Hi from Switzerland

Hi Everyone,

I'm originally from Sherborne, Dorset, but I'm currently living in Switzerland.

I started out with a ME super, but I've been shooting with a K10D and 18-250mm for a few years now. I've had some great pictures from them, but too be honest I wasn't sure I was going to stick with Pentax for my next camera, so I was really pleased when the k5ii came out - I think it's just what I want and hope to get one soon. Now I'm sure I'll be staying with K mount a while I'm going to invest in a few more lenses. I mostly shoot landscapes and travel pics, but plenty of other things as well.

I've bought a 12-24mm to give me more wide angle. I love my 18-250mm as a compact travel lens, but I'm thinking of ways that I could upgrade from this - any thoughts appreciated.

Thanks,
Matt

Welcome Matt.

The 18-250mm is actually a pretty good lens, and highly sought after. You could wait a short while and go for the new 18-270mm which is based on the excellent Tamron design. It would extend the range slightly, and the original tests on the Tamron version suggested it was also a better performer.

With a more limited range, the 18-135mm is proving itself to be excellent for general use, fast focusing and also weather resistant.

It seems to me that for travel photography you would be well equipped with the 12-24mm and 18-270mm. You could add the 35mm f/2.4 or 50mm f/1.8 for low light situations.

Hello and welcome

There's a very good camera shop in Basel, not sure if they sell Pentax or not...

I'd disagree with John, I'd get 17-70 & 55-300 or if finances permit 16-50 & 60-250. To me, replacing the 18-250 by an 18-270 is pointless, we all know that the lenses aren't truly 18-250 or 18-270 so the difference at the tele end may be less or more than 20mm. If you get yourself such a magnificent camera - it deserves the best lenses, DA*. GO on, you know you want to

And welcome!

Thanks all, some good input there.

When I first saw the K5ii was announced with the 18-270 I thought it was the ideal combination for me; compact, robust and versatile. But when I began to think about it, the price of the 18-270 bothered me a bit - it is almost twice what my 18-250 cost. It would be nice if it was WR for the price. I'm hoping for some reviews soon, to see how much better it is than the 18-250. I tend to shoot at the extremes either wide or tele, so extra reach would be useful but I could probably do with more than 270mm anyway.

I did sort of consider replacing the 18-250 with the DA*16-50 and 60-250. In many ways I would love to (wouldn't we all), and I think for "every day" shooting it would be great. But it makes a pretty heavy (and pricey) combination. Ordinarily I wouldn't have a problem carrying these around, but I'm planning a trip to Vietnam at xmas and I will try and travel light, so I would probably take a 18-250 / 18-270 in preference to a 16-50 and 60-250 pair...

I guess I'm just looking for an upgrade for "every day" use (not that I get to take photos every day). How does the 17-70 compare with the 18-135?

I have been thinking about investigating the limiteds. I quite like the idea of stuffing a couple of little lenses in my coat pocket when I go out walking at weekends. Which would just leave the tele.. where a DA* 300 would be very nice for wildlife and aeroplanes.

In practical use the two lenses will both be great. There may well be different characteristics, for example the 18-135mm goes for crisp, wiry detail rather than the highest resolution. So high MTF20 results and lowewr MTF50 results. The end result is a very fine lens that suits many of us.

The 17-70mm I haven't tried, but I'm sure it's very satisfactory.

If you're going into potentially damp environments then the WR level of the 18-135mm might be good. The 17-70mm is reputed to be weather resistant but Pentax make no claims in that area.

Hello and Welcome to the forum!

I carried a K20D & 16-50 and a K-5 &60-250 while I was in SA...neither heavy

Hi Matt, and welcome!

I understood you just bought a DA* 300 (and I was under the impression you recently also bought a 60-250 on this forum?)

In case you have done, both great lenses, congratulations!

Regarding the rest, I have not tried the 17-70, but I am a great fan of the 18-135 as a travel lens, especially if you are considering to invest in some limiteds to go with it.

Hi Giorgio,

I didn't get the 60-250 but yes I have just bought a DA 300 which I'm really looking forward to trying out.

For now I think that I will supplement the 18-250 with some primes. The 18-250 is actually very good below 100mm and I don't know whether the 17-70 or 18-135 would be much of an improvement. It would be interesting to see some comparisons.

Hi Guys,

Just to let you know what I ended up doing to upgrade from my 18-250mm (although maybe this should be a topic in the lens section!). I wanted to upgrade for everyday use but also for my trip to Vietnam and Cambodia over Christmas.

I figured there were a few options (I'm ignoring the 18-270 as it wasn't quite available when I was looking before xmas):

1. Pair of consumer zooms. E.g. 17-70 & 55-300
2. Pair of prosumer zooms. E.g. 16-50 & 60-250
3. Or a bunch of primes.

I realised in terms of convenience and weight there isn't really any upgrade from a super zoom, so any upgrade really should be based on IQ or faster aperture.

I bought a couple of Limited primes which I really got into and like for hiking in the local area, but I for my upcoming trip to Vietnam I wanted the versatility of a zoom - I find I really have to work fast for travel photos.

My current 18-250 is not bad and I felt replacing it with a couple of consumer zooms would not be enough of an improvement to make up for the need to change lenses.

As had been suggested by ilovesaabs a pair of DA* 16-50 and 60-250 would be nice and cover the focal range, but it was a bit more bulk than I wanted. So in the end of settled on getting:

DA* 16-50
DA* 50-135
DA 40 Ltd

I probably would have got the Tamron 17-50 over the 16-50 if it hadn't been for the Pentax stuff being on sale during the thanksgiving holidays.

I got the 50-135 over the 60-250 as I think it is a real sweet spot in terms of size and performance: a f2.8 200mm equivalent lens in a relatively compact package. Together the 16-50 and 50-135 are similar in bulk to the FA 28-80 and FA 70-200 I used to carry around with my old Z-1. Sure it doesn't have the range, but I didn't anticipate too much in the way of wildlife shots and I always find when you are at 250 it is never enough anyway

I got the 40mm for street photography and for those times where you don't want the bulk or to look like you are carrying an expensive camera.

Overall I'm really pleased with my choice. I had a great trip and got some nice pictures.

I think it was worth carrying the 3 lenses over the 18-250. The IQ is good and the faster apertures got me some shots that wouldn't have been possible with the 18-250. Occasionally it was a pain changing lenses, but thats the trade off. I was surprised that I didn't really miss the longer focal lengths from 135 to 250 at all.

The 50-135 is a fantastic lens. As other people have found the 16-50 is a bit weaker particularly wide open, but still really sharp in the centre and lovely contrast, overall I like it. The 40mm was really useful and I used it a lot more than I expected.

For anyone interested a few pics from my trip here: Vietnam & Cambodia

Matt