[chovest]

Hello!

I have found myself browsing the forums here for the last several years, but have never registered...until today.

*disclaimer, I am a hobbyist that knows some, but has a lot to learn! Please be patient with me in my explanations and what I think I understand.*

Several years ago, when researching for my first DSLR purchase (previously used Minolta SLRs), the information provided here was invaluable! At that time based on needs and budget I went with the Pentax K-r kit that included the 18-55 3.5-5.6 and 50-200 4-5.6 lenses. I have enjoyed learning more with this set up over the years, but feel that it no longer meets my growing needs. I'm a hobbyist, shooting primarily my kids' sports (volleyball, basketball, and both indoor and outdoor track and soccer. Action shots in low light have become my biggest challenge. I feel image quality is an issue too at long focal lengths with my kit 50-200 lens, more noticeably after having the mirror mechanism replaced. I also enjoy portraits, and felt confident doing my oldest daughter's senior portraits. With five, yes 5, more daughters coming up I plan to do theirs as well. So...

I still have a budget, however not quite as tight this time around. I am considering the the K-3II since the K-3 seems to have become more expensive since being discontinued. I will miss the built in flash for certain applications, although I do have accessory flashes. The K-3II seems to be highly rated and a significant upgrade from my K-r to justify upgrading.

Since I'm pretty certain on the body, unless there is a suggestion for a model I haven't considered at a similar price point, my biggest debate is on lens(es). Other than the basics, I admittedly don't know much about lenses. I am currently looking at the following lenses to eventually pair with the K-3II:

1. Pentax HD PENTAX-DA 55-300mm f/4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE Lens approx. $430
2. Pentax HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8 ED WR Lens approx. $340
3. Pentax smc Pentax-DA 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 ED SDM Lens approx $597

Based on my limited knowledge of lenses, what makes lens 2 less expensive than lens 1? Focal lengths are similar, and lens 2 is "faster", so I'm assuming lens 1 has higher quality optics? I don't completely understand all of the acronyms. Since I find myself shooting outside in different weather conditions, I do like that the first two are weather sealed (resistant). Lens 3 is appealing, since it gives such a wide focal length range and seems like it would be a good "all around lens". Is there truly such a thing? At this price point? With quickly changing subject distance, especially in track, lens 3 seems like a good choice, I just wish it was WR.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Even polite corrections are all welcome.

[Adam]

Based on my limited knowledge of lenses, what makes lens 2 less expensive than lens 1?

The first lens is a newer model which has MUCH faster focusing. It's actually the fastest-focusing of any Pentax AF lens. I strongly recommend that one

In addition to the 55-300mm PLM, I would recommend the 16-85mm as your everyday lens (it's also weather sealed). This will cover most common focal lengths and deliver far better image quality than the 18-270mm, while the 55-300mm will be there for sports and when you need a little extra zoom.

Lots of background info here:

HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews
HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 PLM WR RE Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

By the way, another body option to consider would be the KP, if you want the flash. IMO its grip is a little less comfortable, but it has better image quality (less noise) and a more user-friendly menu system with extensive customization.

Pentax KP Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Specs comparison:

Pentax KP vs K-3 II: Do we have a new flagship? - Product Updates | PentaxForums.com

[UncleVanya]

At that time based on needs and budget I went with the Pentax K-r kit that included the 18-55 3.5-5.6 and 50-200 4-5.6 lenses. I have enjoyed learning more with this set up over the years, but feel that it no longer meets my growing needs. I'm a hobbyist, shooting primarily my kids' sports (volleyball, basketball, and both indoor and outdoor track and soccer. Action shots in low light have become my biggest challenge. I feel image quality is an issue too at long focal lengths with my kit 50-200 lens, more noticeably after having the mirror mechanism replaced. I also enjoy portraits, and felt confident doing my oldest daughter's senior portraits. With five, yes 5, more daughters coming up I plan to do theirs as well. So...

1. Pentax HD PENTAX-DA 55-300mm f/4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE Lens approx. $430
2. Pentax HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8 ED WR Lens approx. $340
3. Pentax smc Pentax-DA 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 ED SDM Lens approx $597

Based on my limited knowledge of lenses, what makes lens 2 less expensive than lens 1? Focal lengths are similar, and lens 2 is "faster", so I'm assuming lens 1 has higher quality optics? I don't completely understand all of the acronyms. Since I find myself shooting outside in different weather conditions, I do like that the first two are weather sealed (resistant). Lens 3 is appealing, since it gives such a wide focal length range and seems like it would be a good "all around lens". Is there truly such a thing? At this price point? With quickly changing subject distance, especially in track, lens 3 seems like a good choice, I just wish it was WR.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Even polite corrections are all welcome.

Lens 1 is the newest. It includes a different focusing mechanism that is very very fast and accurate. It also has electronically controlled aperture which is new for Pentax. The older version (2) is very similar optically but lacks this fast quiet focus option. Lens three (3) is not in the same ballpark optically. This type of "superzoom" has design compromises that make it hard to be great at all focal lengths but can be a great idea for travel or for a romp out without a specific goal and with limited tolerance for lens changes.

In my opinion. Lenses 1 and 2 above clearly outperform lens 3 in those focal lengths they cover. But they are still not going to improve low light shooting over the 50-200. The upgrade to the body perhaps to a KP rather than K3-II would help the most here. If that is still not enough, you need to look at the 70-200/f2.8 type lenses as well. These come at a high premium in price.

Read this article here: Fast Sports Zoom Lenses for Pentax Review - 70-200mm Sigma & Tamron | PentaxForums.com Reviews
Then read up on the newest Pentax lens in this space: HD Pentax-D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 ED DC AW Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Assuming you bought one - the same lens would stand in nicely for portrait work with the girls.

If you could not swing that then the PLM 55-300 plus another lens would do the job. Personally for a low cost budget portrait lens I suggest either the F or FA 50 f/1.8 or f/1.4 or the DA 70 f/2.4. The DA 70 is often overlooked due to the popularity of the more expensive FA 77 but it is a fine lens.

Lastly - lighting and technique and creative eye make more difference than anything.

[caliscouser]

Of the options you are considering:

KP + 55-300 PLM: for the low-light sports. If that blows the budget substitute the K-3ii or consider a used K-3.
18-55: Keep as a walk-round until you hit its limits.
DA 50 1.8: The affordable portrait lens.

[btnapa]

I strongly recommend that one

I cannot help you wth the lenses because I do not own any of them. However, I did own the K3 (K3II has the same sensor) and I did not like the high ISO quality. From what I have seen of the KP, if I had to get a APS-c Pentax body, that would be the camera I would choose.

[ddharriman]

Hello Chovest

I’m with UncleVanya here, but with a twist: consider not upgrading the camera yet but instead buy a Tamron 70-200 f72.8 for your low light and portrait necessities.

Best regards,

[TheOneAndOnlyJH]

I often push my K-3 to ISO 6400 or 12800 in order to keep my shutter speed down since I prefer noise/grain over a blurry image. I've found that high ISO on the K-3 is actually pretty decent. Sure, it could be better, but once upon a time I was happy with a 7MP pocket camera... This is worlds better, and you can do amazing things if you shoot raw and post process a little bit. Some people think the noise performance was a step down from the K-5 sensor, but it should be an improvement over any of the earlier models, and a big step up from your K-r. (The increased resolution really helps noise correction in post processing.)

If you like having built in flash, I'd suggest looking at used K-3's on eBay or the PentaxForums Marketplace. Both my K-3's I bought used and you can find a good one for $400-500 if you're patient.

For lenses, there are plenty that are a step up from your kit lenses. The Pentax 55-300's are very well liked, but if you're finding that the aperture range on the 50-200 limits you in low light you'll have the same issue with the 55-300. Depending on your budget, you could look at the Pentax 50-135 f/2.8 or Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 which will allow faster shutter speeds or lower ISO than the 55-300's (but with less zoom range). For a bit more you could look at Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 but those are full frame lenses, so they're quite large and expensive.

If you're looking for better low light or image quality than your 18-55 kit lens can do, I'd very much recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I love mine and it's my most used lens, only coming off my camera when I need more zoom range, weather resistance, or a prime lens in very low light. For a more general purpose lens, the DA 18-135 and DA 16-85 are great all around lenses with weather resistance. The 16-85 has better image quality, but is slightly larger and more expensive. The 18-135 is somewhat soft on the corners, but has a great range and should do better than your 18-55 kit lens.

Take a look at the Pentax Forums Lens Reviews section and you can read a lot about all the lenses available.

[WPRESTO]

I would second all of Adam's recommendations (not because I want to be in his good graces). The 16~85mm is a really fine zoom, and the 16mm rather than the more common 18mm at the wide end makes a very significant difference. I would also get the KP just for the tilting screen. MANY situations where that is very handy to have - almost indispensable once you're accustomed to using it.

[jddwoods]

The first lens is a newer model which has MUCH faster focusing. It's actually the fastest-focusing of any Pentax AF lens. I strongly recommend that one

In addition to the 55-300mm PLM, I would recommend the 16-85mm as your everyday lens (it's also weather sealed). This will cover most common focal lengths and deliver far better image quality than the 18-270mm, while the 55-300mm will be there for sports and when you need a little extra zoom.

Lots of background info here:

HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews
HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 PLM WR RE Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

By the way, another body option to consider would be the KP, if you want the flash. IMO its grip is a little less comfortable, but it has better image quality (less noise) and a more user-friendly menu system with extensive customization.

Pentax KP Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Specs comparison:

Pentax KP vs K-3 II: Do we have a new flagship? - Product Updates | PentaxForums.com

I second this recommendation, If you are getting a K-3 or any newer body definitely go for the PLM version of the 55-300. The autofocus is not only much faster but it is also extremely quiet. For all practical purposes it is inaudible. I also concur with the 16-85. I bought it to replace my DA 17-70 as a high quality walk around zoom. Compared to the older lens the 16-85 is built better, WR, sharper and much better autofocus. The only drawback is that it is a bit on the heavy side but that disadvantage is far outweighed (no pun intended) by its advantages.

[Sandy Hancock]

For sports, the 55-300PLM will be OK as long as you're happy to push the ISO hard. It certainly has good IQ and very fast AF - much faster than the older 55-300 and silent to boot. The PLM version is also more compact.

For cheap portraits, get an old film-era fast fifty, or the DA50/1.8

[chovest]

A big thank you for your feedback and suggestions! I have spent the last several hours reading and rereading suggested reviews and forum posts.

The DA 50 f 1.8 lens sounds like a must prior to my daughter's senior portrait shoot in the spring. The price is very budget friendly and I would love to finally have a prime lens!

It sounds as though either of the first two lenses, preferably the first, would also be a good purchase for sporting events. Are the optics of the first two a significant upgrade from my current kit lens? Or would I be better off using part of my lens budget to go with a better body and the rest toward a prime for portraits? Although my current lens isn't as fast at focusing, I have learned some workarounds that allow it to work well enough for my applications. I guess it's all relative.

I started looking into new bodies about a year ago, and apparently missed the release of the KP. It sounds as though it has many of the features I'm looking for; however, I have some concerns. The more I read, the more it sounds as though it is a step up from the K3II in some aspects, but also a step down in others. There seem to be rumors that an update to the K3II may be coming soon that may offer the best of both. I can't help but wonder if maybe I should hold tight and be patient for a possible new flagship? Or will it likely be above what I'm willing/able to spend? Maybe a new release would help the cost of the K3II to come down more? Based on the resolution alone, either the K3II or the KP would be a huge step up from my current K-r.

I guess to clarify a little, my current set up of the K-r and 50-200 4-5.6 lens allows me to get the action shots in low light the majority of the time. They are acceptable images, free of motion, they are just not as crisp as I'd like. My K-r has a decent ISO range, but there is very noticeable noise at the higher ranges. I realize my budget won't get me professional gear image quality, however, I'd like a happy medium and a little more WOW factor in my image quality. Besides the noise, they seem to be lacking in contrast and color saturation. If I were to only upgrade the body or the lens at this point, am I correct in my understanding that a body upgrade would have a far greater impact on the image quality than a lens upgrade?

I have also come to realize that I need to do a lot of reading and studying up on digital photography and post processing. Almost all of my photography knowledge has come from classes, courses and books back when I was shooting film. I do not have a good understanding of post processing possibilities of digital images. I am very behind the times in that regard. There are likely several adjustments I could make to get better images with my current set up even.

One last item to note. I completely forgot to mention that I do have two other lenses that I picked up for a great price with an old Pentax ME Super. They are an SMC Pentax-M 1:2 50mm and a Mitakon 80-200 4.5 automatic. I love that the old lenses film lenses fit the DSLRs, however I need to play around with them since my camera doesn't recognize the lens aperture and just flashes "f" at me.

[UncleVanya]

The M 50 will work great as a portrait lens for your daughters.
How to use/meter Manual & M42 Lenses on all Pentax DSLRs (K-1, K-3, K-5, K-30, etc) - PentaxForums.com

As for the loss of color/contrast that use of high iso strains things. Are you using post processing software or taking the jpg's right out of the camera? If you aren't using post processing - then you would do well to try shooting raw and using some image noise processing software. You may find you can stretch the use of the current lens and body if you are close already. The newer PLM lens will not work on the body you have, but the older DA 55-300 would. As for the body, yes the bodies do leapfrog and you can wait for the next generation but I'd buy anything that is an improvement over what you have that you can afford and not wait for new cameras that may take a long time to arrive. I currently shoot a K-3 and while the KP looks nice I'm going to hold out. I can do this because there is nothing lacking in my current setup for what I shoot regularly. If I were in your place the KP and the K3-II would be on the list. I love the ergonomics of my K-3 and might be swayed to the K-3II but the KP is likely the better choice for what you have described.

[chovest]

The M 50 will work great as a portrait lens for your daughters.
How to use/meter Manual & M42 Lenses on all Pentax DSLRs (K-1, K-3, K-5, K-30, etc) - PentaxForums.com

As for the loss of color/contrast that use of high iso strains things. Are you using post processing software or taking the jpg's right out of the camera? If you aren't using post processing - then you would do well to try shooting raw and using some image noise processing software. You may find you can stretch the use of the current lens and body if you are close already. The newer PLM lens will not work on the body you have, but the older DA 55-300 would. As for the body, yes the bodies do leapfrog and you can wait for the next generation but I'd buy anything that is an improvement over what you have that you can afford and not wait for new cameras that may take a long time to arrive. I currently shoot a K-3 and while the KP looks nice I'm going to hold out. I can do this because there is nothing lacking in my current setup for what I shoot regularly. If I were in your place the KP and the K3-II would be on the list. I love the ergonomics of my K-3 and might be swayed to the K-3II but the KP is likely the better choice for what you have described.

Thank you! I'm looking forward to giving this lens a try now. It's just been sitting around for a couple of years.

Being rather unfamiliar with the ins and outs of digital imaging, I have just been shooting with the default high resolution jpg setting and using basic, free editing software. I should set aside some of my budget for some good post processing software.

[UncleVanya]

Thank you! I'm looking forward to giving this lens a try now. It's just been sitting around for a couple of years.

Being rather unfamiliar with the ins and outs of digital imaging, I have just been shooting with the default high resolution jpg setting and using basic, free editing software. I should set aside some of my budget for some good post processing software.

There are some good cheap and free options but I'm not currently using them. What type of computer or tablet do you have?
Lots of people hate the subscription model but Adobe Creative Cloud is $10/month by the way. It includes Photoshop and Lightroom. DXO runs around $100 for the basic stuff, GIMP is free, PIXLR has a free version not sure if they have a cost for more features. There are a lot of choices best to start a thread just on that.

The point is you can dramatically improve low light options with your current gear by learning to post process raw files.
You can recover more from an underexposed file - letting the shutterspeed and iso fall into more acceptable ranges - using RAW than JPG.

---------- Post added 09-27-17 at 05:52 PM ----------

One word of warning about manual focus lenses. The focusing screens on modern DSLR's are not as critical as those in older film era bodies. They do not discriminate focused vs. unfocused as well. They compromise in this area to improve brightness. There are features that help. You can turn on "Catch in focus" on some bodies to help you slowly hunt for the focus and have the shutter automatically trip. You can also use LiveView on some cameras to help. You can swap focusing screens for one with a split circle area - This has some compromises including potential metering mismatches. In any case, I have used a similar lens and done so without too much issue. It is a matter of taste, visual acuity and persistence.

[twilhelm]

In my experience, the 55-300 has much better color / contrast than the 50-200. I have an original 55-300 that produces stunning images in good light, but it has rarely been used, most of the time I'd rather grab an old manual focus 200 f/2.8 for the added speed. Currently my go to lens is the Da 50-135, less of a zoom, but WR and amazing rendering. I won't leave out the autofocus is a bit slow and it would take some getting use to to use for sports. There are plenty of other lenses that others have mentioned so take your time to study them so you find the one that fits you best.

On processing photos, your best bet is to start by shooting in RAW. I've used all of the programs mentioned this far, but am finding I get the best results using rawtherapee, which is a free editor. I still use Lightroom for cataloging, but that is about all.

Good luck!