[Nitrogliserin]

Tokina AT-X PRO 11-16mm F2.8 DX Lens
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Lens

When will we see a good equivalent of those lens for Pentax mount? I'm really sick of seeing UWA lens when it's f3.5 or F4. This is no good for night or astro photography. 3rd party lens companies are doing the same! Sigma 10-20 f3.5 for example. Is it something wrong being a large aperture for a lens? It's like forbidden for Pentax.

I'm using Samyang 14mm and it's OK at some point (probably much better than Pentax SMC-DA 14mm f/2.8 ED in sharpness and price) but I don't think it's a proper solution.

This is another silent scream as a pentax and landscape photography lover but I don't think Pentax pays attention on this matter.

[Adam]

I think Pentax has been focusing on compactness rather than speed. I do hope that they enhance their lineup in the future, though. They should also have more F1.4/1.8 primes IMO.

[Na Horuk]

Yeah, you have the Pentax 14mm f2.8. And the fisheye zoom, which is not fast, but it is so very UWA you can increase the shutter time.
And yes, Pentax has some holes in its lineup. Mostly it is missing primes between 21mm and 31mm, between 77mm and 200mm, and some primes faster than f2.0. But I expect Pentax is overhauling its lineup now.

[Docrwm]

What Adam said. They offer unique as their selling point - small, all metal primes and small size and low f are not compatible.

[Kerrowdown]

There some manual focus (fine for night work) legacy glass out there for example the SMC Pentax-A 20mm F2.8, but maybe that's still not wide and fast enough for your needs.

[Blacknight659]

I believe we are going to see some growth in the near future, but you hit the nail on the head... we need more lenses and if you are like me you were probably a little disappointed with the recent releases. I would like to see a 15-28mm 2.8 or faster prime. in a zoom, 10-25 and a 2.8. It can be done and I hope it is weather sealed. BTW, you could always get the 14mm or a rokinon 14mm til they make what you need. also, the Sigma 17-70 is 2.8 on the wide end. so this could get you by until something better comes along.

[Kozlok]

I'd say that fasts is less important with IBIS. You aren't going to get shallow DOF at a wide angle, and I can handhold my DA15 down to less than 1/8 s, which at f4/ISO 800 is already pretty much dark. Sharpness and compactness trump speed for me.

[interested_observer]

There was a time when Pentax and Tokina co-designed a series of lenses (who actually did what - who knows), the 10-17, 12-24, 16-50 and the 50-135. Pentax sold the K mount, while Tokina sold the others. So, when Tokina came out with its 11-16, I was looking to acquire the 12-24. I did wait around some time to see if Pentax was going to come out with their version of the 11-16 and what the price would be. Well that was years ago, and I guess whatever agreement there was lapsed. Bottom line is that Pentax still has no 11-16/f2.8, which is a shame since the lens is really really wonderful.

Yes, it would be really nice for astro stuff as a fast lens does come in very handy there. Even thinking about Sigma's 18-35/f2.8 maybe in the future (but do I really need more WA lenses). Other than for night astro, I have been able to get along ok. I do a lot of low light landscape/cityscapes. There are times where something faster would certainly help - but for the most part, the tripod is your friend and longer shutter times is a cure. I'm around f8 most of the time anyway using ISO 80. The only time where depth of field does not matter is in astro.

For astro, what I have done in the past is to use the 31Ltd wide open and stitch. That does work to a degree - in particular where there is a landscape component in the frame. I do feel that there are some limitations - a single row. I doubt that you really want to try something more complex. There is also the O-GPS which helps a lot, but then again with anything static in the frame, it is going to blur (due to tracking). So, in the end everything is a compromise.

[Docrwm]

I like my 30/1.4 but would like an AF lens in the <16 range that was as fast. My 15ltd is great but there are times it's either high ISO or tripod.

[bassek]

There IS the DA*16-50/2.8 after all.

And there was the FA*24/2 which seems to be like the DA14/2.8 in terms of sharpness (both not that sharp but not that big either).

Seb

[Nitrogliserin]

you could always get the 14mm or a rokinon 14mm til they make what you need. also, the Sigma 17-70 is 2.8 on the wide end. so this could get you by until something better comes along.

I have both Samyang 14 mm and Sigma 17-70 contemporary. Actually in this case I got what I could find on the market

Samyang is the best for quality & price range and it's very sharp. It only requires a good calibration for infinity stop and some practice for manual focus but like other mentioned for night and astro with a tripod it won't be a problem.

I bought sigma 17-70 as a replacement of kit lens and it has AF at 17mm & F2.8.

My main purpose of photography is Northern Lights. To catch the curtain effect of the lights f2.8 and larger aperture is a must. That's why I pointed out that.

Tokina 11-16 would be an excellent solution to my need and probably I will shut up my mouth rest of my life.

PS: Recently I bought a K-3 but before that I tried to switch to Nikon FF and buy 12-24 Nikon lens but it's too pricey.

I think Pentax has been focusing on compactness rather than speed. I do hope that they enhance their lineup in the future, though. They should also have more F1.4/1.8 primes IMO.

Fingers crossed. I hope they'll read this thread

[Blacknight659]

Tokina 11-16 would be an excellent solution to my need and probably I will shut up my mouth rest of my life.

Agreed! I would buy this lens in a heart beat. Only thing that I hope is that they add weather sealing.

[maxxxx]

Agreed! I would buy this lens in a heart beat. Only thing that I hope is that they add weather sealing.

This lens in K-Mount would make my day too. It's not that expensive and it works great on Nikon.

[emalvick]

Well. The Tamron 17-50 is a good option that does let you go to 2.8, and I find it extremely sharp at 2.8 and wide open. I'm not sure that is really wide enough for Northern Lights, but I never tried it myself.

When I was in Iceland shooting the Northern Lights, I used a Tamron 10-24, which is f/3.5 at the wide end (4.5 at the 24 end). The 10mm end was what I used the most, and I did find a big problem with the aperture ruining my ability to get the "curtain effect". I suppose I could have gotten a bit more detail if I used a shorter shutter speed, but I used ISO to get what I wanted out of my images.

The images below are a couple of examples from my trip. Not the best ones, but I wasn't concerned as much with the curtain effect, so I often went for longer shutter speeds to get the shot I wanted. Anyway, both of these images were shot with that Tamron 10-24, wide open at f/3.5, at ISO 3200 and 1600 with shutter speeds around 16 to 20 seconds. The camera was a K-5. I always used the 10mm end for my shots when I was out among the Northern Lights. I just felt I needed as much of the sky as possible. If I went back there, I'd probably try my 15 mm prime, but I'd be more concerned about it being wide enough rather than fast enough.

[Nitrogliserin]

Well. The Tamron 17-50 is a good option that does let you go to 2.8, and I find it extremely sharp at 2.8 and wide open. I'm not sure that is really wide enough for Northern Lights, but I never tried it myself.

When I was in Iceland shooting the Northern Lights, I used a Tamron 10-24, which is f/3.5 at the wide end (4.5 at the 24 end). The 10mm end was what I used the most, and I did find a big problem with the aperture ruining my ability to get the "curtain effect". I suppose I could have gotten a bit more detail if I used a shorter shutter speed, but I used ISO to get what I wanted out of my images.

The images below are a couple of examples from my trip. Not the best ones, but I wasn't concerned as much with the curtain effect, so I often went for longer shutter speeds to get the shot I wanted. Anyway, both of these images were shot with that Tamron 10-24, wide open at f/3.5, at ISO 3200 and 1600 with shutter speeds around 16 to 20 seconds. The camera was a K-5. I always used the 10mm end for my shots when I was out among the Northern Lights. I just felt I needed as much of the sky as possible. If I went back there, I'd probably try my 15 mm prime, but I'd be more concerned about it being wide enough rather than fast enough.

My first Northern Lights experience was in Sweden and I just bought K-30 and 18-55 kit lens that time. I wasn't aware of that NL requires a larger aperture to catch them in motion. Sure you can get nice photos with f3.5 - 4 like you did but with 2.8 or larger you can play with them more easily. Usually iso800-1600 8-15 seconds will be fine with f2.8.

I wish that tamron was f2.8. I really don't understand why they don't make a UWA with larger aperture since obviously that lens is for landscape and night photography.