Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

HSV · 03-11-2013, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by topace

If we're discussing lenses that are now cheap because we don't have a digital FF, an often overlooked and undervalued lens is the Tokina AT-X 28-70 f/2.6-2.8. But I've already used this on a nikon D600. As far as pentax-exclusive lenses go, the 50 f/1.2-s might well be good. The A 20 f/2.8 (or FA) is probably nice if you can find it. I would like to play with the 35-105-s on FF. I've got the F version, and it's surprisingly sharp, fast-focusing and well-colored. There are a number of semi-fast portrait lenses, that might benefit from the wider angle of view.

Just curious...what's so special about the ATX 28-70 f/2.6-2.8?

I have the lens, and I like it (nice FL range, decent sharpness when stopped down, nice bokeh, and specially build quality), but so far I haven't found the "magical Angineoux pixie dust" quality that people say.

Docrwm · 03-11-2013, 06:15 PM

I know I posted the Samyang 8mm FE but the more I think about it the Samyang 85/1.4 is also a killer lens that will be even more useful on a FF camera.

jeffw · 03-11-2013, 06:26 PM

35-105 f3.5 is a sleeper all around carry lens and the 24 f2.8 was a very nice wide angle on ff film cameras, pretty flat for the price when new .

NickLarsson · 03-11-2013, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

I know I posted the Samyang 8mm FE but the more I think about it the Samyang 85/1.4 is also a killer lens that will be even more useful on a FF camera.

About the 8mm, I've read you have to cut the hood on FF otherwise it's vignetting (at least the canikon versions).

**mgvh** · 03-11-2013, 07:20 PM

I agree that the F 35-70 would be very fun on a FF. My best 50mm is the A 1.7, but that will work! My sleeper is a Tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6 I've been holding on to. That will be a great walkaround lens.

Nick Siebers · 03-11-2013, 08:35 PM

Agree with the above F35-70, FA 20-35. Would add the FA 24-90, which I no longer have alas, and any of the 50 1.4 or 1.7s. Plus the 16 and 17mm fish eyes will be back to their original 180 degree glory.

SyncGuy · 03-11-2013, 09:02 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Nick Siebers

....Plus the 16 and 17mm fish eyes will be back to their original 180 degree glory.

Just to inform you, i've tried the current DA10-17 FE on my Super A and it works! Useable settings are between 14mm-17mm.. At the current asking price of the vintage 16 and 17mm FE, i'm more opinionated to recommend the newere DA10-17FE over them.

But if you do already have them vintage glasses, might not bother you. :P

Nick Siebers · 03-11-2013, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by SyncGuy

Just to inform you, i've tried the current DA10-17 FE on my Super A and it works! Useable settings are between 14mm-17mm.. At the current asking price of the vintage 16 and 17mm FE, i'm more opinionated to recommend the newere DA10-17FE over them.

But if you do already have them vintage glasses, might not bother you. :P

Had, and the A 16/2.8 was just spectacular. The K was more pedestrian, although amazingly compact. Have been thinking about the DA 10-17, but if I sold the A and K lenses because I never used them, it wouldn't make that much sense to get another, now would it? Of course, who says LBA has to make sense? :-)

SyncGuy · 03-11-2013, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Nick Siebers

Had, and the A 16/2.8 was just spectacular. The K was more pedestrian, although amazingly compact. Have been thinking about the DA 10-17, but if I sold the A and K lenses because I never used them, it wouldn't make that much sense to get another, now would it? Of course, who says LBA has to make sense? :-)

Haha! It would... Considering selling them could net you more or less around the US$1000 mark each on Evil Bay, i believe, you could easily obtain the DA10-17 which covers 14mm-17mm with autofocus and just as compact, with lots of spare cash to further feed LBA, why not right? ;P

Similar to saying, better have $50 holed up than $5000 holed up when you can spend it further.. :P

**jeffshaddix** · 03-11-2013, 10:21 PM

My favorite sleeper is the KA mount Tokina 90/2.5 Macro. It's extremely sharp wide open, goes 1:2 by itself and 1:1 with matching adapter, it's compact (sans the adapter, but I don't need it often), the focus ring turns Pentax style, and the bokeh gives it its "bokina" name.

It's still fairly cheap $300-$400 range.

Another deep sleeper is the KA Spiratone/Soligor 20/2.8. It's compact for a 2.8, nice sharpness stopped down, and it's bokeh is psychadelic (some think in a bad way, I think it's great). It's an odd duckling, so it'll never be popular, but I like its character.

bdery · 03-12-2013, 04:54 AM

Oh! Another one is the line of Vivitar 70-210. They are well known but so inexpensive for what they offer...

cali92rs · 03-12-2013, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Digitalis

these are three lenses I know that will probably develop a real following,partly because of how uncommon they are:

Pentax SMC K 28mm f/2 - the Zeiss clone.

It took me months to find this guy. If pentax ever decides to build a FF, this may be the only lens I use ever again

**NaClH2O** · 03-12-2013, 07:00 AM - **1 Like**

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 yet. Most excellent lens. Maybe not "sleeper" but I'm sure that the used price of them will go up. It would be a perfect 'walk around' lens on FF.
As far as true "sleepers" go I have to mention the Zenitar 16mm F/2.8 fisheye. It's a true fisheye on FF and since the hood is removeable you won't have to destroy it if it vignettes (never tried in on a FF camera, so don't know if it does).
Some other lenses to think about: Some have already been mentioned but since I own them and like them I'll put them out there again
FA 20mm F/2.8
FA 20-35mm F/4.0
The three limited amigos: FA 31mm; FA 43mm and the FA 77mm. Those are going to be fun to try on FF.
A 35-105mm F/3.5 I use mine a lot on my K-5; another fun one to try on FF
A 70-210 F/4.0 nice lens and light. Can be found relatively inexpensively
The inimitable K 135 F2.5, tho I must admit I really like it's reach on crop sensors. But a fine fine lens none the less
The K 300mm F/4.0, Can be easily found for around $300 (or it used to be)
The Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 EX DG non macro version. Another lens I like the reach of on crop sensor but should still be fun.
A 50mm F/1.7, it's my favorite fast 50, even tho I also own the K 50 F/1.2. I simply like it's ease of use.

There are a lot of others out there. Anyone who owns "A" glass is going to be sitting pretty.

NaCl(come to think of it, I probably won't have to buy any glass, I'm set from 16mm FE thru 300mm)H2O

**Kerrowdown** · 03-12-2013, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by NaClH2O

Anyone who owns "A" glass is going to be sitting pretty

That'll be me then.

bdery · 03-12-2013, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by NaClH2O

The inimitable K 135 F2.5

I like your adjective. I did not find myself using it so I let it go, but it's a great lens, for sure.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--"	Jean Poitiers	Pentax Q	52	11-10-2013 06:25 AM
Canon 6D - another "entry level" FF camera	twitch	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	42	09-22-2012 06:14 AM
What are some "sleeper" macro lenses?	Balog	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	32	05-19-2011 05:08 AM
my new "sleeper" lens	slip	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	04-21-2011 02:55 AM
Pentax "FF" Lenses - Curious and Lazy	Sailor	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	06-10-2010 10:19 AM

03-11-2013, 02:12 PM	#16
HSV Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Texas Posts: 321	Originally posted by topace If we're discussing lenses that are now cheap because we don't have a digital FF, an often overlooked and undervalued lens is the Tokina AT-X 28-70 f/2.6-2.8. But I've already used this on a nikon D600. As far as pentax-exclusive lenses go, the 50 f/1.2-s might well be good. The A 20 f/2.8 (or FA) is probably nice if you can find it. I would like to play with the 35-105-s on FF. I've got the F version, and it's surprisingly sharp, fast-focusing and well-colored. There are a number of semi-fast portrait lenses, that might benefit from the wider angle of view. Just curious...what's so special about the ATX 28-70 f/2.6-2.8? I have the lens, and I like it (nice FL range, decent sharpness when stopped down, nice bokeh, and specially build quality), but so far I haven't found the "magical Angineoux pixie dust" quality that people say.

03-11-2013, 06:15 PM	#17
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	I know I posted the Samyang 8mm FE but the more I think about it the Samyang 85/1.4 is also a killer lens that will be even more useful on a FF camera.

03-11-2013, 06:26 PM	#18
jeffw Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Gallery Posts: 182	35-105 f3.5 is a sleeper all around carry lens and the 24 f2.8 was a very nice wide angle on ff film cameras, pretty flat for the price when new .

03-11-2013, 07:04 PM	#19
NickLarsson Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,390	Originally posted by Docrwm I know I posted the Samyang 8mm FE but the more I think about it the Samyang 85/1.4 is also a killer lens that will be even more useful on a FF camera. About the 8mm, I've read you have to cut the hood on FF otherwise it's vignetting (at least the canikon versions).

03-11-2013, 07:20 PM	#20
mgvh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: MD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,033	I agree that the F 35-70 would be very fun on a FF. My best 50mm is the A 1.7, but that will work! My sleeper is a Tamron 24-135 3.5-5.6 I've been holding on to. That will be a great walkaround lens.

03-11-2013, 08:35 PM	#21
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	Agree with the above F35-70, FA 20-35. Would add the FA 24-90, which I no longer have alas, and any of the 50 1.4 or 1.7s. Plus the 16 and 17mm fish eyes will be back to their original 180 degree glory.

03-11-2013, 09:02 PM - 1 Like	#22
SyncGuy Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 821	Originally posted by Nick Siebers ....Plus the 16 and 17mm fish eyes will be back to their original 180 degree glory. Just to inform you, i've tried the current DA10-17 FE on my Super A and it works! Useable settings are between 14mm-17mm.. At the current asking price of the vintage 16 and 17mm FE, i'm more opinionated to recommend the newere DA10-17FE over them. But if you do already have them vintage glasses, might not bother you. :P

03-11-2013, 09:20 PM	#23
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	Originally posted by SyncGuy Just to inform you, i've tried the current DA10-17 FE on my Super A and it works! Useable settings are between 14mm-17mm.. At the current asking price of the vintage 16 and 17mm FE, i'm more opinionated to recommend the newere DA10-17FE over them. But if you do already have them vintage glasses, might not bother you. :P Had, and the A 16/2.8 was just spectacular. The K was more pedestrian, although amazingly compact. Have been thinking about the DA 10-17, but if I sold the A and K lenses because I never used them, it wouldn't make that much sense to get another, now would it? Of course, who says LBA has to make sense? :-)

03-11-2013, 09:50 PM	#24
SyncGuy Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 821	Originally posted by Nick Siebers Had, and the A 16/2.8 was just spectacular. The K was more pedestrian, although amazingly compact. Have been thinking about the DA 10-17, but if I sold the A and K lenses because I never used them, it wouldn't make that much sense to get another, now would it? Of course, who says LBA has to make sense? :-) Haha! It would... Considering selling them could net you more or less around the US$1000 mark each on Evil Bay, i believe, you could easily obtain the DA10-17 which covers 14mm-17mm with autofocus and just as compact, with lots of spare cash to further feed LBA, why not right? ;P Similar to saying, better have $50 holed up than $5000 holed up when you can spend it further.. :P

03-11-2013, 10:21 PM	#25
jeffshaddix Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,473	My favorite sleeper is the KA mount Tokina 90/2.5 Macro. It's extremely sharp wide open, goes 1:2 by itself and 1:1 with matching adapter, it's compact (sans the adapter, but I don't need it often), the focus ring turns Pentax style, and the bokeh gives it its "bokina" name. It's still fairly cheap $300-$400 range. Another deep sleeper is the KA Spiratone/Soligor 20/2.8. It's compact for a 2.8, nice sharpness stopped down, and it's bokeh is psychadelic (some think in a bad way, I think it's great). It's an odd duckling, so it'll never be popular, but I like its character.

03-12-2013, 04:54 AM	#26
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,363	Oh! Another one is the line of Vivitar 70-210. They are well known but so inexpensive for what they offer...

03-12-2013, 05:50 AM	#27
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Originally posted by Digitalis these are three lenses I know that will probably develop a real following,partly because of how uncommon they are: Pentax SMC K 28mm f/2 - the Zeiss clone. It took me months to find this guy. If pentax ever decides to build a FF, this may be the only lens I use ever again

03-12-2013, 07:00 AM - 1 Like	#28
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 yet. Most excellent lens. Maybe not "sleeper" but I'm sure that the used price of them will go up. It would be a perfect 'walk around' lens on FF. As far as true "sleepers" go I have to mention the Zenitar 16mm F/2.8 fisheye. It's a true fisheye on FF and since the hood is removeable you won't have to destroy it if it vignettes (never tried in on a FF camera, so don't know if it does). Some other lenses to think about: Some have already been mentioned but since I own them and like them I'll put them out there again FA 20mm F/2.8 FA 20-35mm F/4.0 The three limited amigos: FA 31mm; FA 43mm and the FA 77mm. Those are going to be fun to try on FF. A 35-105mm F/3.5 I use mine a lot on my K-5; another fun one to try on FF A 70-210 F/4.0 nice lens and light. Can be found relatively inexpensively The inimitable K 135 F2.5, tho I must admit I really like it's reach on crop sensors. But a fine fine lens none the less The K 300mm F/4.0, Can be easily found for around $300 (or it used to be) The Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 EX DG non macro version. Another lens I like the reach of on crop sensor but should still be fun. A 50mm F/1.7, it's my favorite fast 50, even tho I also own the K 50 F/1.2. I simply like it's ease of use. There are a lot of others out there. Anyone who owns "A" glass is going to be sitting pretty. NaCl(come to think of it, I probably won't have to buy any glass, I'm set from 16mm FE thru 300mm)H2O

03-12-2013, 07:04 AM	#29
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,866	Originally posted by NaClH2O Anyone who owns "A" glass is going to be sitting pretty That'll be me then.

03-12-2013, 07:57 AM	#30
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,363	Originally posted by NaClH2O The inimitable K 135 F2.5 I like your adjective. I did not find myself using it so I let it go, but it's a great lens, for sure.

Best FF "sleeper" lenses

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!