[PPPPPP42]

I would prefer an A20 F2.8 or one of the wider focal length A primes with F2 apertures, but when those actually do come up they are all over $400 now. The A24 F2.8 seems to have been more common new and thus stays much more reasonable now.

So if I already have the A24-50F4 would this prime be too redundant? I like the collecting aspect of it since its a Pentax A lens and that's the only lens series I use, but I can't afford to collect and I'm not sure the little bit of extra speed is worth it. Is it a ton sharper? The A24-50 is actually quite a good lens as it is, and I would think a bit more useful since you don't always need to be at 24mm, though I often am (I would make good use of the extra 4mm of the A20 actually).

[ironlionzion]

I actually had the A24 2.8. I thought it was kinda meh. Not incredibly sharp or fast. Was nice to have the wide angle on my MX, but that was it. I bought the K28 3.5...soooo much better in terms of sharpness. Sure, it's slower and has a slightly narrower FOV, but it's still a nice wide angle on film and a perfect normal lens on APS-C. Needless to say I sold the A24. I've regretted selling a bunch of my lenses, but I have to say I don't miss the A24. I'd say forget the A24 and save up for the A20 - supposedly quite sharp and a wider FOV than you already have. Plus it's a classic!

[baro-nite]

It's one of my favorites, for the very useful focal length on APS-C, for its optical performance, and for its build.

Here's a heavy crop:



And a couple of mildly cropped shots:

[atekant]

I suppose it depends on how much you can get it for. I used to have a K 24/2.8 which cost me $120. An A 24/2.8 just closed at ebay for a ridiculous $261 - now in a range that you can get better lenses for a few bucks more.

I like fast wides because it lets me get inside-the-action people shots which allow for subject separation. I would suppose if you want to shoot landscapes, the f/4 zoom would be OK.

[ironlionzion]

Yeah I bought mine for 200, and sold it for 250. Half stop slower than the 28 3.5 and slightly narrower FOV for $150 more wasn't worth it to me. Baronite, your copy seems exceptionally sharp if that's a 100% crop. Mine came nowhere close.

[lytrytyr]

I would prefer an A20 F2.8 or one of the wider focal length A primes with F2 apertures, but when those actually do come up they are all over $400 now. (I would make good use of the extra 4mm of the A20 actually).

There's an UGly A20/2.8 on KEH right now for $254.

[baro-nite]

Baronite, your copy seems exceptionally sharp if that's a 100% crop.

Just checked; that was a 60% crop from the K10D. I don't consider it my sharpest lens, but I've always found it sharp enough.

[vonBaloney]

Sigma Super Wide II is a good alternative, possibly even superior -- I think there is one in the marketplace at the moment

[PPPPPP42]

I saw both the 24 on ebay that went for $261 (was following it out of curiousity) and the ugly 20mm on KEH, I considered that one at that price, but for them ugly means ugly, really beat to hell with screwed up glass. I'm not sure why they bother to sell lenses at the ugly stage since even the levels above that are listed as scratched glass that won't noticeably effect the image.

Honestly the prices have gotten so ridiculous, unless a local sale comes up for a really great rate its just not worth it to me to pay that much for a lens, I really think the prices of new (or old) * stuff are downright comical. For the money I can make do with my zooms, any image i can't get with them isn't worth that extra money for me to get.

[lytrytyr]

For the money I can make do with my zooms, any image i can't get with them isn't worth that extra money for me to get.

That's always a personal decision.
Although I have the Tamron 17-50/2.8 A16P that covers wide angles very well,
I prefer compact primes for walkaround or more discreet street use.