Pentax FAJ 18-35mm instead of kit lenses?

Siekierus_pl · 11-10-2010, 01:14 PM

I've looked through the forum and haven't found the answer- reviews are good but they don't cover my question which is:

Is Pentax FAJ 18-35 good enough to be used instead of the kit?

Or is it better to save some money and go for Pentax 16-45?

It's worth mentiong that I can get it at 1/4 of the 16-45 price

What are your opinions, dear Pentaxians?

soppy · 11-10-2010, 01:20 PM

I think that would be too shallow of a range for me. I would almost rather have primes in that case since there is less convenience factor due to the range being so small. Then again, at a quarter of normal price... let the LBA begin!

Andi Lo · 11-10-2010, 01:30 PM

The 18-35 is a little upgrade over the kit in terms of quality afaik but the part where it shines is that it's compatible with FF (film) cameras. If you don't use this function, I dont think the quality upgrade is worth it for the range downgrade. Much better if you saved to get the 16-45.

Adam · 11-10-2010, 01:41 PM

I think you'll find that the range is a bit short. Also, the lens is obviously a little bit heavier. It's not a beast by any means, either: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FAJ-18-35mm-F4-5.6-Zoom-Lens.html

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)

PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Ash · 11-10-2010, 02:08 PM

I can't see the advantage in going to an FAJ lens when the DA 18-55 II is one of the best kit lenses available. The 16-45 is the most effective way to upgrade from the kit lens.

jolepp · 11-10-2010, 02:15 PM

As an upgrade from the kit lens Tamron 17-50 1:2.8 might be worth checking out.

Wheatfield · 11-10-2010, 02:32 PM

When I bought my *istD it came with the FAJ18-35, so I would go out on a limb and say that it is a kit lens, just from an older era.
It was OK on the 6mp istD, I don't know how it would do on a 14-16mp sensor though.
As for it covering 135 format, I recall trying it, on an LX. It was never especially sharp in the corners and suffered awful vignetting wider than around 22mm, so I wouldn't say it is a workable lens on the 135 format.

GeneV · 11-10-2010, 03:22 PM

The price and ability to use on film would be the only reasons to go with this lens now.

A better choice to do the same thing would be the Sigma DG 17-35 EX. You get a stop more (2.8) at the wide end and a tad more angle. I've enjoyed mine as a DSLR Kit replacement and on film.

Ash · 11-10-2010, 04:54 PM

Other choices include the Sigma 17-70, Pentax 17-70 and 16-50 if you're really looking for a kit lens replacement.
But if money's a big concern, the kit lens is simply great value.

songhuagao · 11-10-2010, 08:53 PM

i am waiting for 18-135 wr...
it is a good upgrade if $400

Super A-wesome · 11-10-2010, 09:53 PM

the slowness, loss of range, and increae in size are factors that make a 35mm ultrawide lens a bad choice for a kit replacement, unless you use both film and DSLRs. the gain in sharpness, if any, would be negligible

Andi Lo · 11-10-2010, 10:00 PM

Ah yes... forgot the slowness. the 18-35 is significantly slower than the 18-55.

Siekierus_pl · 11-11-2010, 05:44 AM

Thank you all for your advices- I'll wait, save and buy 16-45- seems the most affordable for me.

11-10-2010, 01:14 PM	#1
Siekierus_pl Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 29	Pentax FAJ 18-35mm instead of kit lenses? I've looked through the forum and haven't found the answer- reviews are good but they don't cover my question which is: Is Pentax FAJ 18-35 good enough to be used instead of the kit? Or is it better to save some money and go for Pentax 16-45? It's worth mentiong that I can get it at 1/4 of the 16-45 price What are your opinions, dear Pentaxians?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax FAJ 18-35MM	Rhizo	Sold Items	7	11-19-2009 05:39 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 70mm; Pentax FAJ 18-35mm; IR Filter	geko5766	Sold Items	4	06-14-2009 11:59 PM
For Sale - Sold: PENTAX MZ-6+BP+FAJ 18-35mm	caretatra	Sold Items	3	05-27-2009 03:51 AM

11-10-2010, 01:20 PM	#2
soppy Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Gainesville Posts: 348	I think that would be too shallow of a range for me. I would almost rather have primes in that case since there is less convenience factor due to the range being so small. Then again, at a quarter of normal price... let the LBA begin!

11-10-2010, 01:30 PM	#3
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	The 18-35 is a little upgrade over the kit in terms of quality afaik but the part where it shines is that it's compatible with FF (film) cameras. If you don't use this function, I dont think the quality upgrade is worth it for the range downgrade. Much better if you saved to get the 16-45.

11-10-2010, 01:41 PM	#4
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,125	I think you'll find that the range is a bit short. Also, the lens is obviously a little bit heavier. It's not a beast by any means, either: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FAJ-18-35mm-F4-5.6-Zoom-Lens.html Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

11-10-2010, 02:08 PM	#5
Ash Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,914	I can't see the advantage in going to an FAJ lens when the DA 18-55 II is one of the best kit lenses available. The 16-45 is the most effective way to upgrade from the kit lens.

11-10-2010, 02:15 PM	#6
jolepp Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 3,196	As an upgrade from the kit lens Tamron 17-50 1:2.8 might be worth checking out.

11-10-2010, 02:32 PM	#7
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 14,657	When I bought my *istD it came with the FAJ18-35, so I would go out on a limb and say that it is a kit lens, just from an older era. It was OK on the 6mp istD, I don't know how it would do on a 14-16mp sensor though. As for it covering 135 format, I recall trying it, on an LX. It was never especially sharp in the corners and suffered awful vignetting wider than around 22mm, so I wouldn't say it is a workable lens on the 135 format.

11-10-2010, 03:22 PM	#8
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	The price and ability to use on film would be the only reasons to go with this lens now. A better choice to do the same thing would be the Sigma DG 17-35 EX. You get a stop more (2.8) at the wide end and a tad more angle. I've enjoyed mine as a DSLR Kit replacement and on film.

11-10-2010, 04:54 PM	#9
Ash Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,914	Other choices include the Sigma 17-70, Pentax 17-70 and 16-50 if you're really looking for a kit lens replacement. But if money's a big concern, the kit lens is simply great value.

11-10-2010, 08:53 PM	#10
songhuagao New Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 6	i am waiting for 18-135 wr... it is a good upgrade if $400

11-10-2010, 09:53 PM	#11
Super A-wesome Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 94	the slowness, loss of range, and increae in size are factors that make a 35mm ultrawide lens a bad choice for a kit replacement, unless you use both film and DSLRs. the gain in sharpness, if any, would be negligible

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-10-2010, 10:00 PM	#12
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Ah yes... forgot the slowness. the 18-35 is significantly slower than the 18-55.

11-11-2010, 05:44 AM	#13
Siekierus_pl Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 29 Original Poster	Thank you all for your advices- I'll wait, save and buy 16-45- seems the most affordable for me.