Originally posted by ChristianRock I think the 16-85 would be an even better pairing with the 55-300...
All things being equal, I'd agree. But ...
Originally posted by FantasticMrFox 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.
Originally posted by normhead 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.