[UncleVanya]

In the WIDER is better vein I suggested a 12-24 but the going price even used is too high for this budget. The 12-24 paired with the fast 50 isn't a bad combo but the 18-135, 18-50/55 (with or without a 50-200) is more versatile.

[aslyfox]

we are dealing with folks not familiar with cameras and lenses

we should be advising them when we are suggesting a wide angle lens or an ultra wide lens the distortion issues

ultimately resulting in the " fish eye " look

I think that is just fair, don't you ?

[Alex645]

we are dealing with folks not familiar with cameras and lenses

we should be advising them when we are suggesting a wide angle lens or an ultra wide lens the distortion issues

ultimately resulting in the " fish eye " look

I think that is just fair, don't you ?

Agreed, but I think both the 10-17mm and the 12-24mm are way out of the OPs budget. The 10-17mm is an ultra wide angle fish eye zoom, whereas ultra wide angle lenses that better control distortion and are not circular (like the 12-24mm) are called 'rectilinear'.

[aslyfox]

Agreed, but I think both the 10-17mm and the 12-24mm are way out of the OPs budget. The 10-17mm is an ultra wide angle fish eye zoom, whereas ultra wide angle lenses that better control distortion and are not circular (like the 12-24mm) are called 'rectilinear'.

regarding " budgets " ( yours mine and theirs )

you never can tell when the " deal of a life time " will come along

come to think about it, that is another issue where spouses might disagree -

" but it's the deal of a life time "

" I don't care we have more important things to buy "

[Des]

Right now she has a DA 50 1.8 (I don't even know what that means), but I know she has problems with taking pictures inside the car etc, because it's zoomed in too far.

I have assumed (and I think most of us have assumed) from what you have said that this is her only lens. If this assumption is wrong, please let us know what others she has, because it will affect the advice.

We live in the Pacific NW, USA, so it's very wet here, but we're used to electronics being delicate, and hadn't thought of taking pictures out in the rain. We sail in the summer, so it's used on the boat some times.

The perfect situations for a weather-resistant (WR) lens (works with a weather sealed body, which the K-3 is). One of the strengths of the Pentax range is that there are several good WR lenses that won't break the bank. Confining the choice to WR lenses helps narrow the choice.

Most all of her pictures are product pictures for my small business.

Your existing DA 50 lens will do just fine for this.

The inside car shots are because I've sold several cars lately, she took the pics and we just flat out couldn't get shots inside.

@Just1MoreDave answered this beautifully. A lens that covers around 16-21mm is what you want for this.

Obviously she's just starting out, but she adores her camera and treats it like a baby. She really loves taking pictures and has been watching some how to videos so far.

This can point different ways. There are wide-ranging lenses that are versatile: they can take pictures in a variety of situations. The DA 18-135 is a good example. And there are plenty of other lenses that are more specialist tools: for example, lenses that magnify the subject a lot that are ideal for photographing birds from a distance; or lenses called macros that can take really close photos of small things. The really wide-angle lenses (e.g. DA 12-24) and fisheye lenses (e.g. DA 10-17) that have been mentioned are also rather specialized.

Most of us start out with wide-ranging lenses and add specialist lenses after a time, when they work out what sort of photography they enjoy most. (For some of us, it's never enough!) If you haven't already got a wide-ranging lens, that's probably a good place to start.

So, that's how people have come to mention the DA 18-50 WR, DA 18-55 WR, DA 18-135 WR, DA 16-85 WR or DA*16-50 (the asterisk is pronounced "star" and it means it's a premium-grade lens). They cover moderately-wide to normal (the sort of field of view you get with the naked eye, around 35mm with the K-3) to slightly-magnified ("telephoto") fields of view that are the most commonly used in ordinary use.

Cost wise, I'd like between $100 and $250 at the most, and used is fine.

This rules out the DA 16-85 and DA*16-50.

The DA 18-50 and DA 18-55 are cheap, compact and light-weight, but the range of uses is more limited. I'd say get the DA 18-135. You probably won't find a new one within budget, but you should get a good second-hand one. It not only covers the same wide-angle field of view (18mm) but goes through to 135mm, which gives you roughly 4 times normal magnification. (Experienced PF members are wincing at the crudity of this explanation, but it will do for present purposes.) To see the difference in perspective, see the illustration here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/da-18-135mm-f35-56-ed-al-if-dc-wr/gener...e-quality.html

The DA 18-135 is a very good lens for what it is, because there is usually more trade-off of quality for so much versatility. Adam linked to the review of it above. There's a whole thread here devoted to photos taken with it, from which you and your GF might get some inspiration and advice: DA 18-135 WR, Show us what it can do - PentaxForums.com

And as you see there is no shortage of helpful advice provided here.

[dbs]

Hi Bossmanicus
You want to buy a lens as a gift very noble of you
You will have to talk with your g/f on this one ,you are not buying a "toaster for her"
What you think she wants and what she wants are poles apart.

Dave

[Just1MoreDave]

My 16-45 is pretty reliable. I got it used in June 2009 and it accounts for about 10% of my shots. I'd use it more if it was weather resistant. Anyway, I promised car interior shots but this is the only one I could find. The car is a 2017 Mercedes-Benz S550 from the back seat. The night shot I posted previously at 23mm was also taken with the 16-45.



That black ash trim doesn't work for me. I'd get walnut burl.

[mikesbike]

I think the terminology you are using- not your fault- may be misleading those replying. You are dealing with people here who are accustomed to using zooming in or out having a standard meaning: "in" means you can zoom to a distant subject for a closeup because it can zoom to a long focal length from a shorter focal length. "out" means you can zoom to a wider angle view to include more in your picture instead of zooming "in" to a particular part of the picture to get your closeup.

Now when you say having trouble taking pictures in the car because the lens is ---"in too far" do you mean trying to take pictures from within the car, of distant subjects outside, but the lens is too far "in" that is too short to bring "in" distant subjects for a closeup of those subjects?

Or do you mean trying to take pictures of a subject that is inside the car? I think some of us are interpreting your description as being this case scenario.

Next question- is the (nice) DA 50mm f/1.8 the only lens she has? I am wondering because a (very nice) pro-caliber camera like the K-3 is sometimes offered with a zoom lens with a savings compared to buying the lens separately. But not always- sometimes a nice 50mm lens is offered instead. Traditionally, the 50mm lens is the least expensive way to offer a good lens having very good low-light shooting capability with a wide aperture that can let in more light- in this case f/1.8, and note that a desirable larger, wide aperture capability is indicated by a smaller number! A smaller "f/" number means a bigger aperture.

Traditionally, 50mm was regarded as having a "normal" field of view- that is, your picture would be neither wide-angle nor telephoto (bringing distant objects closer). But this stems from 35mm film use. The sensor replacing the film in cameras like the K-3, which are called APS-C size, are smaller than 35mm film, so the Field Of View using the same lens is like having a lens that has a longer focal length, so it presents a picture that is moderate telephoto, no longer "normal". "Normal" now becomes available through a 35mm lens. But this now-moderate-tele FOV through a 50mm lens, combined with a large aperture capability like f/1.8 converts this modest-priced lens into an especially good portrait lens. You can get a good head shot, or head & shoulders shot, without getting overly close to your subject, while opening up the aperture, even wide open to f/1.8, which will narrow the Depth Of Field- that is how much of the picture front-to-back will be sharply in focus. That is often good for portraits because it will throw the background out of focus, blurring it to make your subject stand out from it. You can control the degree of the DOF according to your wishes by opening up the aperture more or less. Closing it, making the aperture smaller from wide open (larger "f/" number) is called "stopping down".

Now, if she has no zoom lens, a very good one to recommend for all-purpose use, is the DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6. it would be great on the K-3, having a very good, versatile zoom range from 18mm wide angle to 135mm telephoto, which would be good for bringing more distant objects closer. It is very well built, has weather sealing like the camera has, so you can shoot in drippy conditions. Its Auto Focus is fast, quiet, and accurate. This would give her the greatest flexibility, while being a lens of fine quality and capable of taking very fine pictures. You could spend more for the very fine DA 16-85mm lens having a similar build quality with very fine imaging quality, which is bigger, less compact, but has the 16mm wider-angle, but also less telephoto for bringing in distant objects- just 85mm instead of 135mm. Depends on what she needs most.

You can find zoom lenses of greater zoom range- like 18-250 or even 300mm, and such lenses can be handy. But their build quality and AF are not as good, while the quality of images is also not as good at the longer FL- not really in a league that is a good match for a fine camera like the K-3. For a good lens that is especially for longer telephoto only, there is the DA 55-300mm HD WR f/4-5.8 but just having this with the 50mm would leave her with no wide angle FOV. Depends if she really needs to go out as far as 300mm. The longer DA 55-300mm could be added later to be used when or if she needs that extra reach, then all her bases would be covered.

[Bossmanicus]

To clarify, I'm referring to the photographer being inside the car, or standing just outside the car, and trying to take a picture of the inside of the car itself.

Such as trying to get a shot of the interior of the car for advertising, or trying to take a picture of the people in the front seats, while the photographer is in the back seat.

Yes the DA 50mm f/1.8 is the only lens she has. She wanted to learn photography, and asked me to research cameras for her. I read for several nights, asked questions, and decided on the K3. The DA 50mm f/1.8 was suggested as a great quality lens to start out with. I found a used K3 and lens here and that got her started.

After reading the replies here, I'm currently looking for a DA 18-135 WR either used or a good deal on Black Friday.

I'd really like to thank everyone on this forum. You've been probably the friendliest and most helpful I've ever been on. Seriously, try Sailing Anarchy some day. Those guys are knowledgeable but can be a fair bit rough.

I think the terminology you are using- not your fault- may be misleading those replying. You are dealing with people here who are accustomed to using zooming in or out having a standard meaning: "in" means you can zoom to a distant subject for a closeup because it can zoom to a long focal length from a shorter focal length. "out" means you can zoom to a wider angle view to include more in your picture instead of zooming "in" to a particular part of the picture to get your closeup.

Now when you say having trouble taking pictures in the car because the lens is ---"in too far" do you mean trying to take pictures from within the car, of distant subjects outside, but the lens is too far "in" that is too short to bring "in" distant subjects for a closeup of those subjects?

Or do you mean trying to take pictures of a subject that is inside the car? I think some of us are interpreting your description as being this case scenario.

Next question- is the (nice) DA 50mm f/1.8 the only lens she has? I am wondering because a (very nice) pro-caliber camera like the K-3 is sometimes offered with a zoom lens with a savings compared to buying the lens separately. But not always- sometimes a nice 50mm lens is offered instead. Traditionally, the 50mm lens is the least expensive way to offer a good lens having very good low-light shooting capability with a wide aperture that can let in more light- in this case f/1.8, and note that a desirable larger, wide aperture capability is indicated by a smaller number! A smaller "f/" number means a bigger aperture.

Traditionally, 50mm was regarded as having a "normal" field of view- that is, your picture would be neither wide-angle nor telephoto (bringing distant objects closer). But this stems from 35mm film use. The sensor replacing the film in cameras like the K-3, which are called APS-C size, are smaller than 35mm film, so the Field Of View using the same lens is like having a lens that has a longer focal length, so it presents a picture that is moderate telephoto, no longer "normal". "Normal" now becomes available through a 35mm lens. But this now-moderate-tele FOV through a 50mm lens, combined with a large aperture capability like f/1.8 converts this modest-priced lens into an especially good portrait lens. You can get a good head shot, or head & shoulders shot, without getting overly close to your subject, while opening up the aperture, even wide open to f/1.8, which will narrow the Depth Of Field- that is how much of the picture front-to-back will be sharply in focus. That is often good for portraits because it will throw the background out of focus, blurring it to make your subject stand out from it. You can control the degree of the DOF according to your wishes by opening up the aperture more or less. Closing it, making the aperture smaller from wide open (larger "f/" number) is called "stopping down".

Now, if she has no zoom lens, a very good one to recommend for all-purpose use, is the DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6. it would be great on the K-3, having a very good, versatile zoom range from 18mm wide angle to 135mm telephoto, which would be good for bringing more distant objects closer. It is very well built, has weather sealing like the camera has, so you can shoot in drippy conditions. Its Auto Focus is fast, quiet, and accurate. This would give her the greatest flexibility, while being a lens of fine quality and capable of taking very fine pictures. You could spend more for the very fine DA 16-85mm lens having a similar build quality with very fine imaging quality, which is bigger, less compact, but has the 16mm wider-angle, but also less telephoto for bringing in distant objects- just 85mm instead of 135mm. Depends on what she needs most.

You can find zoom lenses of greater zoom range- like 18-250 or even 300mm, and such lenses can be handy. But their build quality and AF are not as good, while the quality of images is also not as good at the longer FL- not really in a league that is a good match for a fine camera like the K-3. For a good lens that is especially for longer telephoto only, there is the DA 55-300mm HD WR f/4-5.8 but just having this with the 50mm would leave her with no wide angle FOV. Depends if she really needs to go out as far as 300mm. The longer DA 55-300mm could be added later to be used when or if she needs that extra reach, then all her bases would be covered.

[UncleVanya]

We can be salty... But only once you get us started on a topic like equivalence. (don't ask).

Glad we could help.

[Des]

After reading the replies here, I'm currently looking for a DA 18-135 WR either used or a good deal on Black Friday.

While you are looking around, you might also want to look for a filter that screws on the front of the lens. There's a type of filter called a circular polarizing filter (C-PL). The size you need for the 18-135 lens is 62mm. That filter is like sunglasses for your lens - in bright conditions (like out sailing, or in snow, or on the beach on a sunny day) it cuts glare and reflections, and enriches blues and greens. (You can sometimes achieve these effects with software afterwards, but it's simpler and often more effective to use a filter in the first place.) And of course the filter will protect the front element of the lens from sand or salt spray. It also helps if you want to take a long exposure shot, like getting the milky effect from a waterfall. My rule of thumb is if I'm wearing sunglasses, the lens should be too.

Now you can spend any amount on a C-PL, and the usual advice is to get the best one you can afford. Given the limited budget, I'd suggest something like a Hoya or Kenko Pro1D - you might snag one for around $40 if you look around.

The DA 50 uses a smaller diameter filter (52mm), but you can buy very cheap "step up" rings (adapters) on ebay so you could use the 62mm filter on that lens as well.

To illustrate the benefits of a C-PL, here are some shots I've taken with the 18-135 with a C-PL.







This last one was a relatively long exposure (1.3 seconds). I needed the filter to reduce the amount of light coming in over that period - otherwise it would have been overexposed. The polarizer also help you see the rocks below the water.

[aslyfox]

We can be salty... But only once you get us started on a topic like equivalence. (don't ask).

Glad we could help.

or whether to use a clear or uv filter or hood or both to protect the outer glass of the lens or its threads

this thread shows the danger

oops, my lens has a boo boo - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com

the dispute over lens/hoods or both can result in some " salty " disputes

the idea is that your lens will have threads cut into the outer inside rim which are there to allow you to add filters or screw on hoods

hoods can either fit the outside of the lens or be threaded on. they help protect the lens from glare and can provide shock protection of taking impacts

______________________

should those threads be damaged, it can be very difficult to use them.

the other purpose of a " protective " filter is to be a physical barrier to prevent dust and or scratches on the actual glass of the lens. filters being easier to clean or replace than the actual glass lens

the dispute is that you place an additional glass through which the light must pass through and a hood works better

don't get us started on what is best

[UncleVanya]

Lol. Passionate people have opinions.

[Des]

Curious to know how you got on, @Bossmanicus

[Bossmanicus]

Curious to know how you got on, @Bossmanicus

Well, after much research and some helpful PMs, I decided on a DA 18-135mm.

Unfortunately right after we decided on which lens, we had some unexpected car troubles and had to direct the money there.

Since then the lens has been on the back burner, especially now that I'm looking for a ring for my lovely lady.

Thanks to everyone that helped me though, and sorry if I missed replying to a few PMs, the holidays got hectic really fast. I think we've been sick with colds and flu's 5 times since Christmas!