My first Pentax

semaca · 02-08-2015, 09:53 AM

Hello,
First of all, I hope I post this in the correct category

I am tired of Canikon or "Fujison", so I think Pentax is the best solution. Yes, they all say I am a weirdo for doing that. You know the story.
My only Pentax 'gear' is an original Asahi M42 adapter. I own some 50-58mm lens, 200, 300.

I want the K3, but is the 18-135 a good enough lens for most situations? I have used a Tamron 17-50 for Nikon, but I want a WR lens.
You never have enough lens, but I can't use them all. The 18-135 sold separately is almost 750$(!!!) in Europe, but cheaper in combination with the K3.

Or K3 with a second hand 18-55 wr and another second hand lens? I don't have budget for limited lens.

I am interested in some landscapes, night photography...

**mattt** · 02-08-2015, 10:09 AM

prob best to review this thread

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/179869-da-1...at-can-do.html

Imp · 02-08-2015, 10:19 AM

If you didn't need WR I would say the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 because of the speed... There are also one or two wide angle prime lens option by third party (like a 10mm or a 16mm) that could be purchased for about $300

The 18-135 will be much better than the kit lens, although as a superzoom, you are compromising on sharpness. But I don't know of any wide-ish angle WR lenses in your budget.

timcatn · 02-08-2015, 10:33 AM

A bit more expensive, but maybe the New 16-85 WR could be an option?

semaca · 02-08-2015, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by mattt

prob best to review this thread

I see that it's very good in good light. I never used this kind of zoom, but maybe I will like it.

Originally posted by timcatn

maybe the New 16-85 WR could be an option?

Maybe in the future.

Somebody told me that I can use with very good results even for landscapes the Takumar 50mm 1.4 (1st version) because of it's sharpness and I can crop if I need from a big image.

timcatn · 02-08-2015, 10:46 AM

Isn't 50mm on APS-C a bit narrow for landscapes?

**interested_observer** · 02-08-2015, 10:54 AM

Welcome to the Forum and Pentax Land!

The 18-135 is very good. Normally the wider the zoom range the more compromises are made in the design of the lens. Some folks like the 18-135 better than the two lens set (18-50 and 50-200). One thing that the 18-135 does do is that you do not need to change lenses as often.

For landscapes and low light the 17-50/2.8 is very good. If you want to go wider, you can stitch using the free download of Microsoft ICE to form a panorama.

semaca · 02-08-2015, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by timcatn

Isn't 50mm on APS-C a bit narrow for landscapes?

That was my opinion too, but I know a landscape photographer which uses mostly 70-200.
Recently I've seen some images with a Pentax smc FA 35mm f/2.0 AL. One used is around 200€, like a tamron 17-50. Many options, but I can't buy everything I like and make no money from photography.

VoiceOfReason · 02-08-2015, 10:59 AM - **2 Likes**

I use the 18-135 more than my other lenses, and I have some great lenses. You will be pleased with it.

timcatn · 02-08-2015, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by semaca

That was my opinion too, but I know a landscape photographer which uses mostly 70-200.
Recently I've seen some images with a Pentax smc FA 35mm f/2.0 AL. One used is around 200€, like a tamron 17-50. Many options, but I can't buy everything I like and make no money from photography.

It Depends on the kind of landscapes i supose. However, if you are a beginner/amateur i would suggest that it is a bit Limited With a 50mm prime.

If you are on a Budget, i would propose ditching WR for the moment, and get a Tamron 16-50 / 2,8. Alternatively the Sigma 10-20

-tim

**Just1MoreDave** · 02-08-2015, 03:49 PM

Start with your experience with the Tamron 17-50. See what focal lengths you used. If most of the shots were at 50mm, you probably want the 18-135 instead of the 18-55. Check the 50mm shots to see if you cropped them even smaller. That's a key sign you wanted more telephoto in your zoom. Then look at aperture. See how often you used apertures from f2.8 to f4.5 or so. Did you choose those apertures because it was low light, or you wanted less depth of field? Could you have gotten similar results at apertures that the 18-135 has? The K-3 might be good enough at high ISOs so you could raise ISO.

Another way to decide is to figure out if the 18-135 fits into a set of lenses you want later. For example, if you are planning on getting the 55-300 and carrying that lens a lot, you don't need the extra telephoto reach. If the wide angle end is really important to you, look at the 16-85 instead.

Imp · 02-08-2015, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by semaca

but I know a landscape photographer which uses mostly 70-200.

Then.. he's probably using a FF camera, were 50mm is the normal view. 70 on APS-C is portrait range

remark13 · 02-08-2015, 05:39 PM

Welcome.
I included the 18-135mm lens with my initial purchase last year and have enjoyed this lens. I find it has a nice range when you aren't sure what you are shooting or sneaky portrait shooting. For your purpose with low light situations would be my hesitancy...oh I am sure it can be done tripods etc, but enough to give thought to your main priorities now. What are you photographing at night? Maybe a nice 35 or 50mm fast prime could be added to the mix now or in the near future. Many those can be found reasonably used or new.
Of course you can never have enough lenses.... there are times I wish for a wider angle or more reach :-)
Best of luck choosing and welcome aboard

**ramseybuckeye** · 02-09-2015, 04:21 AM

You mention night photography and landscapes, if you are doing landscapes at night don't worry about fast lenses, you're using a tripod anyway. But if you are doing street photography at night that is different.

I would recommend the 18-135, especially at the price you can get it with a new camera. And the weather resistance can be very useful in landscapes. Just a week ago I used it on a hour and a half walk through a woods while it snowed the whole time. I didn't get any masterpieces that day, but I would have got nothing without WR.

semaca · 02-09-2015, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by ramseybuckeye

You mention night photography and landscapes, if you are doing landscapes at night don't worry about fast lenses, you're using a tripod anyway. But if you are doing street photography at night that is different.

I would recommend the 18-135, especially at the price you can get it with a new camera. And the weather resistance can be very useful in landscapes. Just a week ago I used it on a hour and a half walk through a woods while it snowed the whole time. I didn't get any masterpieces that day, but I would have got nothing without WR.

I've seen here on the forum some great images with the 18-135... Maybe for now I should get that lens and use it as much as I can. My old camera is really bad at ISO 800 for night photography, but I'm sure that the K3 at f/3.5 with bigger ISO is better.

The 35mm f/2.4 could be next for me, for daily use. I already have 4 50mm with manual focus.

02-08-2015, 09:53 AM	#1
semaca Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: RO Posts: 143	My first Pentax Hello, First of all, I hope I post this in the correct category I am tired of Canikon or "Fujison", so I think Pentax is the best solution. Yes, they all say I am a weirdo for doing that. You know the story. My only Pentax 'gear' is an original Asahi M42 adapter. I own some 50-58mm lens, 200, 300. I want the K3, but is the 18-135 a good enough lens for most situations? I have used a Tamron 17-50 for Nikon, but I want a WR lens. You never have enough lens, but I can't use them all. The 18-135 sold separately is almost 750$(!!!) in Europe, but cheaper in combination with the K3. Or K3 with a second hand 18-55 wr and another second hand lens? I don't have budget for limited lens. I am interested in some landscapes, night photography...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Abstract My first Pentax dslr	Tootie	Pentax K-3 Photo Contest	5	05-31-2014 02:25 PM
Misc First shots with my first film SLR, Pentax MX and M 50 1.7	LeDave	Post Your Photos!	6	10-06-2012 05:18 PM
Misc Started a 365 with my first shots from my first DSLR.	Sagitta	Post Your Photos!	6	02-18-2011 10:34 PM
My first model shoot in my first own studio!	FrancisK7	Post Your Photos!	16	08-29-2008 03:55 AM
My first to weeks with a K20D, my first Dslr, 35/2,8 macro LTD (alot of pictures)	melander	Post Your Photos!	17	08-13-2008 12:01 PM

02-08-2015, 10:09 AM	#2
mattt Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Niagara Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,907	prob best to review this thread https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/179869-da-1...at-can-do.html

02-08-2015, 10:19 AM	#3
Imp Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Washington, DC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,749	If you didn't need WR I would say the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 because of the speed... There are also one or two wide angle prime lens option by third party (like a 10mm or a 16mm) that could be purchased for about $300 The 18-135 will be much better than the kit lens, although as a superzoom, you are compromising on sharpness. But I don't know of any wide-ish angle WR lenses in your budget.

02-08-2015, 10:33 AM	#4
timcatn Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Trondheim Posts: 237	A bit more expensive, but maybe the New 16-85 WR could be an option?

02-08-2015, 10:45 AM	#5
semaca Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: RO Posts: 143 Original Poster	Originally posted by mattt prob best to review this thread I see that it's very good in good light. I never used this kind of zoom, but maybe I will like it. Originally posted by timcatn maybe the New 16-85 WR could be an option? Maybe in the future. Somebody told me that I can use with very good results even for landscapes the Takumar 50mm 1.4 (1st version) because of it's sharpness and I can crop if I need from a big image.

02-08-2015, 10:46 AM	#6
timcatn Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Trondheim Posts: 237	Isn't 50mm on APS-C a bit narrow for landscapes?

02-08-2015, 10:54 AM	#7
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	Welcome to the Forum and Pentax Land! The 18-135 is very good. Normally the wider the zoom range the more compromises are made in the design of the lens. Some folks like the 18-135 better than the two lens set (18-50 and 50-200). One thing that the 18-135 does do is that you do not need to change lenses as often. For landscapes and low light the 17-50/2.8 is very good. If you want to go wider, you can stitch using the free download of Microsoft ICE to form a panorama.

02-08-2015, 10:58 AM	#8
semaca Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: RO Posts: 143 Original Poster	Originally posted by timcatn Isn't 50mm on APS-C a bit narrow for landscapes? That was my opinion too, but I know a landscape photographer which uses mostly 70-200. Recently I've seen some images with a Pentax smc FA 35mm f/2.0 AL. One used is around 200€, like a tamron 17-50. Many options, but I can't buy everything I like and make no money from photography.

02-08-2015, 10:59 AM - 2 Likes	#9
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I use the 18-135 more than my other lenses, and I have some great lenses. You will be pleased with it.

02-08-2015, 02:14 PM	#10
timcatn Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Trondheim Posts: 237	Originally posted by semaca That was my opinion too, but I know a landscape photographer which uses mostly 70-200. Recently I've seen some images with a Pentax smc FA 35mm f/2.0 AL. One used is around 200€, like a tamron 17-50. Many options, but I can't buy everything I like and make no money from photography. It Depends on the kind of landscapes i supose. However, if you are a beginner/amateur i would suggest that it is a bit Limited With a 50mm prime. If you are on a Budget, i would propose ditching WR for the moment, and get a Tamron 16-50 / 2,8. Alternatively the Sigma 10-20 -tim

02-08-2015, 03:49 PM	#11
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Start with your experience with the Tamron 17-50. See what focal lengths you used. If most of the shots were at 50mm, you probably want the 18-135 instead of the 18-55. Check the 50mm shots to see if you cropped them even smaller. That's a key sign you wanted more telephoto in your zoom. Then look at aperture. See how often you used apertures from f2.8 to f4.5 or so. Did you choose those apertures because it was low light, or you wanted less depth of field? Could you have gotten similar results at apertures that the 18-135 has? The K-3 might be good enough at high ISOs so you could raise ISO. Another way to decide is to figure out if the 18-135 fits into a set of lenses you want later. For example, if you are planning on getting the 55-300 and carrying that lens a lot, you don't need the extra telephoto reach. If the wide angle end is really important to you, look at the 16-85 instead.

02-08-2015, 04:30 PM	#12
Imp Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Washington, DC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,749	Originally posted by semaca but I know a landscape photographer which uses mostly 70-200. Then.. he's probably using a FF camera, were 50mm is the normal view. 70 on APS-C is portrait range

02-08-2015, 05:39 PM	#13
remark13 Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 87	Welcome. I included the 18-135mm lens with my initial purchase last year and have enjoyed this lens. I find it has a nice range when you aren't sure what you are shooting or sneaky portrait shooting. For your purpose with low light situations would be my hesitancy...oh I am sure it can be done tripods etc, but enough to give thought to your main priorities now. What are you photographing at night? Maybe a nice 35 or 50mm fast prime could be added to the mix now or in the near future. Many those can be found reasonably used or new. Of course you can never have enough lenses.... there are times I wish for a wider angle or more reach :-) Best of luck choosing and welcome aboard

02-09-2015, 04:21 AM	#14
ramseybuckeye Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hampstead, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 17,296	You mention night photography and landscapes, if you are doing landscapes at night don't worry about fast lenses, you're using a tripod anyway. But if you are doing street photography at night that is different. I would recommend the 18-135, especially at the price you can get it with a new camera. And the weather resistance can be very useful in landscapes. Just a week ago I used it on a hour and a half walk through a woods while it snowed the whole time. I didn't get any masterpieces that day, but I would have got nothing without WR.

02-09-2015, 05:47 AM	#15
semaca Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: RO Posts: 143 Original Poster	Originally posted by ramseybuckeye You mention night photography and landscapes, if you are doing landscapes at night don't worry about fast lenses, you're using a tripod anyway. But if you are doing street photography at night that is different. I would recommend the 18-135, especially at the price you can get it with a new camera. And the weather resistance can be very useful in landscapes. Just a week ago I used it on a hour and a half walk through a woods while it snowed the whole time. I didn't get any masterpieces that day, but I would have got nothing without WR. I've seen here on the forum some great images with the 18-135... Maybe for now I should get that lens and use it as much as I can. My old camera is really bad at ISO 800 for night photography, but I'm sure that the K3 at f/3.5 with bigger ISO is better. The 35mm f/2.4 could be next for me, for daily use. I already have 4 50mm with manual focus.