New camera, or a new lens? Help...

Hi all.

I love my K-50 and it's served me really well, but I'm feeling a little left behind and I feel I'm about due for an upgrade. There are 2 areas that need help:

The auto focus is leaving me missing a few candid family photos. Understandable since the K-50 is now 7 years old. A K-70 or the KP will be be a welcome upgrade to this, I'm sure.

Then there is the lens I use the most: the 18-55 kit lens. The difference between the kit lens and the 35mm limited edition is vast, yet 90% of my photos are taken with the kit lens because of its convenient focal range. A better lens to replace the kit lens will also be a welcome upgrade.

However... I can only afford to do one, not both, so my question is this:

"Which will give me the greatest benefit... a new body, or a new lens?"

Note: My photography needs are broad from family shots at birthdays, to pack photography at the office. I'm not a professional so I don't earn anything from my camera. It's a hobby & a tool that my wife largely sees as a luxury with all the cellphones floating around.

Stephen_H wrote:

Hi all.

I love my K-50 and it's served me really well, but I'm feeling a little left behind and I feel I'm about due for an upgrade. There are 2 areas that need help:

The auto focus is leaving me missing a few candid family photos. Understandable since the K-50 is now 7 years old. A K-70 or the KP will be be a welcome upgrade to this, I'm sure.

Then there is the lens I use the most: the 18-55 kit lens. The difference between the kit lens and the 35mm limited edition is vast, yet 90% of my photos are taken with the kit lens because of its convenient focal range. A better lens to replace the kit lens will also be a welcome upgrade.

However... I can only afford to do one, not both, so my question is this:

"Which will give me the greatest benefit... a new body, or a new lens?"

Note: My photography needs are broad from family shots at birthdays, to pack photography at the office. I'm not a professional so I don't earn anything from my camera. It's a hobby & a tool that my wife largely sees as a luxury with all the cellphones floating around.

When you write "missing a few candid family photos", does this apply irrespective of which lens you're using, (implying a slow or faulty body), or only when using the 18-55mm, which might suggest either a faulty lens or a low light issue?

Either way, it'll not be a cheap upgrade and your wife is unlikely to be happy

Either way, it'll not be a cheap upgrade and your wife is unlikely to be happy

LOL! Truth.

So I take it that's one vote for the lens...

When you write "missing a few candid family photos", does this apply irrespective of which lens you're using, (implying a slow or faulty body), or only when using the 18-55mm, which might suggest either a faulty lens or a low light issue?

Qualitywise: Bit soft. Can't crop as much. Colour is sometimes a bit dull. Needs work in Photoshop. This can be blamed the lens.

Timewise: There's just the missed shot because my auto focus is hunting, or won't let me take the shot because it hasn't confirmed focus. These are fairly common. This I can blame on the camera body.

It's hard to put my finger on it, but I immediately see the difference in my photos when I use my 35mm prime. It's hard to compare focusing in it because it's a macro lens so it always feels a bit slow to focus - all its internals seem to have so far to travel.

Stephen H.
----------------------------------------------------------
Pentax K-50 with kit les (sorry) and the beautiful 35 macro limited.

Stephen_H wrote:

When you write "missing a few candid family photos", does this apply irrespective of which lens you're using, (implying a slow or faulty body), or only when using the 18-55mm, which might suggest either a faulty lens or a low light issue?

Qualitywise: Bit soft. Can't crop as much. Colour is sometimes a bit dull. Needs work in Photoshop. This can be blamed the lens.

Timewise: There's just the missed shot because my auto focus is hunting, or won't let me take the shot because it hasn't confirmed focus. These are fairly common. This I can blame on the camera body.

It's hard to put my finger on it, but I immediately see the difference in my photos when I use my 35mm prime. It's hard to compare focusing in it because it's a macro lens so it always feels a bit slow to focus - all its internals seem to have so far to travel.

Stephen H.
----------------------------------------------------------
Pentax K-50 with kit les (sorry) and the beautiful 35 macro limited.

My recommendation would be to save towards Kp and Sigma 17-50 F2.8 HSM. The higher resolution body will only show a difference if paired with a good lens. Besides better IQ, the fast Sigma HSM motor in the 17-50 F2.8 lens should help improve tracking performance.

What about a Tamron or sigma 17-50mm f2.8 both are excellent and not expensive. Then maybe thinking after that in kp .sell your old stuff to save $$ for the upgrade

Stephen_H wrote:

Hi all.

I love my K-50 and it's served me really well, but I'm feeling a little left behind and I feel I'm about due for an upgrade. There are 2 areas that need help:

The auto focus is leaving me missing a few candid family photos. Understandable since the K-50 is now 7 years old. A K-70 or the KP will be be a welcome upgrade to this, I'm sure.

Then there is the lens I use the most: the 18-55 kit lens. The difference between the kit lens and the 35mm limited edition is vast, yet 90% of my photos are taken with the kit lens because of its convenient focal range. A better lens to replace the kit lens will also be a welcome upgrade.

However... I can only afford to do one, not both, so my question is this:

"Which will give me the greatest benefit... a new body, or a new lens?"

Note: My photography needs are broad from family shots at birthdays, to pack photography at the office. I'm not a professional so I don't earn anything from my camera. It's a hobby & a tool that my wife largely sees as a luxury with all the cellphones floating around.

I can relate a bit though I never used the kit lens. I had the 35mm Macro and still have the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5. The image quality of 35mm Macro was stunning--top notch!! But yes, as you found yourself, as a Macro lens the focus throw is large. The issue with "locking" focus is a Pentax speciality (tiny back and forth movements and time to lock focus)--less to do with lens and more to do with the AF system (see discussion on an earlier thread here). I used several Pentax cameras's searching for significant improvements in AF system and after wasting time and money I eventually concluded it is a waste of time and money hoping for significant improvements in AF system in Pentax world, However, the upcoming K-3-3 does look promising based on spec sheet.

I don't want to give an advice for purchase that will not satisfy you entirely and could lead you to wasting more money in the long run. So, if I understand correctly, there are three concerns: 1) image quality with convenience of zoom lens; 2) AF system and; 3) cost. As for image quality, I recomend you buy any version of Sigma 17-70mm lens. As for AF system, well, upgrading to any existing Pentax camera would not fix the issue though there maybe incremental improvements. So, if that is your biggest worry then wait for reviews of K33 or buy into a different system altogether. As for cost: well, Pentax camera's are not "cheaper" as compared to other camera's anymore and K33 is a flagship camera expected to arrive with a premium price anyway. New Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 Macro HSM Contemporary is not a cheap lens either. Most entry level Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fujifilm MILCs with kit lens would give you far superior AF system than any existing Pentax DSLR.

LightBug wrote:

Stephen_H wrote:

When you write "missing a few candid family photos", does this apply irrespective of which lens you're using, (implying a slow or faulty body), or only when using the 18-55mm, which might suggest either a faulty lens or a low light issue?

Qualitywise: Bit soft. Can't crop as much. Colour is sometimes a bit dull. Needs work in Photoshop. This can be blamed the lens.

Timewise: There's just the missed shot because my auto focus is hunting, or won't let me take the shot because it hasn't confirmed focus. These are fairly common. This I can blame on the camera body.

It's hard to put my finger on it, but I immediately see the difference in my photos when I use my 35mm prime. It's hard to compare focusing in it because it's a macro lens so it always feels a bit slow to focus - all its internals seem to have so far to travel.

Stephen H.
----------------------------------------------------------
Pentax K-50 with kit les (sorry) and the beautiful 35 macro limited.

My recommendation would be to save towards Kp and Sigma 17-50 F2.8 HSM. The higher resolution body will only show a difference if paired with a good lens. Besides better IQ, the fast Sigma HSM motor in the 17-50 F2.8 lens should help improve tracking performance.

I just noticed that the Sigma lens is on sale at B&H for $300 off, almost half price.  If you are hesitating... DON'T.

Doug

Stephen_H wrote:

When you write "missing a few candid family photos", does this apply irrespective of which lens you're using, (implying a slow or faulty body), or only when using the 18-55mm, which might suggest either a faulty lens or a low light issue?

Qualitywise: Bit soft. Can't crop as much. Colour is sometimes a bit dull. Needs work in Photoshop. This can be blamed the lens.

Timewise: There's just the missed shot because my auto focus is hunting, or won't let me take the shot because it hasn't confirmed focus. These are fairly common. This I can blame on the camera body.

It's hard to put my finger on it, but I immediately see the difference in my photos when I use my 35mm prime. It's hard to compare focusing in it because it's a macro lens so it always feels a bit slow to focus - all its internals seem to have so far to travel.

Stephen H.
----------------------------------------------------------
Pentax K-50 with kit les (sorry) and the beautiful 35 macro limited.

Hmmm … "bit soft" … mine aren't! I've got a DA and a DAL WR and I'm quite satisfied with them. Having said that I don't have a modern Pentax prime to compare them with

Auto-focus hunting … a problem with the smaller aperture of the 18-55mm, especially at the long end. The newer bodies are better in low light … but the autofocus still works better with a wide aperture lens. f/5.6 is the smallest "recommended" aperture for reliable operation of the autofocus system on all the bodies, as far as I'm aware, and that assumes reasonable light and a contrasty subject.

I suspect the "differences" you're seeing are due, in part at least, to the shallower depth of field available from the 35mm, with it's wider aperture, giving an impression of improved sharpness and contrast from subject isolation … my Fujinon 35mm f/1.9 is very good at that

Good luck

Stephen_H wrote:

"Which will give me the greatest benefit... a new body, or a new lens?"

Note: My photography needs are broad from family shots at birthdays, to pack photography at the office. I'm not a professional so I don't earn anything from my camera. It's a hobby & a tool that my wife largely sees as a luxury with all the cellphones floating around.

Actually, either would help. Which would help the most depends.

New camera: when I upgraded from my original K-30 to the K-3, my low-light capability improved tremendously. The plastic fantastics (35 and 50mm) specifically went from almost unbearable hunting to fast focusing. I'd expect the same 'wow' experience for you, since the K-70 and KP are another generation again, and much more capable at the high-ISO end.

New lens: I agree with the endorsement of the Sigma 17-50mm F/2.8. It's a good, fast-focusing lens for me even in low light. It is a bit big, though, and I can't say how it does on the K-50.

Either way, however, you're still stuck with outdated focusing capabilities or a mediocre-at-best lens. If you can, you might try stretching the budget to a k-70 or KP kitted with the Pentax 18-135mm. IME it's a better lens than the 18-55. Either combo can be had from Amazon ($796 and $980 respectively).

If you really don't want to spring for both camera and body, though, then the surest bet, FMPOV, is the camera upgrade. I'd expect even the 18-55mm to perform better on a camera that will let you boost ISO higher, and Pentax body AF has improved over time.

The next logical step would be to buy a prime lens. Either 35mm or 50mm. If you want autofocus, you can have Pentax plastic fantastic 35mm f2.4 or 50mm f1.8. This will introduce you to shallow depth of field photography. You could make nice portraits with both. Or you could buy some older manual glass and learn to focus manualy.