[CarlJF]

In fact, there's two questions in your post.

First, you ask about a 50mm. I own the F 50mm 1.7 and can say it's an excellent lens. IQ is better than any of the zooms I own, or have owned. It's also quite affordable if you can find one on the used market. That said, although I've used this len a lot in the film era, it sees much less usage since I have a DSLR. Mostly because the 50mm focal length now makes it a bit long to be used indoor, unless you have a very big house. So, I would now recommend the prime only for the great IQ and not as an all around indoor lens.

Now, for the second "hidden question", you look for a better indoor lens than the kit lens. For this, IMHO, a F2.8 trans-standard zoom is much more useful than a 50mm prime. You can find a used Tamron 17-50/2.8 in your budget and get a much more versatile lens. Sure, the Tamron isn't as sharp as a Pentax prime, but it's still very good, and will let you take pictures that you will be unable to with the 50mm.

In the end, the best solution: get both a F2.8 zoom and a prime!

[csa]

"and by the way, I really want to shoot my images at ISO 100 but my hands are really that shaky and I got a cheap tripod that I could not carry everytime hence I get frustrated at all my night shots, indoors, and low light photography, in about 10 images I can only capture 2 good ones so I don't really know what I need to improve."

If this is the case, rather than getting a new lens and being disappointed again, look into getting a monopod (some have 3 feet for stability), that you can carry easier. A good (not cheap) tripod/monopod will improve your pictures a lot!

[Na Horuk]

Oh, if technique is an issue, there are some threads about it. PentaxForums had a blog post about it, as well: Making the Most of Long Exposure Handhelds - Introduction - In-Depth Articles
Technique is important, and helps with all photos, even daylight. Still, the difference between the max aperture of kit lens and something like DA 50mm f1.8 is quite big. Handheld photos in low light with slightly high ISO and slow shutter can be done quite well with DA 35mm f2.4 and DA 50mm f1.8.

[Just1MoreDave]

...and by the way, I really want to shoot my images at ISO 100 but my hands are really that shaky and I got a cheap tripod that I could not carry everytime hence I get frustrated at all my night shots, indoors, and low light photography, in about 10 images I can only capture 2 good ones so I don't really know what I need to improve.

That's a trap from reading too many internet posts: you start to think that no decent shots can be taken at ISO 800, or you avoid shooting wide open or at f22 for "image quality". It's true that low ISO is better, and lenses are better at some apertures. Test subjects shot from a solid tripod with perfect focus show the difference. But don't make choices to increase "image quality" that risk camera shake, because the shake will ruin your shot far more. I wish I had taken this advice for some lost opportunities. Also, some shots look better without ultimate sharpness, extreme dynamic range or high contrast.

Practice can help you shoot steadier. You should have some idea of the slowest shutter speeds you can shoot at some focal lengths, like the end points of your zooms.Use railings, posts, the ground or whatever to brace the camera. Take lots of shots if you're not sure.

[UncleVanya]

The k50 is not the same as the first or second generation of digital cameras. The high ISO performance is very good. Despite that fact I have had my kit lens fail to deliver in very dark auditoriums and resorted to a manual 50mm f/2 but focusing in dark conditions let me down most of the time.

So my advice as it is often in this case. Compose some shots at 50 in the setting you want at a higher ISO. Don't sweat the noise introduced. If the framing is good then 50mm works and pick your budget and minimum f stop and decide if used or new matters. Then pick an autofocus version that matches.

Zooms are another option - weight and bulk are much more of a factor with zooms that let in more light. Only you can decide if that matters.

[normhead]

That's a trap from reading too many internet posts: you start to think that no decent shots can be taken at ISO 800, or you avoid shooting wide open or at f22 for "image quality". It's true that low ISO is better, and lenses are better at some apertures. Test subjects shot from a solid tripod with perfect focus show the difference. But don't make choices to increase "image quality" that risk camera shake, because the shake will ruin your shot far more. I wish I had taken this advice for some lost opportunities. Also, some shots look better without ultimate sharpness, extreme dynamic range or high contrast.

Practice can help you shoot steadier. You should have some idea of the slowest shutter speeds you can shoot at some focal lengths, like the end points of your zooms.Use railings, posts, the ground or whatever to brace the camera. Take lots of shots if you're not sure.

On that note, I happily shoot 1/15 indoors with burst mode... with SR, one of them is going to be good. Get those elbow locked down onto your body to make a tripod.

[stevebrot]

You have plenty of suggestions so i am going to say rather than getting a new lens learn to use the 18 55 first. Getting blurry pictures is operator error not the lens.

Once you can get good images with the 18 55 then is the time to look at new glass and you will have a better idea what you need. YMMV

What he said. A fast 50 can be a great tool, but until you are able to get consistently good results with your kit zoom, you would be wasting money expanding your lens collection.


Steve

[dakight]

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
Exposure is three factors. Sensor sensitivity- time and Aperture.

If a an exposure value is 100ISO- ƒ1.8 - 1 sec on FF it will be exactly the same on APS-c, 4x5, 4/3, 5x7 8x10 645, 6x7. It doesn't matter what the format is the aperture values remain constant for exposure.

Whether a lens is fast or slow depends on exposure values. a 1.8 lens on APS_c is just as fast as an APS-c lens on FF.

This whole thing is getting totally out of hand. Where are the guys who push this equivalence BS up the everyones wazoo, to explain to this poor guy that the "beauty" of their beloved theory of equivalence doesn't mean what he thinks it means. I guess that is left to those of us who argued that using ƒ-stop for anything but exposure values was confusing.

Well, behold the results of your insanity you fools.

And with that I'll wish you all a good day and exit the thread. My apology if my misunderstanding has caused anyone any distress. I appreciate constructive criticism and appropriate correction. This response was neither.

[UncleVanya]

And with that I'll wish you all a good day and exit the thread. My apology if my misunderstanding has caused anyone any distress. I appreciate constructive criticism and appropriate correction. This response was neither.

I'm sorry people over reacted. It is true that what you posted was inaccurate but the tone of some of the responses could have been kinder.

[clackers]

I'm sorry people over reacted. It is true that what you posted was inaccurate but the tone of some of the responses could have been kinder.

I think Dakight's unlucky.

He posted the sort of stuff that some cultists do regularly around here, and got tarred by the same brush.

[aleonx3]

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
Exposure is three factors. Sensor sensitivity- time and Aperture.

If a an exposure value is 100ISO- ƒ1.8 - 1 sec on FF it will be exactly the same on APS-c, 4x5, 4/3, 5x7 8x10 645, 6x7. It doesn't matter what the format is the aperture values remain constant for exposure.

Whether a lens is fast or slow depends on exposure values. a 1.8 lens on APS_c is just as fast as an APS-c lens on FF.

This whole thing is getting totally out of hand. Where are the guys who push this equivalence BS up the everyones wazoo, to explain to this poor guy that the "beauty" of their beloved theory of equivalence doesn't mean what he thinks it means. I guess that is left to those of us who argued that using ƒ-stop for anything but exposure values was confusing.

Well, behold the results of your insanity you fools.

Norm, I almost fell off my chair when I read that comment (from Dakight)... that equivalence video has polluted so much that people started to interpret it differently and I am sure that he/she is not the only one....

[arnold]

You have plenty of suggestions so i am going to say rather than getting a new lens learn to use the 18 55 first. Getting blurry pictures is operator error not the lens.

Once you can get good images with the 18 55 then is the time to look at new glass and you will have a better idea what you need. YMMV

Absolutely correct. If you can't work a kit lens, then a different lens won't help your technique. There have been magnificent shots taken with the 18-55, and don't forget it is the photographer who really makes the difference. Take a look at the tread on the humble 18-55 for inspiration, and try to match what you see there.

[aleonx3]

In fact, there's two questions in your post.

First, you ask about a 50mm. I own the F 50mm 1.7 and can say it's an excellent lens. IQ is better than any of the zooms I own, or have owned. It's also quite affordable if you can find one on the used market. That said, although I've used this len a lot in the film era, it sees much less usage since I have a DSLR. Mostly because the 50mm focal length now makes it a bit long to be used indoor, unless you have a very big house. So, I would now recommend the prime only for the great IQ and not as an all around indoor lens.

Now, for the second "hidden question", you look for a better indoor lens than the kit lens. For this, IMHO, a F2.8 trans-standard zoom is much more useful than a 50mm prime. You can find a used Tamron 17-50/2.8 in your budget and get a much more versatile lens. Sure, the Tamron isn't as sharp as a Pentax prime, but it's still very good, and will let you take pictures that you will be unable to with the 50mm.

In the end, the best solution: get both a F2.8 zoom and a prime!

I think the OP wants to get a fast 50mm lens that he/she can shoot in less than adequate lighting. The cheapest option is to get a manual focus lens such as M50/f.17 as someone has already suggested. There are still some quality MF lenses including off-brand available from many sources such as fleabay, craiglists etc.

[cxdoo]

I think it's rather important whether OP wants to shoot static scenes or people in low light. If latter, lens speed becomes more important. People move.

[dakight]

I'm sorry people over reacted. It is true that what you posted was inaccurate but the tone of some of the responses could have been kinder.

It's not your fault and I appreciate your graciousness; it's an increasingly rare quality these days. I was repeating what I had read and at first glance appeared reasonable. I have since revisited the subject and understand where I was mistaken. Again, my apology for not doing that before jumping in. I hope you find what you're looking for.