[Setter Dog]

Hi Folks,

I recently came back to Pentax with a K50 and 55-300 WR. I'm very happy with this combination. For stills, it's hard to beat!

However, I now "need" another lens, almost certainly the 18-135 WR. Knowing the way I am about changing lenses, I will want another body for this lens. Once again, I find myself comparing the merits of the K50 and the KS2. When purchased with the 18-135mm, there is less than $150 difference in price.

Fortunately, the price is not a problem for me, but I note the KS2 is a little heavier, supposedly has a grip that is not quite as good, is not as comfortable with big lenses, etc,. I like cameras that are fun to use. The vari angle LCD is a nice feature, but not important to me.

Forgetting price, can anyone give me any reasons to buy the KS2 instead of another K50? Maybe the video is a tad better? Any comments appreciated.

Jack

[bertwert]

Main differences here:
Pentax K-S2 vs. Pentax K-50 - Pentax Camera Comparison - PentaxForums.com

[boriscleto]

The 18-135 is not a terribly heavy lens. 405 grams, the 55-300 is 450...

[Des]

Knowing the way I am about changing lenses, I will want another body for this lens. Once again, I find myself comparing the merits of the K50 and the KS2.

One merit of the K-50 is that you are familiar with it. Settings can be matched and you don't need to think about where each control is. It was convenient when I had two K-30 bodies. I do need to make a mental switch when going between K-3 and K-30.

Forgetting price, can anyone give me any reasons to buy the KS2 instead of another K50?

The 20mp sensor offers more resolution and a little more scope for cropping. No AA filter. Much better low light AF (-3 EV v -1EV). AF in video mode. Tilting screen (might be more useful than you think, e.g. for flowers close to the ground, or selfies). Wi-fi.

The combination of the 18-135 on one body and 55-300 on the other is a good nature walk kit .I tend to use the K-3 for telephoto and the K-30 for wide angle (because I crop more with the tele and I like the better resolution for bird shots).

---

Last edited by Des; 03-31-2016 at 04:35 PM.

[ChristianRock]

I think the 16-85 would be an even better pairing with the 55-300...

[FantasticMrFox]

Why not combine another K50 with the 16-85? The K50 being cheaper than the K-S2 would make up for the price difference between the two lenses, and you would get better image quality. The 18-135 main advantage of being longer would not matter much because you have the 55-300 on the other body which covers the 85-135 range at a higher quality.

[normhead]

Forgetting price, can anyone give me any reasons to buy the KS2 instead of another K50? Maybe the video is a tad better? Any comments appreciated.

Believe it or not, some of us can answer the question asked.

Th big advantages of the K-S2, 4 more MP and the resultant increase in resolution.
More magnification for macro.
Flappy screen for macro and selfies.
More MP for cropping. You can take off 20% of your image before you get to K-50 size.

The real deal right now however is closed out K-3s. They should be going at really good prices , if not now then soon.

---

Last edited by normhead; 03-31-2016 at 04:55 PM.

[a5m]

Since one of the main complaints of the K-S2 is the grip I just want to put this out there that I actually prefer the grip of the K-S2 over the K-50. I am a male with average-to-large sized hands.

Before getting both cameras I had read that people didn't like the grip on the K-S2 and that the K-50 is much better. I went in expecting this and found the opposite to be true. The K-50 just doesn't feel 'right' in my hand, whereas the K-S2 feels like it belongs there. The narrow space between the grip and lens is a bit exaggerated to be honest, and should not be taken too seriously.

I think this may be the reason why the K-S2 doesn't get mentioned too often, and is unfortunately overlooked. I think it's the perfect size too, not as big as the usual DSLR and not that much bigger than a mirrorless camera. The 20MP sensor I think is right at the sweet spot and the flip out LCD is just icing on the cake. Also like Des mentioned, no AA filter, -3EV AF, and basically the same AF system as the K-5IIs (which gave it excellent AF performance in low light).

If I were you I'd get the K-S2 for sure. Plus with the K-50 you might have the dreaded aperture control mechanism failure. I know it's not a certainty but I've been seeing a lot of new threads about it. It happened to mine. Also if you don't get the extended warranty or if it fails after 1 year of purchase it will not be worth the cost of repair.

[Adam]

The K-S2 is a more modern camera overall. You get better image quality, faster screwdrive AF, more accurate low-light AF, faster live view AF, an improved menu, faster everyday speed, wi-fi, and more processing options. The main disadvantage of the K-S2 is the smaller grip; in other areas I'd consider it a direct upgrade over the K-50.

[Des]

I think the 16-85 would be an even better pairing with the 55-300...

All things being equal, I'd agree. But ...

Why not combine another K50 with the 16-85?

Here are three reasons:
1. The 16-85 is still overpriced and isn't sold in a package with a camera body. Going on B&H prices, and comparing body-only with body + 18-135, the 18-135 costs about $320. The 16-85 costs about $500.
2. There are still worries about the reliability of the aperture control on the K-50.
3. The better sensor and extra features of the K-S2 are well worth the $185 difference in price of the body.

Given that a K-50 + 16-85 would be around the same price as K-S2 + 18-135 (about $US800), I'd take the latter package.

Edit: a5m and Adam beat me to the gun with some of these points.

The real deal right now however is closed out K-3s.

That would be an extra $200 at B&H right now, compared to the K-S2. If that margin closes so it's within budget, go for it.

[normhead]

The 16-85 is a better match, for more money, so not exactly apples and apples. Next someone will suggest the 16-50, then the Sigma 18-35 or new Pentax 15-30, or DA 20-40 ltd. will be mentioned. You can always seem to get better for more money when you discuss 18-135 and 16-85 type lenses. People seem to forget they they are both middle of the road lenses. Or as the Pentax guy put it, for people who want better than kit. The 16-85 is great paired with another lens. The 18-135 is better if you want to just go with one lens or you want to avoid lens changes.

[Setter Dog]

What a great forum! I REALLY appreciate all the suggestions and the reasons behind them. I'll mull this over a bit longer but find myself leaning toward the KS2 right now for the several reasons you've suggested.

Thank you,....Jack

[ChristianRock]

The 16-85 is 180 dollars more, BUT the K-50 is at least 200 dollars cheaper than the K-S2. The OP said money wasn't really an issue, so that's why I thought the 16-85 was a good suggestion. The OP would gain 2 very important mm in the wide end, would gain more edge to edge sharpness in some of the range, and would lose nothing in the middle, since there's overlap anyway.

[FantasticMrFox]

The 16-85 is a better match, for more money, so not exactly apples and apples.

We are talking body + lens, and the K50 + 16-85 combo costs about the same as the K-S2 + 18-135 combo. So very much apples and apples.

Next someone will suggest the 16-50, then the Sigma 18-35 or new Pentax 15-30, or DA 20-40 ltd. will be mentioned.

To be honest, I think what he really needs is an 8 mm tilf-shift

The 16-85 is great paired with another lens.

Which is exactly what he wants to do. Carry one body with a HD DA 55-300 WR, and another with the new lens.

[Des]

The OP said money wasn't really an issue, so that's why I thought the 16-85 was a good suggestion. The OP would gain 2 very important mm in the wide end, would gain more edge to edge sharpness in some of the range, and would lose nothing in the middle, since there's overlap anyway.

These are all good points, CR.

For the benefit of any new DSLR users reading this, the value of the extra width is worth emphasising. 2mm doesn't sound like much, but 16mm has a much wider field of view than 18mm.

You are right that the OP didn't mention a budget. I inferred that there was one because the OP mentioned the $150 price difference between K-50 and K-S2, and in effect was weighing whether it was worth it.

Whether the 16-85 is worth an extra $180 over the 18-135 is something for the OP to weigh up. You could get a couple of nice used primes for that. But then @SetterDog isn't so keen on lens changes.

Some food for thought on the 16-85 v 18-135:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/179869-da-1...at-can-do.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/301618-da-1...at-can-do.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/hd-pentax-da-16-85mm-f35-56/introduction.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/da-18-135mm-f35-56-ed-al-if-dc-wr/introduction.html

Carry one body with a HD DA 55-300 WR, and another with the new lens.

Yep, that was what the OP had in mind. I often do the same thing - but not every time. One advantage of the 18-135 is more reach for those times when you only want to take one body, and don't have the time or inclination to change lenses to get the shot.