[Des]

I went from a K-3 back down to a K-5 and have I have no regrets. For my purposes, the K-5 is an excellent camera and a bargain at current prices.
I would also recommend the FA31 Limited or the DA35 Macro Limited to start, I have both and they are both great choices.
If you want to add more I'd recommend the DA 55-300 on the long end and either the DA 12-24 or the DA 15 for the wide end....that would give you pretty much all you need but once you get started buying lenses it's hard to stop....kind of like eating potate chips...

+1 for the 12-24 and 55-300. Light weight, portable, versatile, excellent value. Neither is fast for indoor shooting, but that's what higher ISO is for! No doubt the 60-250 is a great lens, but it is very pricy and rather heavy for everyday use.
As for the primes, I have the DA35 2.4 and it's a bargain, but I just love my Pentax-A 50 f1.7. Cheap, common, light-weight, compact, and there is something special about the images. If you can live with manual focus, the A series primes are excellent.

[MJSfoto1956]

I smile when I hear people say "the 60-250mm is rather heavy" -- boy, compared to a Nikkor 80-400mm or Canon 100-400mm it is a veritable lightweight!! (Pentaxians are spoiled, that's all there is to it!)

Michael

[JaggedZenMonkey]

Been thinking about another potential route to take. I could start off with a K-3 and pair it with a sigma 24-70 f/2.8 initially. That will allow me to take wider angle shots from the beginning and still allow a decent range for portraits ... not ideal, but still very decent. I would later purchase a sigma 70-200 f/2.8 before my sons football season starts. I could go with a longer range, but with the extra MP offered by the K - 3, I could always crop when needed. The sigma 18-35 f1.8 or the Pentax 31 f1.8 may or may not follow. A two lens kit, although much larger than the Pentax lenses may be my best option actually.

Pentax K-3 - $1050.00
Sigma 24-70 - $900.00


Total - $1950 (Only $100.00 more than my previous options).


The 70-200 2.8 Sigma will put me back around $1250.00 later this year, but if all goes well I'll be able to purchase it just before my sons football season begins. Then again (maybe I'm thinking too much), the K-5 IIs may suffice and it will save me around 300 dollars initially, bringing my total down to about $1600.00, which would allow me to get back to what I love a bit sooner. I'm actually trying to stay away from the kit lenses, but the 18-135 is certainly tempting. That would get me back into the game even sooner for about $1100.00 and save me a good $500 to $750 to boot. It's still decent glass, and I've seen some pretty darn good images taken with it. With the money saved I could get a 70mm for better portrait shots. Better still, I could purchase the K-5 II kit even cheaper and it has anti aliasing features, which may come in handy. This brings me to my next question. K-5 II vs K-5 IIs.

Any thoughts?

[cbope]

The Sigma 24-70 should be a good lens, but keep in mind that on an APS-C body such as K-3/K-5 that's equivalent to 42mm on 35mm full frame. In other words, a semi-wide normal lens, not a wide angle. For a true wide angle you need 20mm or less.

[RonHendriks1966]

O boy you are bouncing around. You have more options then you can handle. It also looks like you think that you will have the camera for all the seasons that your son is going to play. Well that is optimistic and maybe not very good thinking businesswise. Look at your camera as you look at your car. There is an economical factor to it where you reach a point that taking a write-off and replacing it would be far more economical. So you need a plan. What do you need in the long run as a setup for your gear? How do you get to that point? Are you going to miss in the meantime some wonderfull oppertunity's that you can't take images off because you haven't bought the lens for it yet. I do see some stretching in your budget, that is Always a good thing. Maybe it is a good weekend to give your wife some flowers

On the sports question: Is your son playing in daylight or are we talking about some dimm light on a regional sportsfield in the winterevening? With daylight you can do a lot with more lenses. With dimm light I would suggest the K-5ii(s).

One other option is the K-50 wich is also an excellent camera and maybe a budget saver. Maybe you can buy two lenses or just one you really want.

I only do landscapes once in a while, so I use whatever is in my hands for that. This one with the K-01 (same IQ as the K-50 with 16mp 12-bit processing) and the FA*85mm:


This is with the K-5 and the DA*60-250mm at 250mm, wich is a better lens then the Sigma, but f4:


A portrait with the K-5 and DA*55mm:


A visitor at my doorstep with K-01 and 40mm ltd.:


Just think off what you want and start buying that and not lenses you don't want in the long run.

[VoiceOfReason]

One more thing, if you get the 18-135 WR in a kit with ti you can always sell it on here for around 350 dollars if you don't like it or if you replace it and don't use it.

[DRabbit]

I don't shoot sports or nature (typically), but don't dismiss the DAL 55-300. It's super cheap and a great performer. I bought it specifically to shoot my niece playing lacrosse, and figured it was cheap enough to leave sitting in the cabinet otherwise, for when I occasionally need something longer.

[VisualDarkness]

I smile when I hear people say "the 60-250mm is rather heavy" -- boy, compared to a Nikkor 80-400mm or Canon 100-400mm it is a veritable lightweight!! (Pentaxians are spoiled, that's all there is to it!)

Michael

Well, you have loads of people screaming for full frame fast 500+mm lenses and F1.2's, TH. AT would be a heavy kit.

[JaggedZenMonkey]

I wanted to comment on the images presented thus far. They are very good, which helps solidify my decision to go with Pentax. Although, I'm drooling over the new K-3, I think I'm gonna go with the K-5 II. It has been tried and tested and the IQ still beats the IQ of other brands in the same price range. Heck, the IQ even exceeds more pricey offerings from the big two. Now that I've decided on the camera body, it's time to decide on my first lens.


Although the 18-135 kit lens is tempting, I don't think it'll suit me long term. I want a lens good in low light, good for nature, portraits, and general candid shots to start me off. I'm still leaning towards the 77mm f/1.8 ltd, but the 70mm f/1.8 ltd is more affordable and the images are right up there with the 77mm. Both would be good portrait lenses. Both would likewise be good for nature and candid shots. I think the 77mm has a slight edge over the 70mm, but I'm not certain it is enough to sway me alone. Now, if Pentax ever makes a FF camera and I get the 70mm, I'll likely be kicking myself in the tail for not getting the 77mm.


With that being said, the 77 mm seems to be my best option for a starter lens. It's a safe move and one I doubt will ever disappoint me. I'd rather not juggle lenses. When I buy a lens I don't want the hassle of trying to sell it later, so I'm looking for great glass to start me off. If you have any suggestions on other lenses that might suit my needs, please don't hesitate to lead me to them. As you can see, I'm open to other options.

[OrangeKx]

Great post. Nice to hear from people coming into Pentax from the other brands. The only SLR or DSLR's I've used were Pentax. I agree with you that when a product just feels good or "speaks" to you that has to be a good choice.

[ybo1]

The 77 can not be in bad choice at all. However, you will soon find yourself wanting something wider. You can't really shoot indoors with a 77, unless all you do are portraits.
Another option for an all rounder that delivers great IQ at a vry reasonable price is the DA 16-45 F4. Can be found used for $ 210 - $240 .

[cbope]

I agree with ybo1, a 77 would be very limiting indoors if that's your only lens. On full frame, that's equivalent to 115.5mm, a moderate tele on APS-C. I would second something like the Pentax 16-45/4. I don't have one but it has a good reputation. Its main drawback is the short-ish zoom range on the tele end, but if you also have a DA 70 of FA 77 then you have that covered.

Oh and welcome to the Pentax family! I have only ever owned Pentax SLR's since the early 80's.

---------- Post added 03-28-14 at 06:08 AM ----------

I don't shoot sports or nature (typically), but don't dismiss the DAL 55-300. It's super cheap and a great performer. I bought it specifically to shoot my niece playing lacrosse, and figured it was cheap enough to leave sitting in the cabinet otherwise, for when I occasionally need something longer.

Wow, very nice shots with the 55-300. I may need to consider the newer HD version. My son also plays lacrosse, great game!

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

but the 70mm f/1.8 ltd is more affordabl

The 70mm Limited's maximum aperture is f2.4. I don't have that lens, but I do have the FA 77mm and can vouch that its IQ is up there with the best.