18-55mm kit lens or something else?

seventysixersfan · 06-18-2013, 11:50 AM - **1 Like**

If you don't need WR but like having the all-in-one lens zoom range convenience, you might consider the DA (or Tamron) 18-250. This superzoom is considered to be better optically than the various 18-200 lenses available from Sigma/Tamron. The 18-250 has been discontinued for a while now but can be found used.

Here's the Tamron version for $286 from reputable used dealer KEH:
http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Digital-Non-Mfg-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-DP094011975330?r=FE

Sigma used to make a 18-125mm zoom that got okay reviews, but you'd need to get it used as well.

(Sigma has a new 18-250 zoom but it's at least $400 so I'm not suggesting it to you and your limited budget)

RyanS · 06-18-2013, 11:53 AM

Here are my options:

1. Body + 18-135 = $848

2. Body + 18-55 non WR = $579 + 35mm 2.4 = $742

3. Body + 18-55 WR = $660 + 35mm 2.4 = $823

RyanS · 06-18-2013, 11:57 AM

4. Body + 18-250 = $755 + 35mm 2.4 = $918

mdodrill · 06-18-2013, 12:00 PM - **1 Like**

You will want a WR lens (the K-30 is a WR body) at some point. Sand and Dirt do not treat no WR cameras well, much less rain

Docrwm · 06-18-2013, 12:11 PM

Hmm, no need for WR but you will be in a Tropical Paradise during the summer. Ahhh....ok.

If you decide against the 18-135 but would like one-size-fits-all then Brian's suggestion of a 18-250 is a solid one. It has better IQ than the newer 18-200 or 28-300 lenses but has great reach at both ends (18 is pretty wide adn 250 is pretty long). I own the Tamron version (they made them and the Pentax version is merely rebagged) and its a very respectable all-arounder.

seventysixersfan · 06-18-2013, 12:11 PM - **1 Like**

I'd go with either option 1 or 3. I agree with mdodrill; you should have a WR lens to pair with the WR camera body, "just in case." And the 18-135's fast and quiet focusing motor is a real nice treat too; so is the DA 35 f/2.4's awesome image quality and great-for-low-light f/2.4 aperture. Maybe go for the 18-135 now and then someday get the DA 35 f/2.4?

But you have to decide if having a zoom out to 135mm (or at least, beyond 55mm) is necessary for your shooting style. If not, then option 2 could work and would be well within your original budget.

Docrwm · 06-18-2013, 12:21 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by seventysixersfan

I'd go with either option 1 or 3. I agree with mdodrill; you should have a WR lens to pair with the WR camera body, "just in case." And the 18-135's fast and quiet focusing motor is a real nice treat too; so is the DA 35 f/2.4's awesome image quality and great-for-low-light f/2.4 aperture. Maybe go for the 18-135 now and then someday get the DA 35 f/2.4?

But you have to decide if having a zoom out to 135mm (or at least, beyond 55mm) is necessary for your shooting style. If not, then option 2 could work and would be well within your original budget.

Don't forget our own Marketplace, there are often good bargains there and the prices are good too.

RyanS · 06-18-2013, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by seventysixersfan

I'd go with either option 1 or 3. I agree with mdodrill; you should have a WR lens to pair with the WR camera body, "just in case." And the 18-135's fast and quiet focusing motor is a real nice treat too; so is the DA 35 f/2.4's awesome image quality and great-for-low-light f/2.4 aperture. Maybe go for the 18-135 now and then someday get the DA 35 f/2.4?

But you have to decide if having a zoom out to 135mm (or at least, beyond 55mm) is necessary for your shooting style. If not, then option 2 could work and would be well within your original budget.

I'm kind of leaning towards the 18-135 now and reevaluating my needs after spending some time with it. Just wish they had it in non WR as 10 days in Hawaii isn't justification enough for me to spend the extra money on such a feature.

seventysixersfan · 06-18-2013, 12:30 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Docrwm

Don't forget our own Marketplace, there are often good bargains there and the prices are good too.

I very much second Robert's comment. The 18-55 WR is pretty cheap if purchased used (should be about $100-150), and the DA 35 f/2.4 is also a very good deal used (or even new). If you're worried about buying from the Marketplace, then you could try KEH, as they offer a warranty and everything I've bought from them in the past have been in great condition. Adorama and B&H also have used departments that carry warranties too. But our Marketplace generally has the lowest prices overall.

**JimJohnson** · 06-18-2013, 12:42 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by RyanS

I'm kind of leaning towards the 18-135 now and reevaluating my needs after spending some time with it. Just wish they had it in non WR as 10 days in Hawaii isn't justification enough for me to spend the extra money on such a feature.

Just don't stand too close to a rocky shore with the wind in your face!

RyanS · 06-18-2013, 01:50 PM

I thank everyone for their help! This really is a friendly site! I went with the K-30 and 18-135 for $838 total. More than my original budget, but I feel like it is an outstanding value.

seventysixersfan · 06-18-2013, 02:00 PM - **1 Like**

Have a fun trip to Hawaii! And be sure to post some pictures taken with the new lens and new camera! I think you'll really enjoy how well it handles; the K-30 and DA 18-135 WR were sort of made to be together!

cali92rs · 06-18-2013, 02:19 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by RyanS

I'm kind of leaning towards the 18-135 now and reevaluating my needs after spending some time with it. Just wish they had it in non WR as 10 days in Hawaii isn't justification enough for me to spend the extra money on such a feature.

The 18-135 is a fine choice (I have one myself) and I highly recommend WR lens in a tropical climate.
Buuuuut, I would looking at getting a cheap prime for indoor use too.

RyanS · 06-18-2013, 02:27 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by cali92rs

The 18-135 is a fine choice (I have one myself) and I highly recommend WR lens in a tropical climate.
Buuuuut, I would looking at getting a cheap prime for indoor use too.

We'll see how the 18-135 does first. If I'm not satisfied then the 35mm 2.4 is what I'm looking at for indoor use.

**Just1MoreDave** · 06-18-2013, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Hmm, no need for WR but you will be in a Tropical Paradise during the summer. Ahhh....ok.

Lahaina noon might be a photo opportunity, but Kona winds and vog might be slightly annoying. I liked it better than summertime in coastal NC.

People have gotten by without WR in Hawai'i so it's not a necessity.

The 18-135 has a range that's a lot like the Canon S95, so one way to look at it is how often you zoom the S95 to its maximum.

I might not blow the budget here. Get the 18-55 and blow the budget on all the FA Limiteds next year.

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

06-18-2013, 11:50 AM - 1 Like	#31
seventysixersfan Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 2,054	If you don't need WR but like having the all-in-one lens zoom range convenience, you might consider the DA (or Tamron) 18-250. This superzoom is considered to be better optically than the various 18-200 lenses available from Sigma/Tamron. The 18-250 has been discontinued for a while now but can be found used. Here's the Tamron version for $286 from reputable used dealer KEH: http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Digital-Non-Mfg-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-DP094011975330?r=FE Sigma used to make a 18-125mm zoom that got okay reviews, but you'd need to get it used as well. (Sigma has a new 18-250 zoom but it's at least $400 so I'm not suggesting it to you and your limited budget)

06-18-2013, 11:53 AM	#32
RyanS Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: San Antonio, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 139 Original Poster	Here are my options: 1. Body + 18-135 = $848 2. Body + 18-55 non WR = $579 + 35mm 2.4 = $742 3. Body + 18-55 WR = $660 + 35mm 2.4 = $823

06-18-2013, 11:57 AM	#33
RyanS Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: San Antonio, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 139 Original Poster	4. Body + 18-250 = $755 + 35mm 2.4 = $918

06-18-2013, 12:00 PM - 1 Like	#34
mdodrill Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Ohio Posts: 231	You will want a WR lens (the K-30 is a WR body) at some point. Sand and Dirt do not treat no WR cameras well, much less rain

06-18-2013, 12:11 PM	#35
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Hmm, no need for WR but you will be in a Tropical Paradise during the summer. Ahhh....ok. If you decide against the 18-135 but would like one-size-fits-all then Brian's suggestion of a 18-250 is a solid one. It has better IQ than the newer 18-200 or 28-300 lenses but has great reach at both ends (18 is pretty wide adn 250 is pretty long). I own the Tamron version (they made them and the Pentax version is merely rebagged) and its a very respectable all-arounder.

06-18-2013, 12:11 PM - 1 Like	#36
seventysixersfan Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 2,054	I'd go with either option 1 or 3. I agree with mdodrill; you should have a WR lens to pair with the WR camera body, "just in case." And the 18-135's fast and quiet focusing motor is a real nice treat too; so is the DA 35 f/2.4's awesome image quality and great-for-low-light f/2.4 aperture. Maybe go for the 18-135 now and then someday get the DA 35 f/2.4? But you have to decide if having a zoom out to 135mm (or at least, beyond 55mm) is necessary for your shooting style. If not, then option 2 could work and would be well within your original budget.

06-18-2013, 12:21 PM - 2 Likes	#37
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by seventysixersfan I'd go with either option 1 or 3. I agree with mdodrill; you should have a WR lens to pair with the WR camera body, "just in case." And the 18-135's fast and quiet focusing motor is a real nice treat too; so is the DA 35 f/2.4's awesome image quality and great-for-low-light f/2.4 aperture. Maybe go for the 18-135 now and then someday get the DA 35 f/2.4? But you have to decide if having a zoom out to 135mm (or at least, beyond 55mm) is necessary for your shooting style. If not, then option 2 could work and would be well within your original budget. Don't forget our own Marketplace, there are often good bargains there and the prices are good too.

06-18-2013, 12:27 PM	#38
RyanS Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: San Antonio, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 139 Original Poster	Originally posted by seventysixersfan I'd go with either option 1 or 3. I agree with mdodrill; you should have a WR lens to pair with the WR camera body, "just in case." And the 18-135's fast and quiet focusing motor is a real nice treat too; so is the DA 35 f/2.4's awesome image quality and great-for-low-light f/2.4 aperture. Maybe go for the 18-135 now and then someday get the DA 35 f/2.4? But you have to decide if having a zoom out to 135mm (or at least, beyond 55mm) is necessary for your shooting style. If not, then option 2 could work and would be well within your original budget. I'm kind of leaning towards the 18-135 now and reevaluating my needs after spending some time with it. Just wish they had it in non WR as 10 days in Hawaii isn't justification enough for me to spend the extra money on such a feature.

06-18-2013, 12:30 PM - 1 Like	#39
seventysixersfan Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by Docrwm Don't forget our own Marketplace, there are often good bargains there and the prices are good too. I very much second Robert's comment. The 18-55 WR is pretty cheap if purchased used (should be about $100-150), and the DA 35 f/2.4 is also a very good deal used (or even new). If you're worried about buying from the Marketplace, then you could try KEH, as they offer a warranty and everything I've bought from them in the past have been in great condition. Adorama and B&H also have used departments that carry warranties too. But our Marketplace generally has the lowest prices overall.

06-18-2013, 12:42 PM - 1 Like	#40
JimJohnson Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Summer:Lake Superior - Michigan Winter:Texas Hill Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,774	Originally posted by RyanS I'm kind of leaning towards the 18-135 now and reevaluating my needs after spending some time with it. Just wish they had it in non WR as 10 days in Hawaii isn't justification enough for me to spend the extra money on such a feature. Just don't stand too close to a rocky shore with the wind in your face!

06-18-2013, 01:50 PM	#41
RyanS Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: San Antonio, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 139 Original Poster	I thank everyone for their help! This really is a friendly site! I went with the K-30 and 18-135 for $838 total. More than my original budget, but I feel like it is an outstanding value.

06-18-2013, 02:00 PM - 1 Like	#42
seventysixersfan Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 2,054	Have a fun trip to Hawaii! And be sure to post some pictures taken with the new lens and new camera! I think you'll really enjoy how well it handles; the K-30 and DA 18-135 WR were sort of made to be together!

06-18-2013, 02:19 PM - 1 Like	#43
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Originally posted by RyanS I'm kind of leaning towards the 18-135 now and reevaluating my needs after spending some time with it. Just wish they had it in non WR as 10 days in Hawaii isn't justification enough for me to spend the extra money on such a feature. The 18-135 is a fine choice (I have one myself) and I highly recommend WR lens in a tropical climate. Buuuuut, I would looking at getting a cheap prime for indoor use too.

06-18-2013, 02:27 PM - 1 Like	#44
RyanS Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: San Antonio, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 139 Original Poster	Originally posted by cali92rs The 18-135 is a fine choice (I have one myself) and I highly recommend WR lens in a tropical climate. Buuuuut, I would looking at getting a cheap prime for indoor use too. We'll see how the 18-135 does first. If I'm not satisfied then the 35mm 2.4 is what I'm looking at for indoor use.

06-18-2013, 03:26 PM	#45
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by Docrwm Hmm, no need for WR but you will be in a Tropical Paradise during the summer. Ahhh....ok. Lahaina noon might be a photo opportunity, but Kona winds and vog might be slightly annoying. I liked it better than summertime in coastal NC. People have gotten by without WR in Hawai'i so it's not a necessity. The 18-135 has a range that's a lot like the Canon S95, so one way to look at it is how often you zoom the S95 to its maximum. I might not blow the budget here. Get the 18-55 and blow the budget on all the FA Limiteds next year.