[Richjac]

I am considering moving back to a DSLR after several years in the mirrorless world. I owned a K5ii a few years back and I was very happy with the image quality from the 18-135 lens, though I also owned or rented several other lenses.

Assume that I will eventually get a telephoto zoom. For walk around and wide angle, I'm looking at the following:

1) 16-85 plus 35/2.4... sensible choice?

2) 15 plus 18-55... great wide angle and OK mid Range?

3) 15 plus 20-40... highest cost, but this one is calling my name.

Appreciate any opinions from people that have used these lenses, particularly the 16-85 and 20-40. I'll also go back and re-read the reviews. Thanks!


Rich

[jatrax]

DA 16-85 is quite good. Not fast but within that limitation very good. The 18-135 is also a good lens though the 16-85 is better up to 85mm. My wife shoots with the 18-135 and I use the 16-85 on APS-C, she is happy with the 18-135 but I prefer the 16-85. For a prime I would likely go with a 50mm f/1.4 or the 15mm Limited. Both have attributes that the zooms cannot duplicate. The 35mm f/2.4 is nice but isn't going to be significantly better than the 16-85 at 35mm. JMHO

[microlight]

Can't comment on the 15/f4 (I have the 10-17 fishy) but the 20-40 is possibly the best all-round lens I've ever used. Sharp as a tack - sharper at 35mm than my 35/f2.4 plastic fantastic. Not very fast but f2.8 at the wide end is decent. Fast, almost silent AF. Build quality is unimpeachable.

It's not an issue at all for me, but you'd need to be happy with the short zoom range. On the positive side, it means potentially fewer optical compromises than you might get with a higher range zoom.

[Richjac]

I'm currently using an X100F, so any zoom range is more than I now have 😊

On vacation last week I could have used a long tele for a couple of shots (bald eagle, deer swimming) but otherwise the fixed FL was OK. I bought this camera to avoid lens buying and lens changing. And yet, here I am.

We're going to Yosemite in October, so thinking about what I would like to have on that trip, then what I'd like to have on hand at home. Buy the 20-40, rent the 10-17 for the trip. I have rented the 12-24, nice but heavy.

[VoiceOfReason]

15 + 18-135 or 10-17 + 18-135

[biz-engineer]

KP is designed for the limited lenses, they do well together.

[Adam]

I am considering moving back to a DSLR after several years in the mirrorless world. I owned a K5ii a few years back and I was very happy with the image quality from the 18-135 lens, though I also owned or rented several other lenses.

Assume that I will eventually get a telephoto zoom. For walk around and wide angle, I'm looking at the following:

1) 16-85 plus 35/2.4... sensible choice?

2) 15 plus 18-55... great wide angle and OK mid Range?

3) 15 plus 20-40... highest cost, but this one is calling my name.

Appreciate any opinions from people that have used these lenses, particularly the 16-85 and 20-40. I'll also go back and re-read the reviews. Thanks!


Rich

With the KP's impressive low-light/high-ISO performance, I consider the 16-85 to be the perfect pairing.

You of course can't say no to the 15mm either. What I'd do is supplement the 16-85mm zoom with the primes you think you'll use the most, so the DA 35mm or FA 77mm would also be fine candidates.

The DA 20-40mm certainly looks the part on the KP and lots of users are in love with it, but personally I prefer either a longer zoom or just to stick to primes.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[Wingincamera]

Since getting the KP, I find my most used lens is the 20-40, followed by either the 15/4 or DA 70mm F2.4. I don't use the 18-135 much anymore, if I need more reach I use the Tamron 70-200. The main reason I keep my 18-135 is for the WR, which the 20-40 also has. If I am going somewhere where I expect it to be wet, then those two lenses will go with me.

[pathdoc]

Walkaround can be very different things to very different people. Is yours big-city, vast empty steppes/mountain ranges, or somewhere in between?

I nearly bought the 16-85 but decided that the wider more open spaces where I lived needed the range from 85-135mm that this lens didn't have, more than the 16-17mm that the 18-135 lacked. So I got the 18-135. You have owned the 18-135 on a K-5iis in the past, so you know full well what it covers, and whether you would miss the long end in your particular shooting.

The 15 is outstanding as a wide-view lens for architecture and landscape, but people tend to get lost in the scene; it's not a lens you really want to use when human subjects are your prime interest (apart perhaps from group shots in VERY crowded quarters). Be prepared to crop a fair bit if you use it as a people lens. OTOH for size and weight, it is a natural fit with the smaller Pentax DSLRs.

I own the DA21 and DA 40 Limiteds, and I found a combination of the two ideal for big-city street photography on a crop sensor. If this sounds like you then you might want to take a look at the 20-40. By the time I realised what this lens was for, the next camera in my future was the K-1, with which it is not optically compatible in full frame, so I gave it a miss - but had I stayed with APS-C only, I'd have given serious consideration to trading the primes in and buying it.

[caliscouser]

The KP is really made for the Limited's in my opinion. Given that you are coming from the MILC world, I think the size/firepower ratio 15 & 20-40 combo is hard to beat if you have the budget, possibly supplemented by the 55-300 WR or PLM for your telephoto zoom needs.
That would pretty much fit in a m43 sized bag.

I like what I've seen on the 16-85, but personally I don't think I would want to run it on the KP because of its size (although to be fair haven't handled either). K-3 sure.
It is also heavier than the 12-24 which you said was already heavy.

18-55 or 18-50, light and compact with WR option. Image quality not in the same league as the 20-40 but may be good enough and budget friendly.

Tamron or Sigma 17-50 2.8. Almost does everything, but not WR and maybe not quite wide enough. Budget friendly.

Pentax 16-50 could be a one size fits all solution, fast, wide and WR. But big and heavy for the KP.

[Richjac]

Lots of good advice... there are really no bad options.
To put this in context, I have also been looking at a D7500 with their 16-80 lens (if it becomes available as a kit) or an 18-300. I have not ruled that out, and the one Pentax dealer in town does not have a KP to handle. I must say, one of the attractions to Pentax is this forum. Also the value per $ seems higher with Pentax. The downside is that Pentax has so many more lenses to choose from .

[jddwoods]

I am going to suggest a slightly different combo. The 16-85 and the DFA 100 Macro WR. If your needs are more wide angle then DA 15 Limited and 16-85. I have the DA 16-85 and it is really a sharp lens. The DFA is one of the sharpest lenses you can buy and can stand up to a lot of cropping to extend the range. Oh, by the way, it is 1:1 macro. I cannot comment on the 20-40 Limited, I went for the 16-85 for when I want a zoom. I have the DA 21 and DA 40 Limiteds and they are great compact lenses for traveling light.

[C_Jones]

I have the 16-85. I use it on my K-3II and it does an excellent job. I do not have the 15mm prime, but that seems like a lens that would accompany the 16-85 well. I had an 18-55, but upgraded to the 16-85 for the wider and longer zoom capability which is very useful along with the excellent image quality.

[Sandy Hancock]

15 limited, 20-40 limited, 55-300 PLM if you want to minimise lens changes.

I prefer primes though, and the KP really matches the limited primes beautifully.

[gm4life]

Well out of all the options I vote 15 and 20-40. Not that the 16-85 isn't phenomenal it is... But the Limiteds are so nice on the KP, plus makes for a nice light kit. Think of the 20-40 as two great primes in one. This lens really covers 75 percent of what I regularly shoot.