[normhead]

There's not much downside to a K-5. The K-3 is better for wildlife and sports AF, but a good lens would be better. But so would a 2.8 lens. People seem to be clearing out Tamron 70-200 ƒ2.8s right now. They are as far as I'm concerned the bargain due jour. That's what I'd go for in your situation, unless you are adverse to carrying big heavy chunks of glass around with you. Avoiding all the 18-135 vs 16-85 controversy, a lot of times I go with a 21 ld. and a 40XS. It's amazing how much those two lenses cover. To me your 18-55 is more serviceable for landscape, than your 55-200 is for wildlife and sports.

[traderdrew]

The only problem with the Tamron 70-200 macro is the lack of auto focus speed. I have the old Sigma 70-200 macro with a hypersonic motor. The AF speed is good. Hopefully the new Pentax version (w/o macro but no big deal) will have that speed. It probably will. I'm thinking the next APS-C camera will be better for sports and wildlife because of the new 70-200 and the 150-450. No doubt the K-3 is at least a step better than the K-5 in the AF category based on my experience.

[normhead]

Did you actually own a Tamron 70-200? The knock on it is it's screw drive is noisy, and build quality, not AF speed. If you're going to say stuff like that, at least give us a reference. Here's mine... Tamron 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD Macro Lens Reviews - Tamron Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Read what users have to say. I don't think you'll find slow AF is a factor for many users.

Because it's screw drive, apparently on a K-3 with it's bumped screw drive speed the AF just flies. Possibly faster than the Sigma.

A recently posted user review...

Yes, it makes noise, so do other lenses. I've owned this since 2009 and I've never found the noise to be a bother. I've read all those reviews as well and am frankly puzzled at them. My only negative comment is that this lens tends to be a bit - and I mean just a little bit - darker than others. Also the manual/automatic clutch shift on focusing takes some getting used to but again, it's no big deal. I've also read that this lens is slow focusing, that may have been true with older bodies but I don't notice this anymore with my K5 or K3.The nearest thing I can compare it too is the DA*50-135, which being a * lens is a better lens with a higher price and an SDM focusing system. The Tammy is still a favorite.

[FantasticMrFox]

Yeah, looking at the lenses you use, update these instead of your camera. I don't know your budget, but for wildlife the HD DA 55-300 WR offers better quality and more reach than your 50-200, at a modest price. The DA* 300 f/4 costs more, but also offers even better image quality.

You could update your 18-55 with a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 for great image quality, silent AF and a faster aperture at a reasonable price, or go for the HD DA 16-85 WR for a more versatile range and weather sealing, but at a slower maximum aperture.

For landscapes, you could use either of the above two recommendations or invest in an ultra wide-angle lens. The DA 12-24 f/4 has great image quality but is quite pricey. A Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 or f/3.5 are more affordable, and the latter features silent AF. The image quality appears to be good, albeit not as good as the DA 12-24. Or you could wait for the new UWA on the roadmap that appears to be in the same 12-24 range but judging from Pentax recent lens releases will feature better coatings (HD), silent DC focusing rather than noisy screw-drive and weather sealing.

These would be my recommendations.

[arden_clark]

Yeah, looking at the lenses you use, update these instead of your camera. I don't know your budget, but for wildlife the HD DA 55-300 WR offers better quality and more reach than your 50-200, at a modest price. The DA* 300 f/4 costs more, but also offers even better image quality.

You could update your 18-55 with a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 for great image quality, silent AF and a faster aperture at a reasonable price, or go for the HD DA 16-85 WR for a more versatile range and weather sealing, but at a slower maximum aperture.

For landscapes, you could use either of the above two recommendations or invest in an ultra wide-angle lens. The DA 12-24 f/4 has great image quality but is quite pricey. A Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 or f/3.5 are more affordable, and the latter features silent AF. The image quality appears to be good, albeit not as good as the DA 12-24. Or you could wait for the new UWA on the roadmap that appears to be in the same 12-24 range but judging from Pentax recent lens releases will feature better coatings (HD), silent DC focusing rather than noisy screw-drive and weather sealing.

These would be my recommendations.

Very helpful, thanks to you, and all who have commented! I will probably sell my two lenses, and start off with the 16-85. Seems like even though it has a slow aperture, it is sharp, silent, and versatile. As I save up more, I will probably invest in either the DA* 60-250mm f4 or the tamron 70-200 f2.8 for sports.

[reh321]

Hello all,

I've been looking around at what Pentax has been putting out in more recent years (k-5iis/k3ii) and even what other brands have been doing and thinking that maybe my camera (k5) might be getting a little outdated in terms of specifications. I'm somewhat new in the world of photography, it started as a hobby, and now I'm doing work for my college's newspaper. I guess my question is whether or not my camera is considered obsolete in today's day and age as for what people are looking for in image quality and performance. I am happy with a decent amount of the pictures I take, but I can't help think that there's a better camera out there to do the job. I like to photograph sports, wildlife, and landscapes.

To be honest, progress has been very slow in DSLR-land over the past few years. Pentax has made changes in approach, such as removing the On-Board Flash and putting GPS stuff in its place, but technology seems to have reached a plateau, so "old" may be in the eye of the beholder.

Incidentally, in the age of film, I had two cameras last ten years each, so personally I have no compelling drive to buy a replacement every few years.

[pres589]

I shot this tonight, hand-held, with a 50-200 WR and a K5-II. I'm still trying to get the most out of this lens and feel like it isn't as bad as some folks make it out to be;



That said, an 18-135 would be super versatile, and they aren't expensive, especially if you buy used. If I were to go with a different zoom with about the same reach as the 50-200, the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 would probably be on my list to check out.