Replacing the Pentax K20D kit lens

[dan_zalesnik]

<p>I have a Pentax K20D. I would like to replace the kit lens (DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6). I would like to get a better lens. I can spend up to $500. Any suggestions?</p>

[hagar]

<p>Dan, before anybody can really answer your question, it might be helpful to mention what you are planning on taking pictures of.</p>

[henkc]

<p>For roughly the same zoom range the 16-45 f4 is a good option. I quite like the M 28mm f3.5 as a standard prime.</p>

[lee_w2]

<p>As Haig said, requirements drive solutions, but having just sold my unused kit lens as well as my da18-250mm to buy the new da18-135 WR, I am pleased as punch with it. I tested it against my da18-55 II WR, da16-45 and da55-300. It beats the the da18-55 badly but is not quite as good at 18mm (more PF than I would hope for) as the da16-45, nor as sharp at 135mm as the da55-300. However, its range, WR and IQ are all good enough that it stays on one of my two cams most of the time. The biggest surprise it gave me was how good it is wide-open (F5.6) at 135mm. Very little improvement by stopping down which for an already slow lens is great news. When i say its not as sharp as the da55-300 at 135mm does not mean its not acceptably sharp. For people and most objects (I just shot a college basketball game with it today and was happy) its fine. For fine feather detail on close-ups of song birds, it is not good enough for me, but thats what the da*300 is for.<br>

So if your requirements are for a general purpose/walk-around lens....I highly recommend it to squeeze into your budget. If your interest is mainly just wide, as Henk said, the da16-45/4 is tops for the cost. You will have enough left over from a used one to pick up more toys. Although the da16-45 requires distortion correction at 16mm, I shoot panoramics using it at 20mm and no correction used. Enjoy the shopping.</p>

[michellemandat]

<p>The Sigma 17-70 is a good choice for slightly more quality and more possibilities at 17 and 70mm. But 18-55 is not so bad.<br>

link to 17-70 photo gallery of Laos (2010):<br>

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/michel.lemandat/LAOS2010">http://picasaweb.google.com/michel.lemandat/LAOS2010</a>#</p>

[michellemandat]

<p>One sample<img src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_7uMELwmavxY/S50lI2UWsII/AAAAAAAAA0c/ucKIOGajXes/SG108307.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="536" /></p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>I'm assuming you want something that is similar in coverage though optically better than the kit lens? For $500, though I haven't used it, the 18-135mm seems like a hell of a lens in terms of coverage to quality ratio. Plus it is sealed.</p>

<p>I'm not a big fan of super zooms but the 18-135 seems like a reasonable zoom lens that should be able to lock quality into both ends. Usually the wide end is a little weak in these lenses, but the 18-135 seems better than average. This is one of the rare slower variable aperture zooms that is on my short list!</p>

<p>Without more info it would really be hard to say otherwise.</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Going like for like (in focal range, that is), the Sigma 18-50mm F/2.8 is a consideration. I bought this with my K20D and it serves a good majority of the shooting I do, great lens. But like others are saying, that new Pentax 18-135mm sure sounds compelling. And I just bought the Pentax 55-300mm earlier this year, too. Ah, it's only money, right?</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Any of the lenses mentioned here, plus the DA 17-70/4, Tamron 17-50/2.8, or either of the Sigma 17-70 versions are good upgrade choices. All offer a little more range and/or speed, a little more optical quality. All cost more, and all are bulkier.</p>

[zamazal]

<p>I'm satisfied with Tamron 17-50/2.8 on my K20d. Good picture quality, nice speed and handles front light very well. On the other hand you must learn to use it well (e.g. exposure compensations are needed) and it's infamous for QC problems. If it works well, it's very good for the price.</p>