What to get for next lens?

[marketsons1985]

Hi All -

I'm a (highly) amateur photographer/teacher and currently have a Pentax K-X which I bought with the kit lens a couple months ago. I love the camera, and am now looking to expand my lens repertoire. I have:

-18-55mm kit lens
-70-300 mm macro zoom lens (only f3.5+)
-Manual non metering 50mm f1.4 lens

I don't particularly like the non-metering manual lens, but I question spending $250+ on a lens to replace something that I already can use, albeit a bit more cumbersome than it could be.

What I'm looking at is an 18-200mm lens from beachcamera, with a rebate looking to be under $250. I would take this and replace my kit lens (most likely) with a more versatile lens, and then continue building from there.

I don't have any specialties that I shoot, so I don't have particular needs, just looking to expand up and above what I've got.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Not knowing the Pentax lineup very well, my first suggestion would be a wider prime (20mm to 35mm range, f/2 or brighter); second suggestion would be a normal zoom (17-50ish range) with f/2.8 aperture.

The 18-200mm for under $250 could be a nice upgrade over your kit lens and telephoto zoom, but it's more for convenience than anything else -- I doubt it will be a step up in image quality from either. But the price is right, and for that reason I couldn't fault you for choosing it for your next lens.

Looking through the current Pentax lineup, it is pretty hard to make a good recommendation. Seems like all their wide-to-normal primes are not all that fast (f/2.8, f/3.5, f/4) and pretty expensive ($500+). I would look to the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for $430 before, say, the Pentax 40mm f/2.8 pancake for $500 (unless size/weight was my main concern).

 

[marketsons1985]

Not knowing the Pentax lineup very well, my first suggestion would be a wider prime (20mm to 35mm range, f/2 or brighter); second suggestion would be a normal zoom (17-50ish range) with f/2.8 aperture.

Hmm. If I were to get a faster normal range lens, should it replace my kit lens or work alongside it? I suppose I'd have to test it out and see how I like it, but I'm thinking as long as there's not much range lost, to ditch the kit lens.

So I'm down to deciding between:

Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 - $199 Link
Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 - $229 AR Link

I'm leaning toward the Sigma but not sure.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I started with the Canon 18-55 IS kit lens. I then bought a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS prime. Never have I looked back to the 18-55. I've only used it twice since at NBA games where they don't let you bring in "giant" lenses longer than 3.5"... meaning that the kit lens is the only lens that can go.

The 17-55mm beats the kit lens in every respect. If what you're getting to replace your kit lens can do that too, then you won't need the kit. I'm the kinda guy who buys but never sells, so that's why my kit lens still lies around. Otherwise I should sell it, but it probably wouldn't yield much $$ anyway.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

The Sigma that you linked still has a variable maximum aperture. To really get a bump up, you should go to something with constant maximum f/2.8 throughout the zoom range. Like these:

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for Pentax
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 for Pentax

From what I've read, I'd go with the Tamron over the Sigma. If you don't want to go much more than $200, I'd go with the Tamron 18-200 that you linked.

Also, just to clarify, a prime is fixed focal length (like 50mm, 28mm, 85mm, etc.) while a zoom is variable focal length (18-55, 70-300, 24-105, etc.).

 

[edro]

I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 for Canon.
It is not nearly as good as I expected. Maybe I have a bad version, but it's tough to get a low light handheld shot without it being slightly blurry.

I have no problem with my 50mm f1.8 Canon or my kit lens with IS.