Do you have advice for buying my first lens after kit 18-55mm (sub-$300)?

Question

I’m looking to buy my first lens beyond the kit 18-55mm for my Pentax K-x. As a student my budget limits me to around a sub $300 offering. I am new to photography, and so I have a hard time answering the typical ‘what kind of photography do you like to do?’ question.

I am open to exploring a range of photographic genres so all lens categories are on the table, but most of all I don’t want buy something that I will regret later for reasons of quality. I realize this is subjective, especially in my price range, so a valid answer may be to wait until I can afford better. I don’t know.

---

The options I have been looking at are:

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 - This lens obviously duplicates the range covered by my kit lens, but also gives me an all-in-one telephoto option for quickly capturing a range of different images.

My Concerns:

• That the quality is not great overall, as this lens is by definition a compromise, and a cheap one at that.

• That I am duplicating a focal range I already cover, possibly with worse image quality; I don’t know.

• That I am underutilizing my DSLR by treating it like a superzoom point-and-shoot with maybe very little quality difference from a lens in this price range.

Rokinon FE8M-P 8mm F3.5 Fisheye - With this choice I would be moving away from the focal range I have access to now, and picking up an interesting lens option at the same time. It also has the advantage of being something I am not likely to replace with a more expensive, higher quality, version when I go to buy my next lens.

My Concerns:

• That this lens is too far out there in terms of its oddity and specialization for me to be getting into at this point, and that I would be better off learning on something more conventional.

• I have no idea where this type of lens is best utilized.

The new Pentax DA 35mm 1:2.4 prime - As the fastest of the lenses I am looking at, this one seems like the one I would be least likely to outgrow. It does share a part of the kit lenses' focal range, but it is so much faster that I think it hardly compares.

My Concerns:

• I have never used a prime lens, or even a point-and-shoot without a good deal of zoom capacity. I don’t know what I would think of that.

• f2.4 isn’t that fast by objective standards. This goes back to the “should I just wait?” question.

Something in the 70-300mm range - This avoids the issue of redundant lenses, and would probably offer better image quality than an 18-200mm.

My Concerns:

• This would limit my photographic options to taking pictures of things very far way, using a tripod. Something I have never done before, so I don’t know how much I would like it.

Other Options - It is entirely possible I overlooked some lens type or other. If it's not in the list, that's probably because I don't know about/forgot about it, not that I'm not interested.

Answer 1

My advice: get one or more primes. Why? For $300, there are a number of very high quality prime lenses available, particularly on Pentax with its extreme backwards compatibility, and so you're likely to find a pro-quality lens that you'll keep and use for years. On the other hand, at that price point it is very difficult to find a high-quality zoom.

You note that you have no prime experience, so perhaps it's also a good way to expand your repertoire. It's often fun to work under more constraints, and prime lenses go down to f/1.4 rather than f/2.8 which is the limit on all but the most exotic zooms; those two extra stops can mean a lot.

Regarding your four suggestions:

• Don't bother with the zooms. They will be low quality.
• An 8mm fisheye is for full-frame. On 1.5x crop, you'll have kind of the worst of both worlds: a cropped field of view and heavy fisheye distortion. Now, a fisheye is certainly an interesting and very fun lens, though quite specialized. IMO it's a worthwhile component of any kit, but not the best second lens. If you do choose a fisheye, I've used the DA 10-17 and it's very nice, though slightly above your price point new.
• The DA 35mm would be a fine choice, but there's nothing particularly special about it that would merit waiting.

Where to go from here:

• Browse around the PentaxForums.com lens database. This gives data and reviews on nearly every Pentax lens that ever existed.
• Consider used. This is a good way to get a great lens cheaply (or maybe even two).
  • keh.com is highly reputable and I've had excellent luck with them; they back their used sales with a short warranty.
  • Here is one of many Pentax lens compatibility charts.
  • If you have some patience, consider a manual focus or even screwmount lens. You can get superb glass for very cheap; for example, this 50mm SMC Takumar costs only $70 and I can assure you those Takumars are truly remarkable pieces of kit. (Note that with screwmount, you need an adapter and it's important to get a high-quality one.)

Answer 2

Well, first things first as a Pentax shooter: look on the used market. I do this all the time (I shoot the Pentax K20) and there are some real gems to be had as bargains. Craigslist is a good place to start, lots of people selling off their parents 'old' Pentax film gear, with lenses attached, for a song and those old lenses can be amongst some of the better ever made. Just make sure you get one with a K mount, otherwise you have to go adapter hunting.

However, if you do want to go new, $300 won't get you top of the line options, it's consumer grade only. However, Pentax primes at any price range are good lenses and the only thing you really have to learn with them is how to zoom with your feet. :) Going zoom, the Sigma 70-300mm macro is a pretty decent lens and it can be sharp. I shot this with it, handheld:

So, you don't necessarily need to put a long lens on a tripod, you just have to have shake reduction on and use the 1/[focal length] rule for shutter speed as a minimum (faster is better) until you get practiced. The TAv mode on your camera is awesome for this kind of shooting, try it out. Anyways, the big upside to the Sigma is a long telephoto coupled with 1:2 macro for some close up shooting fun.

Now, adding the 70-300mm doesn't limit your options, you have an 18-55mm and the K-x is, after all, an interchangeable lens camera! Change the lens as needed. Now, you still have a gap in the focal range, but it's not that big and can probably be handled by positioning.

Answer 3

Take the 2.4 prime.

You will learn the most about composition that way, because it will force you to consider each shot prior to taking it. It also will streamline your technique, because it will remove the ability to zoom, ie, it will take a variable out of the equation you try to solve as you take the shot.

If you're concerned about speed (and 2.4 isn't that fast), consider going to the used market for a faster lens. But also consider that at 1.4 from a few feet away, you can get someone's eyes in focus and their nose out of focus; ie, really wide apertures are nice for a few particular applications, but you'll tend to go down to 2.

My first prime was the nikon 60mm f/2.8 macro. I really liked it (over the 50mm f/1.4 I got later) because it also allowed me to ignore another part of the equation, focus distance. I could get within an inch of my subjects (not people, that's a bit intrusive) and still focus. The speed was fast enough for where I was, ie, I hadn't perfected focusing quickly and accurately yet. Now, I tend not to go any wider than f/2, whether or not my lens lets me, just because of the eyes/nose focal plane thing.

The fisheye is just too... weird and specialized (and frankly, looking at those kinds of shots for any amount of time just makes me nauseous). Zooms of any kind, in the budget where you are, will be of middling quality at best, but you won't realize it until you shoot with a good prime. Once you do that, you'll see why pro zooms are so much better than the consumer grade.

Answer 4

As a professional photographer with over 25 years of experience, your choice of lenses will be best served by the type of photography that you enjoy. Although most of my experience involved film, I speak best with film focal lengths, but you can covert them to digital lengths. The digital 18-55 lens marketed by camera companies are meant as a one size fits all solution. Although they are handy for most travel and family events, they lack in quality and speed. As you advance in terms of your skill, you’ll be hampered by those issues. A fast prime lenses, f1.4, single focal length in the 50mm (film length), will give you great quality and allow you shoot in less then ideal conditions. Shoot the tar out of the lens, learn it’s abilities. If you are looking at landscapes film 28-35 lengths are great lenses, below 28mm ultra wide angle 24mm and lower, you will start to get some distortion. For portraits the 85 to 105mm fit the bill, moderate telephoto out to 200mm are nice, a fast f2.8 200mm’s are great lenses. Faster apertures will cost a ton more and come with weight. All in all, professionally, I used single focal length lenses, knew their abilities and limitations, and made quality award winning images. Be you worst critique, analyze your work, learn from your victories and mistakes, shoot, shoot and shoot some more. Nice thing about digital, you’re not faced with film costs. Buy the best lenses you can afford, save up for the best, you won’t be sorry.

Answer 5

Other lenses to consider:

• SMC Pentax DA 18-135mm F/3.5-5.6 ED AL IF DC WR. More versatile than your current lens. Should have better image quality than a superzoom because of less extreme zoom range. It's weather sealed, if that's important to you.

• Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM C. Comparing test images from Canon version, appears sharper than Tamron. Seems to be available for Pentax mount.

• Old Pentax manual focus lenses. They are inexpensive and should be usable with your camera because many use an older version of the same mount. The older coatings are also still very good.

As for the other lenses in your list:

• Rokinon FE8M-P 8mm F3.5 Fisheye. Fisheyes are a lot of fun, but may get used infrequently.

• Pentax DA 35mm F2.4. Its focal length is basically already covered by your 18-55 zoom, and it's only about a stop faster.

  If it does not have significant differences from your existing lens, there is a good chance it won't get used. For me to use a prime, it must differ from my zooms in focal length and either aperture or "look".

• Something in the 70-300mm range. The range you specify is a bit large. A 70-200mm will likely have better image quality.

  Also, at any given moment, there is a good chance you will have the wrong lens on your camera. You have to constantly be looking ahead to what lens you will need next. To ease the transition between switching lenses, I like to have overlapping zoom ranges. Also, consider keeping a compact camera in your pocket.

Answer 6

Do you have advice for buying my first lens after kit 18-55mm (sub-$300)?

Yes. Don't buy anything until you can articulate exactly what it is you wish to do photographically that your current lens(es) doesn't allow you to do. Even better if you can describe how the new lens you are considering will solve the issue your current lens(es) are not allowing you to overcome.

Lots of folks buy a new interchangeable lens camera with the kit lens and think that will immediately allow then to take much better photos than they could the day before. When their initial results are less than overwhelming, they often want to blame the kit lens that lots of folks who spend more time on the internet bragging about their gear than actually shooting photographs says is "trash", "garbage", or even "just a bit subpar".

But the reality is good photos are more about the photographer's ability to see good or interesting light (or even create it with lights and modifiers), envision good composition for a particular subject or scene and understand how to frame it, and to post-process the image to maximize its strengths and minimize its weaknesses.

Yes, there are a lot of photos you can't take with highly limiting gear. But there are also a lot of photos you can't take until you learn how to see/create good light, frame interesting compositions, and produce the best results in post-processing - no matter how good one's gear is.

When you're to the point where your gear is truly holding you back, you'll understand exactly how it is holding you back and what characteristics/features you need in another piece of gear to overcome those limitations.