Originally posted by ironlionzion I'm looking for a wide-normal zoom for my Kx and came across the FA 20-35. I have a 50mm prime, and will get a 15mm eventually, so I really just want to fill in the gap in between. I find that I mostly use 20-35 with my kit, so this would be the perfect zoom range. I was wondering if the image quality is significantly better on the FA vs the kit lens?
I own the 20-35/4 AL lens and can vouch for its IQ and resolution. I don't know if it's just me, but the color rendition of FF lenses seem much more natural and different from digital lenses (I've tried a DA40Ltd, DA50-150WR, DA16-45/4 and various Sigma DC lenses). I prefer their color rendition.
I chose the 20-35/4 over the DA16-45 as it is more compact and doesn't zoom out at the wide end. This was particularly important for me as I used the lens as my wide angle lens, shooting at 20mm almost 90% of the time. I thought that I would prefer a wider FL zoom range, so I bought a 17-35mm Sigma to give it a try. Well, 17mm is indeed wider, but after using the lens these past few months, I've decided to stick with the 20-35/4 and sell the Sigma, more than anything because I found out that I compose better landscape shots at 20mm than at 17mm, and because of the color rendition of the Pentax.
In short, if you don't mind changing lenses, go for it. I recommend it.
These shots pushed me to keep the 20-35/4 AL and sell instead the Sigma 17-35/2.8-4: