[Callist]

I have a K-r which was my first ever (and currently only) DSLR. I have the kit lenses 18-55 and 50-200 but currently looking for an upgrade path.

This is a Pentax forum and some would say I should expect a biased opinion but is the brand Pentax worth staying in at the moment with the way the company has a record of being sold and bought - will Pentax stay strong?

If I stay on the Pentax path what would be a good upgrade for the kit lenses? I seem to take shots mainly around the 35-50mm mark. Am I right in assuming for the K-r that due to the 1.5x sensor ~33mm would be around 50mm give or take or have I not understood the sensor size theory correctly?

Would the 35mm prime lens (not Limited) be a reasonable upgrade for a lens or pointless?

I guess my main worry is that with a Nikon/Sony/Canon I would have more lens options and more options within the middle quality/price range opposed to Pentax's no middle range (or so it appears). I really want to make sure the camera path is future proof.

I still have a lot to learn so I apologise in advance for any ignorance.

[DSims]

This is a Pentax forum and some would say I should expect a biased opinion but is the brand Pentax worth staying in at the moment with the way the company has a record of being sold and bought - will Pentax stay strong?

Yes - Ricoh is strong and Pentax will stay around. You need to base your decision on whether you want Pentax lenses or someone else's.

I guess my main worry is that with a Nikon/Sony/Canon I would have more lens options and more options within the middle quality/price range opposed to Pentax's no middle range (or so it appears). I really want to make sure the camera path is future proof.

I think you must have a different idea of what mid-range is. The mid-range is generally around $500. "High-end" is roughly over $1000. Prices tend to go higher with Canon and Nikon.

Canon has the poorest IQ in their mid-range (but don't say this to most Canon shooters - instant denial) and Sony has a rather limited selection here (but they have some good stuff at all price levels). Nikon has a very good and reasonably broad mid-range if you carefully limit your lens selections (generally f/1.8 primes), and Pentax practically lives for the mid-range, with a wide selection.

Even if you're talking about low-mid, Pentax is strong there. Do your research and decide for yourself. Canon has been coming out with some pretty good upper-low-end models lately, so you can consider them, but they have a poor growth path from there (unless you jump straight to L glass).


As far as Pentax goes, both the DA35/2.4 and DA50/1.8 are great lenses and great values. You should be able to find good prices both new and used. Getting both is usually a good idea if you can afford it. You may end up preferring just one, but you can easily sell the other with little loss or risk.

[VoiceOfReason]

Actually, even the entry model, the K500 would be a big upgrade. Pentax does have a mid tier model, the K50, which is weather sealed and a top tier one, the K3 which was a game changer for APS-C cameras. While yes, you do have more lens choices in the Canikon world, there are still plenty of lens choices to do what you want in the Pentax world.

[aoeu]

Try one of the nifty fifties. They are great portrait lenses on a crop sensor camera. f 1:1.7 or faster. The DA, brand new, is cheap.
Pentax smc DA 50mm f/1.8 Lens 22177 B&H Photo Video

My current three lens kit is 28, 50, 100.

---

Last edited by aoeu; 07-03-2014 at 10:35 AM. Reason: clarity

[Callist]

Thank you for the posts and information; it was enlightening. Lens wise which brands or specific models would you recommend?

I understand it's down to preference of the shooter themselves with the focal length etc but is there any lenses which just stand out? My thought were to get a small tele 20-70mm kind of focal or similar, a 35mm and a 50-300mm, any suggestions (as you can probably tell I don't have much experience in this department).

Also, was I correct with my first statement and the K-r that 33mm would be around 50mm due to the 1.5x sensor?

Thanks for your fast responses and your time.

---------- Post added 07-03-14 at 10:42 AM ----------

Try one of the nifty fifties. They are great portrait lenses on a crop sensor camera. f 1:1.7 or faster. The DA, brand new, is cheap.
Pentax smc DA 50mm f/1.8 Lens 22177 B&H Photo Video

My current three lens kit is 28, 50, 100.

I was actually looking at this as it caught my eye as well as the 35mm. I'm still trying to work out the crop sensor to focal length thing out.

[aoeu]

First of all, 50mm is 50mm is 50mm regardless of film or sensor size.
If you have used a 35mm film camera the arithmetic is easy. A 50mm lens on a 1.5 crop factor camera, such as Pentax DSLRs, is equivalent to a 75mm lens on a 35mm full frame camera.

'Normal' lens is a minefield. Some said 55mm, some said 50mm, and some said 43mm.
On our Crop sensor DSLRs that translates to 37mm, 33mm, and 29mm.

These are all within the range of your stock zoom.

[Na Horuk]

I have a K-r which was my first ever (and currently only) DSLR. I have the kit lenses 18-55 and 50-200 but currently looking for an upgrade path.

Hey, welcome! The good news is, those are probably the weakest lenses in the Pentax lineup, so just about anything you buy will give you better image quality and features

This is a Pentax forum and some would say I should expect a biased opinion but is the brand Pentax worth staying in at the moment with the way the company has a record of being sold and bought - will Pentax stay strong?

Meh, Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi and Canon is a printer company, Olympus had all sorts of problems in its ownership structure (some scandals about this), and Sony basically bought Minolta and Zeiss brand names but still has no soul. But honestly, how much are you going to invest into Pentax? Thousands upon thousands? Also, you have the K-r and kit lenses for years now, and its still serving you well. A new camera being released or the company going bankrupt doesn't mean your camera will stop working.
But to answer your question, Pentax seems to be doing fine. There is a joke in these forums about people jumping to the conclusion that "Pentax is doomed" after every and any piece of news comes about Pentax.

Am I right in assuming for the K-r that due to the 1.5x sensor ~33mm would be around 50mm give or take or have I not understood the sensor size theory correctly?

I don't know what ideas you have in the background. You have to understand that focal length is a lens property. So a 50mm lens from the 1970s, a 50mm lens for medium format, and a 50mm lens for APSC will all give the same field of view on your camera. Because the field of view is limited by the image circle the lens projects, and the size of the sensor. I suggest you simply forget about equivalence, unless you are using cameras with different sensor sizes. That is the only time you need it. For example, if you use a 35mm lens on film it would appear wider than if you put the same lens on a crop sensor camera. Don't go around buying 100mm "full frame" lenses thinking they will be different from 100mm "crop sensor" lenses on your camera. They would be the same. Zoom your 18-55mm lens to 35mm. All 35mm lenses will have that field of view on that camera (approximately, there are also differences in rendering and distortion). Now zoom it to 50mm. All 50mm lenses will have that field of view on that camera.

Would the 35mm prime lens (not Limited) be a reasonable upgrade for a lens or pointless?

The DA 35mm f2.4 was exactly what I was going to suggest. It is much better than the kit lens. It is only pointless if you don't use it. It is a sharp lens, great flare resistance, fast AF, good low light performance.. You can also check the user lens reviews here: SMC Pentax-DA 35mm F2.4 AL Reviews - DA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
In-depth staff review here: Pentax-DA 35mm F2.4 Review - Review - PF Reviews
The sample photo gallery here: Pentax Camera & Lens Sample Photo Search Engine - PentaxForums.com
And the DA 35mm "plastic fantastic" thread here:https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/196639-da35-f2-4-plastic-f...c-club-31.html
Just to see what the lens is capable of.

I guess my main worry is that with a Nikon/Sony/Canon I would have more lens options and more options within the middle quality/price range opposed to Pentax's no middle range (or so it appears). I really want to make sure the camera path is future proof.

The DA 35mm is under $200, sometimes on sale for under $170. And it will work on the K-r forever. I mean, I don't want to be rude, but some people invest a lot of money into Pentax cameras and lenses, while you seem to be afraid that a $200 lens wouldn't be usable on the latest cameras 10 years from now. Will you be buying the K-3 with the DA 560mm? How many lenses will you be buying? Pentax is fine. And if not, you can still adapt the Pentax lens on Canon or Sony cameras, and many of the smaller formats as well, if somehow Pentax cameras disappear. And if cameras progress rapidly (with technologies like 100MP sensors, curved sensors, etc.), then all current lenses will be useless anyway, so investments will be lost regardless regardless of brand. The K-mount is the most stable one atm. Canon changed theirs, Nikon changed theirs and has odd restrictions on it, Sony seems to make a new mount and abandon an old one every year..

Yes, Pentax currently doesn't have a prime lens between 21mm and 31mm, but a) one might be announced soon
b) there are many zoom lenses, even high quality ones in that range
c) there are many third party lenses in that range (Tamron, Sigma, Samyang) List here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/243556-3rd-...available.html (how many of these will you be buying, that you need even more? Most photographers only get a fraction of all the possible lenses)
d) there are many legacy lenses in that range (all K-mount lenses will work on your camera, even if 30 years old)

I say relax The DA 35mm is a great little lens for an amazing price, as are the DA 40mm XS and the DA 50mm f1.8. Then there are the limited and * lenses, which have some more features and amazing image quality. You don't need to overthink it. Just go to a store and hold a Nikon and Pentax camera in the same price bracket and decide which one you prefer. Or think of the lenses that you want to use and see which brand offers them at the price you want. Either way, I doubt Pentax would be significantly behind the competition, unless you are planning on spending thousands on camera gear right now and need things like local service centres and many lens rental options.

---

Last edited by Na Horuk; 07-03-2014 at 11:05 AM.

[Callist]

Hey, welcome! The good news is, those are probably the weakest lenses in the Pentax lineup, so just about anything you buy will give you better image quality and features


Meh, Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi and Canon is a printer company, Olympus had all sorts of problems in its ownership structure (some scandals about this), and Sony basically bought Minolta and Zeiss brand names but still has no soul. But honestly, how much are you going to invest into Pentax? Thousands upon thousands? Also, you have the K-r and kit lenses for years now, and its still serving you well. A new camera being released or the company going bankrupt doesn't mean your camera will stop working.
But to answer your question, Pentax seems to be doing fine. There is a joke in these forums about people jumping to the conclusion that "Pentax is doomed" after every and any piece of news comes about Pentax.

I don't know what ideas you have in the background. You have to understand that focal length is a lens property. So a 50mm lens from the 1970s, a 50mm lens for medium format, and a 50mm lens for APSC will all give the same field of view on your camera. Because the field of view is limited by the image circle the lens projects, and the size of the sensor. I suggest you simply forget about equivalence, unless you are using cameras with different sensor sizes. That is the only time you need it. For example, if you use a 35mm lens on film it would appear wider than if you put the same lens on a crop sensor camera. Don't go around buying 100mm "full frame" lenses thinking they will be different from 100mm "crop sensor" lenses on your camera. They would be the same. Zoom your 18-55mm lens to 35mm. All 35mm lenses will have that field of view on that camera (approximately, there are also differences in rendering and distortion). Now zoom it to 50mm. All 50mm lenses will have that field of view on that camera.


The DA 35mm f2.4 was exactly what I was going to suggest. It is much better than the kit lens. It is only pointless if you don't use it. It is a sharp lens, great flare resistance, fast AF, good low light performance.. You can also check the user lens reviews here: SMC Pentax-DA 35mm F2.4 AL Reviews - DA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
In-depth staff review here: Pentax-DA 35mm F2.4 Review - Review - PF Reviews
The sample photo gallery here: Pentax Camera & Lens Sample Photo Search Engine - PentaxForums.com
And the DA 35mm "plastic fantastic" thread here:https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/196639-da35-f2-4-plastic-f...c-club-31.html
Just to see what the lens is capable of.



The DA 35mm is under $200, sometimes on sale for under $170. And it will work on the K-r forever. I mean, I don't want to be rude, but some people invest a lot of money into Pentax cameras and lenses, while you seem to be afraid that a $200 lens wouldn't be usable on the latest cameras 10 years from now. Will you be buying the K-3 with the DA 560mm? How many lenses will you be buying? Pentax is fine. And if not, you can still adapt the Pentax lens on Canon or Sony cameras, and many of the smaller formats as well, if somehow Pentax cameras disappear. And if cameras progress rapidly (with technologies like 100MP sensors, curved sensors, etc.), then all current lenses will be useless anyway, so investments will be lost regardless regardless of brand. The K-mount is the most stable one atm. Canon changed theirs, Nikon changed theirs and has odd restrictions on it, Sony seems to make a new mount and abandon an old one every year..

Yes, Pentax currently doesn't have a prime lens between 21mm and 31mm, but a) one might be announced soon
b) there are many zoom lenses, even high quality ones in that range
c) there are many third party lenses in that range (Tamron, Sigma, Samyang) List here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/243556-3rd-...available.html (how many of these will you be buying, that you need even more? Most photographers only get a fraction of all the possible lenses)
d) there are many legacy lenses in that range (all K-mount lenses will work on your camera, even if 30 years old)

I say relax The DA 35mm is a great little lens for an amazing price, as are the DA 40mm XS and the DA 50mm f1.8. Then there are the limited and * lenses, which have some more features and amazing imiage quality. You don't need to overthink it. Just go to a store and hold a Nikon and Pentax camera in the same price bracket and decide which one you prefer. Or think of the lenses that you want to use and see which brand offers them at the price you want.

Thank you for the response and it was not rude at all! I want to invest a lot into some mid lenses (looking at the 35mm limited as a start) in the future but my prior mentioned fears stopped me and set me looking at the 35mm standard as a way to feed my hunger for a better than kit lens. (Then the whole Pentax as a company worry - which your comments have eased a bit).

The 35mm DAL does look like it would provide a little more fun over the 18-55 kit though. Again, thank you for your post.

[DSims]

I understand it's down to preference of the shooter themselves with the focal length etc but is there any lenses which just stand out? My thought were to get a small tele 20-70mm kind of focal or similar, a 35mm and a 50-300mm, any suggestions (as you can probably tell I don't have much experience in this department).

A typical arrangement for your stated needs would be a DA16-45, a DA35/2.4 (and/or a DA50/1.8), and a DA L 55-300. In most cases buy used to save money. All have very good IQ and are a good value.

You can substitute the Tamron 17-50/2.8 if a faster aperture is more important than the colors it yields in the image (more people seem to prefer the Pentax' colors, if they have a preference). You can also substitute the Takumar F70-210/4-5.6 for the DA55-300 if you don't mind less zoom range. It's much cheaper (I even saw at least one in the Marketplace here right now) yet I consider the images slightly better (I sold my DA55-300 after getting one).

[Adam]

I have a K-r which was my first ever (and currently only) DSLR. I have the kit lenses 18-55 and 50-200 but currently looking for an upgrade path.

This is a Pentax forum and some would say I should expect a biased opinion but is the brand Pentax worth staying in at the moment with the way the company has a record of being sold and bought - will Pentax stay strong?

If I stay on the Pentax path what would be a good upgrade for the kit lenses? I seem to take shots mainly around the 35-50mm mark. Am I right in assuming for the K-r that due to the 1.5x sensor ~33mm would be around 50mm give or take or have I not understood the sensor size theory correctly?

Would the 35mm prime lens (not Limited) be a reasonable upgrade for a lens or pointless?

I guess my main worry is that with a Nikon/Sony/Canon I would have more lens options and more options within the middle quality/price range opposed to Pentax's no middle range (or so it appears). I really want to make sure the camera path is future proof.

I still have a lot to learn so I apologise in advance for any ignorance.

A great upgrade would be a K-50 with a Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 C. You'll get better image quality thanks to the better sensor in the K-50 and the better lens

In the entry-level department, all the major manufacturers are very strong. You can't go wrong with Pentax, Canon, or Nikon, etc.

[SpecialK]

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 C...

My suggestion, too. The inexpensive 35 and 50 primes are good bargains, but just having those 2 are fairly limiting in the focal length.

17-70 gets just wide enough and just long enough to be a single-lens catch-as-catch-can, i.e., "walkaround" option, and it focuses closely, too. There are previous versions that show up in the marketplace and they are decent as well (though one is screw drive). The Pentax 55-300 is a good and relatively inexpensive zoom that has cheaper eariler versions in the marketplace as well. Those will hold you over until you determine you need something else :-)

[TER-OR]

The Kr is still capable, I'd look for a zoom upgrade. The da35 would be fun, though.

[Jannis]

Hi,
I would add my 2 cents.
I had started with Pentax with k-r too (and I have it now as a backup body). And this camera ( and high reputation in eyes of my grandpa - profesional photographer) started my love to Pentax.
But I have made some mistakes by buying some mediocre lenses and because bad used market here Im stuck with plenty of lenses that I'm not already using.
These are Tamron 18-200, Tamron 70-300, Pentax 50-200WR, kit lens 18-55 II and DA 35 2.4. - If I have skipped these stages, I would save almost $900. This is 2 used limited primes Same with body (I had started with DSLR with Oly E-450 double zoom kit). I never thought I would spend so much for photographic equipment. In other thread, forum member Kayaker-J has one nice point:

I ended up stretching my intended budget; at this juncture, I have tentatively concluded that to do less would represent a false or dubious economy, given my personal set of overall objectives. I'd suggest that you, too, give serious consideration to "giving in" a bit on the budget, if your own objectives leave you with a persistent sense of doubt about lesser options. You can always get there by stages [at what net cost, then, by the end?]: But that nagging sense of having sold oneself short is a bit of a beast. Life is short, and you see that with much more clarity and force when you reach my age. Good luck!

So, my advice is save and go with 35 ltd, if you like 35mm FL.

[Callist]

Hi,
I would add my 2 cents.
I had started with Pentax with k-r too (and I have it now as a backup body). And this camera ( and high reputation in eyes of my grandpa - profesional photographer) started my love to Pentax.
But I have made some mistakes by buying some mediocre lenses and because bad used market here Im stuck with plenty of lenses that I'm not already using.
These are Tamron 18-200, Tamron 70-300, Pentax 50-200WR, kit lens 18-55 II and DA 35 2.4. - If I have skipped these stages, I would save almost $900. This is 2 used limited primes Same with body (I had started with DSLR with Oly E-450 double zoom kit). I never thought I would spend so much for photographic equipment. In other thread, forum member Kayaker-J has one nice point:

So, my advice is save and go with 35 ltd, if you like 35mm FL.

You have a good point about the net cost over x amount of time, I'll take this into consideration. You also mentioned the Tamron 70-300 is this the Macro version as I was out taking macro shots today with the 18-55 kit lens (well... at least what I could manage anyway) and I had a feeling that I would want a good zoomable macro lens; any suggestions for this? Thanks.

I enjoy taking pictures of all forms of subjects but I do enjoy Macro (better from a distance, hence zoom) and indoor/landscape (the 35mm).

[Jannis]

You have a good point about the net cost over x amount of time, I'll take this into consideration. You also mentioned the Tamron 70-300 is this the Macro version as I was out taking macro shots today with the 18-55 kit lens (well... at least what I could manage anyway) and I had a feeling that I would want a good zoomable macro lens; any suggestions for this? Thanks.

I enjoy taking pictures of all forms of subjects but I do enjoy Macro (better from a distance, hence zoom) and indoor/landscape (the 35mm).

Yes, it is the Macro variant... Honestly, this lens is not good. Its quite good from 70 to 200, but at 300 is terribly soft. I can take better pictures by my 50-200WR at 200mm and upscaling it. Photos from this lens is very inconsistent, in terms of sharpness and contrast. Under same conditions is one photo quite sharp, while another is super soft. I can not count on it. And stop down to f8-f11 is absolutely must. The only one thing that I like on this lens is its close distance shooting capability. After I bought 55-300WR, I was using Tamron only for "close to macro" shots. Now, I have DFA 100WR MACRO for few months and its absolutelly marvelous. So this lens is in shop with used photo equipment and nobody wants.

If you are interested in macro, DFA 100WR or Tamron 90 Macro is my tip on the long end, and 35ltd on the wider end. Dont forget, that Tamron 70-300 isnt real macro, its only 1:2.