's a good option. Get the DA 18-55 WR bundle with the K-30. Then get a fast, cheap prime-- either manual lens if you're comfortable with that, or maybe the DA 35 f/2.4 if you want AF. The DA 35 is a very nice focal length and offers fast aperture for indoor shooting. Or consider the DA 50 f/1.8 for portrait shots.
Thanks for the tips!

06-18-2013, 09:36 AM   #20
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 139
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
It is a much better lens all around. Optically its a little better but it is much longer, is WR, and allows you to carry one lens for most typical situations that will allow you to keep the weather resistance. Mine is always in my bag in case of inclement weather even though I have Limited Primes that are MUCH better optically.
Body with 18-135 WR for $850 total is looking tempting. Another "indoor specific" lens would have to wait though.
06-18-2013, 09:39 AM - 2 Likes   #21
Site Supporter
jimr-pdx's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: 1hr north of PDX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,533
I agree with 18-55 and a prime or two. The 18-55 is great with close-focus ability, no big issues other than a bit of distortion at the low end which never bothered me enough to correct. If indoor shooting is a big deal for you, I found a Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 for under $200 and it's excellent - but I still have the 50-200wr for wet days!
06-18-2013, 09:43 AM - 2 Likes   #22
Site Supporter
JimJohnson's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Lake Superior - Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,249
I went from a K-r with the 18-55, 50-200 (sat on the shelf) and 55-300. I sold the K-r, 18-55 and 50-200 for a like new but used K-30 with the 18-135 .... BEST decision I've made.
06-18-2013, 09:44 AM - 2 Likes   #23
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,332
My vote, 18-55 WR if you are going to use it in wet weather (if not, get the cheaper, non-WR version), then get a 35mm f2.4 for indoors, low light situations. A 50mm f1.7 is OK, but I find it too long for most indoor applications.

06-18-2013, 09:52 AM - 1 Like   #24
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,773
That 16-45 is a solid choice, it's nice indoors and it's inexpensive. I still use it on occasion - partially because I have polarizers and other filters for it. It would let you afford a nicer long-reach zoom if that's important.

I hadn't considered the Sigma 17-70, I'd have to give that serious consideration too.
06-18-2013, 10:27 AM - 1 Like   #25
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 231
QuoteOriginally posted by JimJohnson Quote
I went from a K-r with the 18-55, 50-200 (sat on the shelf) and 55-300. I sold the K-r, 18-55 and 50-200 for a like new but used K-30 with the 18-135 .... BEST decision I've made.
I did the same an agree a good decision. Rather than sell my K-r and kits, I donated to the United Way. A lot of these non profits could us a decent camera but can not justify it in their meger budgets.
That K-30 with the 18-135 is one great WR setup for $850. What would that kind of WR set up cost you from Nikcan?
06-18-2013, 10:57 AM - 1 Like   #26
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Perrineville, NJ
Posts: 1,365
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
It is a much better lens all around. Optically its a little better but it is much longer, is WR, and allows you to carry one lens for most typical situations that will allow you to keep the weather resistance. Mine is always in my bag in case of inclement weather even though I have Limited Primes that are MUCH better optically.
I'm with Docwrm on this. I have a bunch of primes, but use the 18-135 most of the time, because it is so versatile. For a trip to Hawaii, you are all set. If I had to take one lens, this would be it.

OK to get some primes, but do you really want to be carrying multiple lenses and swapping them around, when you and your camera should be enjoying the benefits of weather sealing, along with the scenery.

The 18-55 is a fine lens, but I am of the general opinion that the limited range can frustrate a lot of folks, depending on what you are used to. Whereas the 18-135 covers a lot of range. I don't find I need to go outside the range offered by the 18-135 very often.

One slight downside is that the 18-135 is a bit noticeably heavier than the 18-55. But probably lighter (and certainly less awkward) than carrying two lenses.

I find it fast enough for most indoor purposes. If you are shooting indoor weddings (or caves), then something faster is in order.
06-18-2013, 11:10 AM - 1 Like   #27
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Tanzer Quote
I'm with Docwrm on this. I have a bunch of primes, but use the 18-135 most of the time, because it is so versatile. For a trip to Hawaii, you are all set. If I had to take one lens, this would be it.

OK to get some primes, but do you really want to be carrying multiple lenses and swapping them around, when you and your camera should be enjoying the benefits of weather sealing, along with the scenery.

The 18-55 is a fine lens, but I am of the general opinion that the limited range can frustrate a lot of folks, depending on what you are used to. Whereas the 18-135 covers a lot of range. I don't find I need to go outside the range offered by the 18-135 very often.

One slight downside is that the 18-135 is a bit noticeably heavier than the 18-55. But probably lighter (and certainly less awkward) than carrying two lenses.

I find it fast enough for most indoor purposes. If you are shooting indoor weddings (or caves), then something faster is in order.
The other thing about it that we haven't really mentioned is that it is a Silent motor, so in Churches or other places where you want to be quiet and respectful it has a huge advantage over screw-drive lenses.
06-18-2013, 11:20 AM - 1 Like   #28
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,368
I do like the 18-135. It's on my K5 for most of my outdoor stuff.
06-18-2013, 11:35 AM   #29
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Antonio, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 139
Original Poster
Well the 18-135 seems to be the way to go, but I don't think I need the WR version. Sure, it would be nice insurance, but for me I don't think it is necessary. Do they not make it in non-WR? I can't seem to find one...
06-18-2013, 11:43 AM - 1 Like   #30
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 231
It only comes in the WR version
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
18-55mm, 18-55mm kit lens, camera, kit, lens, pentax help, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax 18-55mm kit lens or Sigma? Driline Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 26 01-25-2013 04:33 PM
Best budget or film lens to replace DA 18-55mm kit lens? amc654 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 03-12-2012 02:33 PM
Which Kit Lens? 18-55mm or 18-135mm darenka Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 25 02-28-2012 05:35 PM
Pentax DA 18-135mm WR or something else? pasteofanchovie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 05-05-2011 02:11 AM
Which has better IQ? Pentax/Tamron 18-250mm or the kit lens DAL 18-55mm rustynail925 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 02-07-2010 12:20 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:41 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top