Final advice before the purchase day.

Good Evening

I am currently just waiting for this months payday before pulling the trigger on a new purchase.

Currently the shopping list is

k5-II with 18-135mm, Pentax 55-300mm, Pentax 35mm with a cost of £1488

However an alternative that I am currently weighing up:

k5-II, Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro HSM, Pentax 35mm with a cost of £1258 (saving of £230)

I have spent literally hours and read many reviews which seem to be either "love it" or "hate it" and from the images that I have seen both here and on other Pentax forums of the Pentax lenses say the image quality is excellent. I have probably got myself to the point of 'do I' or 'don't I' between the two. I am happy and can afford the more expensive option if that is the better option.

I am hoping that some of you very knowledgeable ladies and gents have these combinations or experience of and can help with some real world advice.

I am a amateur who enjoys photography and have just joined a local camera club and to be fair was looked at strangely when I mentioned buying Pentax. My area of interest is landscape (mountains & countryside) and also shipping both in harbours and at sea. Yes it will probably get to the point where I enter a few competitions if and when I can.

I would think certainly on the shipping that I will be zooming a lot and then cropping images when and where required.

Consideration has been given to the K5-IIs and whilst I think the the chances of moire in the types of photography are slim I am not sure it is worth the extra £150. Likewise I have considered the Nikon 7000 but discounted it as I love the Pentax theme of in-camera shake reduction so that it applies to the Prime lens also. Also with shipping the chances of low light are very high.

So any help, thoughts, advice are gratefully received.

Paul

Stick with the Pentax lenses, they all work the same way, they are compact, the WR on the 18-135 is useful, the colour balance is consistent. And the quality is excellent.

Also, if at some point you decide to do some swapping about, the second hand value holds better.

I'd advocate spreading your purchases rather than jumping in both feet. The 18-135 is a good all-rounder and WR as John said, I'd be tempted to start with this and see what you feel you need once you've taken a few shots. For example for landscape you might find you want something wider. Also be prepared to look at second hand glass, the enthusiasts on here, in my experience, tend to be careful with their kit and if it comes available second hand at a good price it might be a way of improving your range.
Good luck!

Chris

If you intend carrying the 18-135mm and 55mm together most of the time then I would think hard about a DA 17-70mm or 16-45mm rather than the 18-135mm as they are better lenses and constant aperture. If you are looking for a one lens solution then the 18-135mm (or a DA 18-250mm would do nicely.

As to your question though ... I only buy Sigma when I can't find what I want from Pentax.

I read you're opening post and immediately thought about the DA17-70 rather than the 18-135, then read Mikes and noticed he'd already said the same...personally speaking I think the WR aspect is a little oversold,it's nice to have but I certainly wouldn't put it near the top of my list for deciding which lens to buy. I photograph in one of the wettest places in the UK and have never had a problem with non-wr lenses


The DA17-70 is a really good lens for landscapes, I take 85% of mine with it despite owning the DA21mm (and previously the DA15mm), which seems to keep getting left in the bag. I agree with John about Pentax lenses too, they do produce better colour/contrast than alternatives from most other manufacturers.

Simon

For me an 18-250 is too much in a single lens, I haven't tried the 18-135, but that too feels like too wide a zoom range (28-200 in real money). Personally, I have the DA 17-70 and it really covers most 'standard zoom' situations. The 17-70 is constant f/4 which may mean you don't need to buy the 35 right now.

P.S. Shake reduction works with every Pentax fit lens ever made (even screw mount ones).

I have both the 17-70 and the 18-135, and have owned the Sigma 18-250 (old model with built in OS).
I sold that. I was disappointed with it, and couldn't get on with it (sorry Aliengrove!).

Of the other two the 17-70 practically lives on the camera. The 18-135 is useful when I want a bit more range, and/or a bit less weight. Plus a bit less IQ .

If you can afford the Pentax 17-70 go for it. You won't regret it.

Option 1 for me too.. I feel the 18 - 250 far too large a lens for your walk about option.

I agree, the 17-70 is an ideal zoom range, it's faster at f/4 and the SDM focusing really makes a difference (making it far more pleasant to use for me). Mine too is almost always on the camera.

If you do go for the 55-300, I have the posh one for sale as I hardly ever venture out to 300 land

I find my 18-135 spends a lot of time on my camera.

I have the 16-45 and it is a 'better' lens for image quality but the extra reach of the 18-135 saves me carrying another lens when I'm walking up in the mountains. Also I am happy to get the camera out in weather that I might think twice about if it was not WR. Light, silent and reasonably compact.

Mind you I haven't tried the 17-70 and looking at the last 9 pictures in my gallery only two did i use the 70 to 135 range.

Having read mountainwalker's first post which mentions using the gear at sea, the 18-135 WR does suggest this may be an important factor on reflection. It would give me a bit more confidence when out on the water.

I can see very little in your first post that suggests the need for a 300mm end. Mountains & Countryside and Harbours and Ships - the only possible need might be for ships well out to sea but do they really give great pictures?

I would suggest start with just the 18-135WR. Or what about a 16-50 DA* along with a 50-200 for the odd occasion when the zoom is needed?

One thing missing from your list is Lens Protector filters - yes the lenses are water resistant, but salt water splashes on the front element need to be avoided and with a protector you can remove it and wash it is clean water to remove any salt crystals.


edit to add:
Over the years I have used various cameras at sea in various areas from freezing cold Arctic storms and waves breaking over the ship and water everywhere, though calm in the Caribbean and the filters have proved invaluable.

I was going to recommend you get the posh one that has quickshift...
and there it is

I would tend to agree with most of the comments on this thread in that the 17-70 would be a better bet for you. Team this up with a 55-300 and I don't think you'll initially need anything more. If you want a prime lens for the odd landscape shot or two you can buy an old M 28mm F3.5 for around £40 or £50 and this would be excellent, however I don't think that you would use it very much if you had a DA 17-70.

As Simonkit says, most of his wonderful landscapes are shot with this lens, as are those from Puma. I don't think anyone can dispute the quality that these two photographers produce with this lens.

I've also just bought one and can confirm it is excellent; better than the 16-45 and that was a lens that I loved. The 55-300 is also a corker.

Regards
David