Imminent K5 purchase, lens suggestions please :-)

[vincechu]

Hey everyone,

After months of thought, I've finally made the decision to buy a k5, but I'm stumped on what lenses to buy.

I currently want a 24mm (35mm equiv, or wider) lens and a relatively fast lens. I've got 2 ideas so far:

1. Currently thinking of the 15mm f4 limited and the 35 f2.8 limited and the kit 18-55mm for rainy days. Thought of the 15mm over the 14mm 2.8 as its smaller and half the weight, the 35mm for its great IQ.

2. On the other hand I'm thinking of K5 and the 16-50mm only, as an "all in one" set up, draw backs are size and weight but it would be cheaper than the set up above by about £200GBP.

I guess I'd prefer a set up as small and light as possible so I can carry it all day comfortably so I'm leaning towards the 1st set up - despite it being pricier.

I'd love to hear thoughts and suggestions on my ideas, especially if you've some hands on experience with the lenses mentioned in practice.

Thanks in advance

Vince

 

[redrockcoulee]

There is also the FA 31 1.9 Ltd to consider and a DA 21 but I think that is 3.2. And I think Sigma makes a 30 1.8.

We are going to be getting a K5 this summer. My wife has a K10D with the 16-45 4.0 lens and I have a 28 2.8M and 50 F 1.7. For this reason I too am interested in the responses.

 

[Terry]

Not hearing great things about the kit lens...perhaps consider the 18-135.
I'm in a quandary right now as I've committed to go on Safari and have the wrong gear so the K-5 is in the mix as one to consider for this trip.

 

[ptomsu]

Not hearing great things about the kit lens...perhaps consider the 18-135.
I'm in a quandary right now as I've committed to go on Safari and have the wrong gear so the K-5 is in the mix as one to consider for this trip.

I only can confirm - do not get the 18-55 kit lens. The 18-135 seems to be much better.

For Safari - hmmm - if I would go K5, then I would definitely choose the 2.8/50-135 and/or the 4/60-250. You will need a long tele, the longer the better. And this lens seems to be a great performer (if you manage to get a good one).

But you also could consider a D7000 and for a tele something in their 300 zoom range, there is a new one out, I forgot the exact zoom range, but you can find on their website. And I would definitely prefer and trust the Nikon AF compared to the K5 AF! As a standard zoom the 16-85 is really good, one of my friends is shooting this lens and it is perfect (again if a good copy).

 

[Terry]

Peter whichever I go for 7D/K-5/D7000 I will have the Sigma 150-500 along with me as well.

I've owned Nikon before and I'm not that keen of going back there.....The big heavy glass is good but I was always struggling when putting my kit together.

 

[ptomsu]

Peter whichever I go for 7D/K-5/D7000 I will have the Sigma 150-500 along with me as well.

I've owned Nikon before and I'm not that keen of going back there.....The big heavy glass is good but I was always struggling when putting my kit together.

Hard decision between Canon, Pentax and Nikon. I would for myself rule out Canon, as I never could get friend with their cameras, although I tried several times. Remaining Pentax and Nikon - having used the K5 myself and knowing very well how Nikon handles, especially their AF, and if your choice for a long tele is already the Bigma, then I would probably choose Nikon. Also due to the fact that Sigma rather supports Nikon with newer lenses in the future.

Having said that, why not choose any of the Alpha APSC cameras instead, as you already shoot A900 and have lot of glass which you could also use on the Alpha APSC?

 

[Terry]

Peter I don't want to hijack this thread but there are a number of factors at play.

1) when I bought my Phase gear I sold the A900 and lenses - plus a crop sensor will give me the reach.
2) I have the A55 but honestly don't think that is what I would want to rely on for the trip. I could get the A580 and I don't think the A700 replacement will be ready in time.
3) As I said on Nikon I wasn't happy with getting the right lenses other than the big zooms. I had the 16-85 briefly on the D300 nice but a lot of barrel distortion that needs to be corrected at the wide end. I also struggled a lot with Nikon color
4)The person I am sharing my vehicle with is a Canon shooter that will have a lot of good glass along that she is willing to share....she has 500mm (although she may sell that for the 800), 70-200, 100-400, 100 macro, teleconverters etc.
5)I am still not ruling out doing it with GH2's but I don't have a longer than 300mm solution for the moment. I need to try the focus on the GH2 with the Oly 50-200 with a 2x converter. That gives me 800mm at f7 but who knows how bad focusing will be.

I need 2 of whatever body I take.

 

[ptomsu]

Peter I don't want to hijack this thread but there are a number of factors at play.

1) when I bought my Phase gear I sold the A900 and lenses - plus a crop sensor will give me the reach.
2) I have the A55 but honestly don't think that is what I would want to rely on for the trip. I could get the A580 and I don't think the A700 replacement will be ready in time.
3) As I said on Nikon I wasn't happy with getting the right lenses other than the big zooms. I had the 16-85 briefly on the D300 nice but a lot of barrel distortion that needs to be corrected at the wide end. I also struggled a lot with Nikon color
4)The person I am sharing my vehicle with is a Canon shooter that will have a lot of good glass along that she is willing to share....she has 500mm (although she may sell that for the 800), 70-200, 100-400, 100 macro, teleconverters etc.
5)I am still not ruling out doing it with GH2's but I don't have a longer than 300mm solution for the moment. I need to try the focus on the GH2 with the Oly 50-200 with a 2x converter. That gives me 800mm at f7 but who knows how bad focusing will be.

I need 2 of whatever body I take.

Well, also do not want to get off topic here - just some final comment from me:

1) if you have the choice of also using other long Canon glass, then it is a no brainer IMHO to go for the 7D

2) For a Safari and need of long lenses I would not rely on the AF capabilities even of a GH2. Definitely a Nikon or Canon APSC solution is better. But trust me, I would not rely on the K5 for that. Just do not wast your tome in this AF either!

3) I find it interesting to hear that you have (had) similar thoughts about FF DSLR as I have. I am also close to sell all my Nikon FF gear, as I find it too heavy for daily usage and almost unusable for real wildlife photography, as an APSC solution would bring much benefits here compared to FF but for much less money and weight. If the GH2 can hold up to these expectations I still have to find out, as I do not have any experiences with the GH2 Af in combination with longer teles - the 100-300 would be a fix starter here. I will find that out.

Maybe I should motivate you to go for a GH2 and 100-300 and do the testing for me

 

[ecsh]

I have a A900 setup and glass as well. Got the K5 as i wanted something small, and was especially interested in Pentax's prime lens. I started with the 15, which i sent back right away. Way too soft. The reviews on the Pentax forum tell how great this lens is, which is why i got it. Not so it turns out. The 31, 77, and 100WR so far are stellar len's. Not sure i want to go with a zoom since that was not the intended purpose of the camera, so will stay put with what i have at the moment, and see how that does.
Joe

 

[scho]

I am very happy with the K5 using 3 primes (21, 35, 70) and the 18-135 WR zoom. Fortunately, all of my lenses appear to be good copies and excellent performers. I'll wait another month or so to get a better feel for the Pentax kit, but right now I'm pretty sure that that my Canon kit (5D2 + L glass) has met it's match and will be up for sale.

 

[vincechu]

Hey everyone thanks for the great replies, leaning towards the 35mm ltd and 18-135 atm, but not ruling out the 15mm ltd, I'm just not sure how often I'll use the 15mm and if I can justify buying it, though i do love lenses around 24mm.

Has anyone had any experience with the 16-50mm? It still tempts me as a great all rounder, though the size and weight puts me off.

Redrockcoulee - thanks for the suggestions. the 31mm ltd is certainly a lense I'd like to have one day but unforutunately its out of my price rance, it costs nearly 3x the 35macro ltd. The sigma is a very good lense too, the only thing is trying to get a good copy and I don't want to end up having to return one, which is why i havent considered it.

Terry and Peter - I agree about the kit lens, the 18-135 sounds much better and covers a better range as a walk about lens.

Don't worry about hijacking the thread - I'm always interested in other set ups for different situations, I'd say that canon dslr's arent as good on paper compared to the newer k5 and d7000, but they do have some good glass and if your friend is willing to share with you on the safari then it could be worth renting one?

Funnily enough I had a d7000 for a week, it's an excellant camera, better than the k5 in a few areas, like 39point af. I'm looking at the K5 because it does what's important to me better, lowlight photography because of inbody IS, and pentax has a wider range of APS-C lenses at more affordable prices, also the ergonomics and size of the k5 won me over.

Ecsh - the reviews on pentax forum are selling the 15mm to me too, although I've also heard that some people find it soft, perhaps it's sample variation? The photozone.de review shows its extremely sharp in the centre but border and extreme corners are always much softer - perhaps its a trade off due to its small size? The 31, 77 and 100wr are certainly stellar lenses, and I hope to get them one day but unfortunately I dont have the funds, especially as I'm buying the k5 too :'( good thing is the 100wr isn't too pricey in the uk.

Scho - 2 primes (15mm and 35mm ltds) and the 18-135mm zoom seem like the kit I'll be aiming for. Pentax primes to me are a major attraction to the pentax system - love the colour and rendering

 

[clay stewart]

Pentax has some nice primes, but I found myself sort of stumped on what to get too, as I like a 50 and 28 mm equivalent lenses.

The thing is, I like a fast 50 ish and I also wanted a pancake to take advantage of the small body. Anyway, the 31 1.8 was fast enough, but too big, the 35 macro was really too big and too slow the 35 2.4 was cheap and plastic and still not a pancake and the 40 2.8 was a bit long and slow. I ended up with the 21 3.2 which wasn't bad, but nothing great and a little slow. I also got the 43 1.9, which was fast enough and small enough, but too long for a normal and I really found it too short for head shots.

So what do I recomend? I recomend not wanting a fast small normal lens and the rest is pretty easy.

 

[Paratom]

Pentax has some nice primes, but I found myself sort of stumped on what to get too, as I like a 50 and 28 mm equivalent lenses.

The thing is, I like a fast 50 ish and I also wanted a pancake to take advantage of the small body. Anyway, the 31 1.8 was fast enough, but too big, the 35 macro was really too big and too slow the 35 2.4 was cheap and plastic and still not a pancake and the 40 2.8 was a bit long and slow. I ended up with the 21 3.2 which wasn't bad, but nothing great and a little slow. I also got the 43 1.9, which was fast enough and small enough, but too long for a normal and I really found it too short for head shots.

So what do I recomend? I recomend not wanting a fast small normal lens and the rest is pretty easy.

SO why is the 31 not the solution for you?

 

[Paratom]

Hey everyone thanks for the great replies, leaning towards the 35mm ltd and 18-135 atm, but not ruling out the 15mm ltd, I'm just not sure how often I'll use the 15mm and if I can justify buying it, though i do love lenses around 24mm.

Has anyone had any experience with the 16-50mm? It still tempts me as a great all rounder, though the size and weight puts me off.

Redrockcoulee - thanks for the suggestions. the 31mm ltd is certainly a lense I'd like to have one day but unforutunately its out of my price rance, it costs nearly 3x the 35macro ltd. The sigma is a very good lense too, the only thing is trying to get a good copy and I don't want to end up having to return one, which is why i havent considered it.

Terry and Peter - I agree about the kit lens, the 18-135 sounds much better and covers a better range as a walk about lens.

Don't worry about hijacking the thread - I'm always interested in other set ups for different situations, I'd say that canon dslr's arent as good on paper compared to the newer k5 and d7000, but they do have some good glass and if your friend is willing to share with you on the safari then it could be worth renting one?

Funnily enough I had a d7000 for a week, it's an excellant camera, better than the k5 in a few areas, like 39point af. I'm looking at the K5 because it does what's important to me better, lowlight photography because of inbody IS, and pentax has a wider range of APS-C lenses at more affordable prices, also the ergonomics and size of the k5 won me over.

Ecsh - the reviews on pentax forum are selling the 15mm to me too, although I've also heard that some people find it soft, perhaps it's sample variation? The photozone.de review shows its extremely sharp in the centre but border and extreme corners are always much softer - perhaps its a trade off due to its small size? The 31, 77 and 100wr are certainly stellar lenses, and I hope to get them one day but unfortunately I dont have the funds, especially as I'm buying the k5 too :'( good thing is the 100wr isn't too pricey in the uk.

Scho - 2 primes (15mm and 35mm ltds) and the 18-135mm zoom seem like the kit I'll be aiming for. Pentax primes to me are a major attraction to the pentax system - love the colour and rendering

I also have the 15 - the corners are not good as long as you dont stop down the rest seems fine but I have not used it that much yet.

The 16-50 I trie was not so great at f2.8, but very good at f4 and closed down. So I returned it.

I also have the 21,35 and 70.
The 21 is a nice focal length even though f3.2 is not that fast.
The most consistent lens for me is the 35 Macro. The 21 I have also used quite a bit. My 70 I need to fine adjust focus.
I find 21 and 35 or 21 and 70 a very compact lens set.

 

[Godfrey]

After four years and 36,000+ photos made with Pentax DSLR cameras, the two absolutely essential lenses in my bag ended up being the DA 21mm f/3.2 Limited and FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited.

Were I to buy another Pentax body, those are the two lenses I'd order with it. I might never buy any others... although the FA77 and DA14 remain high on my list of wonderful.

Pentax *ist DS + DA 14mm f/2.8
​

 

[vincechu]

t streng and Godfrey - you both seemed to be big fans of the limited series of lenses so I just googled and this came up: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/74194-da-limited-club.html

I have a major lust for the ltds now! on that note I think I might scrap plans for a zoom for now and rethink my set up. my thoughts on the lenses are:

15mm - love the WA and size, pity its f4 though and not sure how often I'd use the 22.5mm equiv

21mm - seems a better focal length for my uses than the 15mm, faster and nearly half the size and weight too

35mm macro - seems very versatile and love the macro aspect, IQ seems brilliant too - seems perfect for my uses

40mm - makes me reconsider wanting the 35mm because its cheaper, smaller, lighter and has better sharpness in the corners too, only down side 60mm equiv seems weird, too long and too wide though I should be able to get used to it...

70mm - I'm not really into potraiture and dont really shoot at this focal length at all, though I really love the bokeh and colour from this lens. main selling point to me is the weight! about 150g (off the top of my head).

And i've not even thought abt/mentioned the FA limiteds yet (too pricey for me :deadhorse

So now I'm thinking one of 15mm or 21mm and one of 35mm and 40mm.

a) the 15mm and 35mm macro - head says this is best for my needs

b) 21mm and 40mm - head says this combo because its cheaper and I'm unlikely to use the 15mm (22.5mm) equiv always.

c) 21mm and 35mm macro - although I lose abit of width and length i get nearly a 35mm and 50mm equiv both pretty useful to me.

Possibly adding the 70mm later, after a WR zoom.

What does my heart say? BUY THEM ALL

What's everyones thoughts? my budget is around £800 for the lenses - I can get the 15mm for £450, 35mm for £375, 40mm for £335 and the 21mm for £440

I should probably add I shoot or am interested in shooting street photography, candids and the odd building and land/cityscape. Also a major bokeh addict.

I'll have to place my order for the k5 before the 15th (the £120 cashback offer in uk expires after the 15th).

 

[mediumcool]

Hey everyone,
1. Currently thinking of the 15mm f4 limited and the 35 f2.8 limited and the kit 18-55mm for rainy days. Thought of the 15mm over the 14mm 2.8 as its smaller and half the weight, the 35mm for its great IQ.

15mm f4 gets mixed/disappointing reviews, but is tiny and fairly sharp when stopped down. 35mm is sharp and gets great reviews. And the kit lens is, well, a kit lens.

I am quite happy with my 16–45 f4 and ecstatic about my 12–24; it’s that good even wide open in available light.

2. On the other hand I'm thinking of K5 and the 16-50mm only, as an "all in one" set up, draw backs are size and weight but it would be cheaper than the set up above by about £200GBP.

Given that you are getting a camera with excellent high ISO performance, f4 is not so bad for a maximum aperture. Have not used the 16–50.

My current kit includes Pentax 12–24 and Pentax 16–45 as mentioned, 28–70 f2.8 Sigma (big and heavy), 50mm Pentax f1.4 and Cosina 100mm macro. All these lenses apart from the Sigma are light so not too bad to carry around.

BTW, saw a review of the 21mm f3.2 on Pentaxforum and thought the bokeh was rubbish ...

0.02

 

[vincechu]

Mediumcool - thanks for the input, I was just about to add that I wanted bigger apertures as I shoot a lot of lowlight, then u made me remember the k5's high iso capabilities - I keep forgeting as I used to have a microfour thirds camera. With the k5's high iso capability in mind the 16-45mm does make more sense than the 16-50mm, I heard the 16-45mm has better corner sharpness than the 16-50mm and is about 1/3rd the price!

Just saw the review you mentioned, agree the bokeh is bad - looks too distracting. Bokeh is an aspect of my photos I want to look great so I'm reconsidering this lens, though the size, weight and 35mm equiv length makes it very tempting

 

[nostatic]

I had a number of lenses when I was shooting with a K20d. My personal experience/observations:

77/1.8 ltd - hands down my favorite lens. Magical.
43/1.9 ltd - perfect size, very nice, great all around lens
31/1.8 ltd - excellent lens, but I liked the 77 a little better
35/2.8 ltd - great all around and good if you're on a budget
16-45 - actually a great lens - best bang for the buck you'll get
15-50/2.8 - had two different copies, one bad, the other good, but frankly disappointing
50-135/2.8 - excellent lens, probably my second favorite

I briefly had some others (21, 10-17, 50-300) and tried the 40 and 70. I preferred the 43 over the 40 and the 77 over the 70, but ymmv. 21 never thrilled me.

 

[clay stewart]

SO why is the 31 not the solution for you?

Well, it's nearly three inches long. Other than that, it looked like a really nice lens, just not coat pocketable, like the pancakes are. Chances are, if it won't fit in my coat pocket, while mounted to a body, then it stays at home, if it stays at home, then it doesn't get used much and if it doesn't get used much, what's the point in having it?