[kck]

My first serious camera about 25 years ago was a Nikon FE2 (which I still have). Unfortunately, I was not as serious as the camera and only used it like a casual tourist - in other words, here and there, simply documenting people, events and places without much attention to the art.

Now older and wiser (my wife would only partly agree with that statement) and having gone through raising kids and taking umpteen camcorder tapes and shots of them with P&S cameras, I now have the time and inclination to look at this hobby in a more, ahem, focused way. To this end I have purchased and await delivery of a Pentax K2000. My existing camera is a Canon G9, which replaced a G2, both good cameras for what they are but they didn't excite me to doing more than the routine stuff. The G9 will go to my high-school dtr who seems to have a keen eye for composition but knows little technically. I will be teaching her and myself, as I have forgotten many of the things I learned with the FE2 (insert bicycle analogy here).

So anyway, the K2000 will be delivered with the single kit lens, an 18-55 DA. I searched here for Pentax and there don't seem to be many users so I would like to ask general questions that concern me at this point... such as, am I better off getting a 50-200mm zoom (Pentax's own gets good reviews and sells for $150-$200), or getting one or two adapters for zooming and wide shots? If the latter, what do you guys prefer? At the moment cost is a factor, but mainly from the viewpoint of my not wanting to throw too much money at this up front only to discover that well, I'm not that crazy about it anyway... maybe a better plan is to dip in slowly, etc. But at the same time I have this itch to pick up that lens... and I know in the general sense that is not a lot of money.

I'd also be laying out some $ for the usual accessory suspects... tripod, bag, filters, flash but going to take that slowly, as in 2-4 weeks. Recommendations there would be nice to have also.

[thunderbrick]

DON'T GET THE ADAPTERS!!!  They are junk!  If you put a tele adaptor on your 18-55, then zoom wide, it will vignette terribly (think looking through a paper towel tube).  They are clumsy, slow to use, and often have poor quality.  Think of chains on tires; useful on occasion, but a PITA to put on and take off.

Remember the 50-200mm will be the rough equivalent of an 80-300 on your FE2 (I still have mine, too).  A lot of people find a 70-300 is a great range.  My wife has one (Tamron) on her D70 and loves it.

EDIT:  Don't rush into a lot of filters.  The camera will handle color correction, so aside from a UV/Haze or skylight and a circular polarizer, go slow in shopping for those.  I teach photography, BTW, community education courses.

[low.pfile]

kck,
Mr. Thunderbrick is right. Just like with film cams adapters also affec the aperture. So a f3.5 lens will be f/6 with a 1.7x adapter. that is what he meant by the lens being slow. Also affect the brightness of the viewfinder. the other zoom sounds like a better idea. or a single lens for the full range. Have fun picturing.

[thunderbrick]

Sorry, when I said slow, I meant they are slow to put on and take off, and shove in your bag.  Slows down the chance to get a shot that suddenly appears.  I didn't even think about the light loss when adding these mayonnaise jars to the end of your zoom.

[thunderbrick]

I think low.pfile is referring to tele-converters that you put between the lens and the body.  They do cost you light but they can be a good way to turn your telephoto zoom into a super-telephoto on a budget.  I wouldn't put one on your 18-55 because it won't do all that much for you, and they can cost nearly as much as a 80-200 or 70-300 anyway.

What I was disparaging was the screw-on or slip-on lenses that you put on the front of the lens. 

[jqp]

I had a K1000 years ago - congrats on the K2000