[Jeff]

Hi All,

Please help me to pick one of the following super-duper deals I've found whilst trawling through the various permutations here in the UK - it's only taken 2 weeks of my life..!

Please choose only one, and one reason for your choice. Tonight I make my purchase..!

The 35mm is not part of any kit but is a combination that I like. I take photos of landscapes, my children, family, industrial wastelands, evidence of decay and entropy.


1) K3 + 35mm F2.4 AL - Total: £723

2) K5iis + 35mm F2.4 AL - Total: £718

3) K5ii + 18-55mm WR and 50-200mm WR - Total: £708

4) K5ii + 35mm F2.4 AL - Total: £618

5) K5ii + 18-55mm WR + 35mm F2.4 AL Total: £662

Thanks all!

[AquaDome]

Option 5. The K-5ii is an excellent, full-featured camera and the DA35/2.4 is an awesome lens for the money. The kit 18-55 will serve most purposes until you can make up your mind what you need next.

[enoeske]

1) K3 + 35mm F2.4 AL - Total: £723

No doubt

[DanGleabols]

Personally, for the price difference, I'd go #1. The k5ii/s are still great cameras, but I don't think I could justify the closeness in price brand new to the k3. If I was considering k5 I'd be looking for a decent used one.

If I were to go the k5 series, I'd look at 18-135 wr + Da35. The IQ of the 18-135 wr isn't mind blowing, but it's better than the 18-55. It also offers you silent focusing and it's likely to be a useful lens (because of zoom range and wr); even when you buy better quality lenses.

[Odinz]

For me it would be #1 for the same reasons that DanGleabols posted above. #2 would be a nice choice as well, but with a difference of only £5 there's no way I would pick it over #1.

[Jeff]

Thanks for your thoughts so far, everyone. Anyone else have anything to add? I guess no one likes my wildcard of option 3 (K5ii with 18-55 and 50-200 WR) - are these lenses so bad that I'm better off not owning them?

[rr1736]

# 1 is a winner

[aleonx3]

suggest picking the first option... k-3 and 35/f2.4 combo.

[JohnX]

For me, it's back to basics, insofar as I can't offer an opinion without knowing more about what it is you want to shoot.

Do you have particular favourite subjects? Do you intend to get into a particular area of interest - landscapes, portraiture, macro, etc. You seem to be matching high spec bodies with low spec 'generalist' lenses.

Tell us a bit more about your aims and aspirations

[reduno]

Based on your list of subjects (landscape, family, industrial, etc.) it doesn't look like you will be needing high ISO most of the time. Consequently, I would go with the K3 option 1, and take advantage of the newer body and higher resolution. The only drawback I see is that as a new member, I am assuming you don't have any existing lenses, so the the 35 mm alone will be a bit limiting. The good news is the K3 has focus peaking (unlike the K5II), so you can always take advantage of some old glass to expand your collection cheaply. I'm sure you will enjoy whichever option you go with.

[DanGleabols]

Thanks for your thoughts so far, everyone. Anyone else have anything to add? I guess no one likes my wildcard of option 3 (K5ii with 18-55 and 50-200 WR) - are these lenses so bad that I'm better off not owning them?

It doesn't include the Da 35.... you said it was a combination you like and you've kind of selected it yourself by including it in all the other the other combinations.

I don't think they're particularly bad as such, just not particularly great. As their kit lenses they can usually be picked up for cheap on the used market if you decide you need them. Generally the 18-135 has a better reputation amongst most of its users than the 18-55 and the 55-300wr is usually considered better quality than the 50-200WR. But you can take great pictures with any of them! I just think a set of Da 35, Da 50 and the 18-135, a set of macro filters, a cpl filter and a couple of yungnuo flashes is a pretty powerful budget set up to do a lot of photography with (with ANY Pentax camera!)

Reading your post again you mention landscapey stuff quite a bit; I'm wondering if you might need something a bit wider than just a Da35?

[Jeff]

For me, it's back to basics, insofar as I can't offer an opinion without knowing more about what it is you want to shoot.

Do you have particular favourite subjects? Do you intend to get into a particular area of interest - landscapes, portraiture, macro, etc. You seem to be matching high spec bodies with low spec 'generalist' lenses.

Tell us a bit more about your aims and aspirations

I have a limited budget, so I'm looking to buy a decent body with one or two usable lenses. The 35mm has excellent reviews across the board. Ideally I'd like a wider angle lens - a 15 or 21 would be great but that means a long time of saving (wife and three children...). I'd also like a decent tele lens at some stage too.

Areas of interest are landscape and architecture, as well as people. Also urban and industrial decay. I'm less into action shots.

[furryurry]

1) K3 + 35mm F2.4 AL - Total: £723 because it's the body with the best AF (from what I read, I don't have one), I don't like the AF on my K-5. K-5IIS is also the body I like but it's almost the same price in your list.

[mholford]

Personally, for the price difference, I'd go #1. The k5ii/s are still great cameras, but I don't think I could justify the closeness in price brand new to the k3. If I was considering k5 I'd be looking for a decent used one.

If I were to go the k5 series, I'd look at 18-135 wr + Da35. The IQ of the 18-135 wr isn't mind blowing, but it's better than the 18-55. It also offers you silent focusing and it's likely to be a useful lens (because of zoom range and wr); even when you buy better quality lenses.

What Dan said....
lol

personally I'd avoid the kit lenses. the DA35 has great reviews. And I agree with Dan, if you went for a kit lens I'd try to locate the 18-135WR (a big step up from the 18-55)
so... spend a little more $$ on the body to get the updates, don't spend money on kit lenses you may want to replace fairly quickly anyways... and then save up for a few more good lenses to complement your shooting style - and consider spending a little money on legacy lenses which are cheap, and can provide some very spectacular results... (all of this assumes you are buying a DSLR to be "in control" and are interested in playing with aperture etc... if you intend to leave the camera in green auto mode, then a kit zoom or two might be more consistent with your shooting style)

[Jeff]

What Dan said....
lol

personally I'd avoid the kit lenses. the DA35 has great reviews. And I agree with Dan, if you went for a kit lens I'd try to locate the 18-135WR (a big step up from the 18-55)
so... spend a little more $$ on the body to get the updates, don't spend money on kit lenses you may want to replace fairly quickly anyways... and then save up for a few more good lenses to complement your shooting style - and consider spending a little money on legacy lenses which are cheap, and can provide some very spectacular results... (all of this assumes you are buying a DSLR to be "in control" and are interested in playing with aperture etc... if you intend to leave the camera in green auto mode, then a kit zoom or two might be more consistent with your shooting style)

Thanks people. I do use an MX and an ME Super... exquisite pieces of industrial engineering art.

I have a beautiful Pentax-M 50mm f1.7 that I'll use in manual mode.

My thoughts were to spend on a top spec body, have two good lenses (35mm and my smc-m 50mm + one other) and then begin to acquire some decent glass as money permits.

But the body... ah, that's the rub! I've been inclined towards the K5ii/s as the RAW files are not as MB intensive as the K3's are. But then, am I getting into old tech? Is the K3 really £200 better than a new K5ii? Would I be better off saving that for a decent tele/zoom lens? I think I'm seeing the clarity here!


Thoughts?

Thanks for your replies thus far. As always, Pentaxians love a little philosophy!