Buying a K-5

<p>Hi everyone, I'm seriously considering buying a K-5 very soon, before my summer vacations kick off, to replace my K-7 (though I will probably keep the latter as a backup, as I don't have a backup and I got it for a good price). Should I spend the extra $150 and get it with the 18-55mm WR lens? I've got a bevy of Pentax lenses already -- more than I need probably, though I think most of you understand that ;-) -- but I've got nothing to compliment the waterproof nature of this outfit and I am often outdoors and in inclement weather. Not interested in springing for a 16-50, so this is really my only option. Thoughts? I follow the POW posting religiously and by my recollection there are few postings made with this lens. I know it's not a stunner, but will I be that freaked out with it compared to, say, my DA 15 mm, DA 21 mm, and FA 35 mm lenses?</p>

<p>If you shoot in poor weather, and the budget allows adding the extra cost, then get it. It's a good and cheap way to make sure the kit is sealed. Sure the other glass you have is better but this is a good lens and in bad weather, it's better to have this than nothing.</p>

<p>Well, what Peter said. <br />It's been so long since I've used the 18-55 (we kind of handed it down to my dad-in-law) I can't remember what it looks like compared to the primes I use. (Of what you listed, we have the FA 35)<br />BUT if the weather is a concern for you, go ahead and get it and keep reminding yourself "weather sealed!" "weather sealed!" :)</p>

<p>Will you be freaked out? Depends on how picky you are going to be about distortion at the widest settings, vignetting, edge performance, etc. but for me the kit lens is handy and plenty good for many uses. I have the 21mm Limited and FA35mm as well. I like the little kit lens for general shooting at events where I need extra lightweight compactness and the versatility of a short zoom. However, if you can do it, the very versatile 18-135mm WR is quite a nice lens and still pretty compact. Extreme corners are not wonderful at the longest settings, but center is still good. Build quality is truly exceptional, and it can hold f/4.5 through 70mm, where its performance is quite good all around. Its internal motorized AF is very quiet and seems to be faster and maybe more accurate than the smaller kit lens. I have been using this lens a lot lately. </p>

<p>Jean... you'll love the K-5. I know I do. I've used the 18-55, rarely. I'd probably opt for the 18-135mm WR if in budget because you'll want the extra length it will give you. That being said, I foolishly take my K-5 out into weather with whatever lens I have on it at the moment. I also live in sunny southern california. Wink!</p>

<p>Jean - I have the K-5 (since April) and have the 18-55 non-WR from my purchase of the K10D 4 or 5 years ago along with the 50-200 kit lens. The 18-55 is light lens with the balance on the K-5 being on the camera's side. Yes, there's barrel distortion on the 18-21mm end but it's not huge and I kind of like it for the effect. Sometimes there's vignetting but I haven't noticed it to be annoying. Along with the 55-300 that I now have, they pretty much cover the everyday range that I need. Not having any Pentax primes except for my old manual 50mm f/2 I couldn't compare the performance.<br>

The 18-55 does not have a DoF guide on the lens.<br>

Can you get to a dealer that would let you take a look?</p>

 

<p>Thanks for all of the input.<br /> @Michael and Jemal: I did some Internet sleuthing on the 18-135mm at your suggestion. My experiences with lenses pretty much agree with what I read at photozone, and boy did he pan that lens! But then again most folks who bought it from B&H loved it. This is where I sometimes hate having all this information. Mostly though I don't really want to spring that much more for camera gear, as I already have plenty and probably don't even need the K-5. My primary motivation for buying it is the great high ISO performance. I've had some high ISO shots recently with my K-7 that have been difficult to clean up in post processing. Got some money to spend on toys and just thought this would be a good place to spend it. Also relocating soon to the UK, where I anticipate a lot more high ISO shooting and also weather, hence the further motivation to get a WR lens.<br /> @Howard: the last time I stepped into a camera store was a few weeks ago, in the UK, when I was stunned to see Pentax gear in a display window! What a treat that was. No Pentax gear in my area I'm afraid.</p>

<p>When I bought my K-5 I got the body only. I already have an 18-55 that came with my K-x although it's not sealed. It doesn't get much use. I bet it hasn't been mounted on a camera in over a year. Having said that I would like a sealed option and have been trying to save a little money for the 18-135 which I think would be more useful. But that plan has left me without a WR lens at all. So far it hasn't been a problem and I have shot in rain and snow a bit.<br>

The 18-55 isn't a bad lens but I have a few lenses now that are just really nice so it's hard to go back to so-so from really nice. (da15, da40, and Tamron 28-75 2.8 are the really nice ones I'm referring to)</p>

<p>Upon re-examining the photozone report before purchasing the 18-135mm, I found myself reading between the lines, so to speak, as I sifted the info they presented while ignoring their conclusions. The test results themselves were of interest, although not telling the whole story.</p>

<p>First of all, it is only a very recent practice for photozone to include extreme edge or corners in the tele range. Therefore, we don't know how well previously highly-rated lenses would do if put through the more rigorous scrutiny exercised upon the Pentax 18-135mm. If ignoring the extreme corners in the tele range, upon which this lens was mainly criticised by photozone, and putting it on an even playing field with other previously tested lenses, it does pretty well.</p>

<p>Especially as an 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 lens. Even well beyond that, it still offers quite good performance, especially centrally in the frame. At least in my case, for the uses in which I employ such a zoom lens, the central area becomes more the issue and the corners less as I zoom into the greater telephoto part of its range. So this tested shortcoming has not been at all noticeable for me. From 18-55mm I would take it any time over the kit zoom, for its quiet, efficient AF, superior build, and great handling, as well as somewhat sharper optical performance, good though the kit zoom is for its class. Maybe I got a very good copy of the 18-135mm, but I use the kit zoom now only when its extra-small, lightweight aspects are needed- that is, the smallest possible zoom. And it is not often I do use the kit zoom these days, since the 18-135mm is still remakably compact for what it is. <br>

Of course, the 21mm Limited is by far the most compact, and with very fine image quality, but then it is not a zoom.</p>

<p>BTW- I don't have experience with a K-7, but Justin Serpico, having had both, has done extensive comparisons. He has said that his having made the upgrade from K-7 to the K-5 has been totally justified in the results he's been getting, and his posted images lately that I have seen, even over his previous excellent work, have been amazing. He also wrote a review of the K-5 here at PNET. </p>

<p>The reason I did not buy a K-7, but got a new left over K20D instead, was that I could not find enough imaging improvement over the K20D to justify the price difference for the K-7. And the noise characteristics at higher ISO, according to test results and image comparisons, were not quite as good as the K20D, or K200D! The K-5 is indeed quite a different matter, and I have been very pleased with my K-5. </p>

<p>I have a lot of gear too. If you want to spend a lot of $$ for times when you are really picky, the short kit zoom and a Pentax 50-135mm f/2.8 would do the trick pretty well for a quality WR outfit in a 2-lens configuration. But the 18-135mm is truly the most versatile, quality WR zoom out there. If you face situations where you'll need to go from wide to long in a hurry, people events with group shots then portraits, candids, etc. etc. or any scenic situation where you want to go from a wide shot to framing out a part of the scene, you'll be amazed at its usefulness. As a very different kind of tool to your quality primes, it would fit in well. </p>