[eminker]

Hi All!

I have the option of purchasing either a FA* 24mm F2 or a FA 20-35mm F4. Both seem to be in excellent condition and comes with front/rear caps and lens hood. Price wise
$548 vs $440. Generally I use my K-5 and K-5iis mainly for architecture shooting and outdoor touring/landscapes. I used a SIgma 10-20mm F3.5 when I need a UWA for architectural
shots but I like the color saturation and contrasts of Pentax lenses more. I have an old 16-45mm F4 that is showing its age and that's one reason why I am contemplating a new lens.
I already have the FA 28mm F2.8 as well. Without price being a factor, which lens would be a better fit in terms of colors/contrast, sharpness and the ability to take my photography
to the next level.

Many Thanks!
Evan

[LennyBloke]

For your uses I'd go with the FA 20-35 - the flexibility outweighs the faster aperture of the FA* 24. It's sharp, light, has advanced coatings (for its age) and produces typically beautiful contrast and colours.

I have both lenses, would not part with either very easily, and the 20-35 is used far more often. Having said that there is something special about images produced by the FA*24 - the colours are probably the best I've seen (along with the FA*85) but you have to make sure you have a good copy, I've had one that was quite soft from f2.0 to f4.0 - but my current copy is fairly sharp at F2.0 and excellent by f2.8.

The real answer is buy both of these lenses - in the long run you won't regret it

[mwilky55]

Here's a thought....sell the FA28 cuz you've got it covered when you buy the FA20-35, then use the difference to get the FA*24

I'm fortunate to have both the FA24 and the 20-35. The latter is new to me so don't have much to go on yet, but I've been very pleased with the FA*24 and it has taken some good pictures in low light.

I can tell you, though, the FA*24 and 20-35 are pretty hard to come by.

Don't have the FA28, but suspect it is also very good....guess I'm not being much help

[eminker]

Here's a thought....sell the FA28 cuz you've got it covered when you buy the FA20-35, then use the difference to get the FA*24

I'm fortunate to have both the FA24 and the 20-35. The latter is new to me so don't have much to go on yet, but I've been very pleased with the FA*24 and it has taken some good pictures in low light.

I can tell you, though, the FA*24 and 20-35 are pretty hard to come by.

Don't have the FA28, but suspect it is also very good....guess I'm not being much help

Many Thanks and Yes, you have been quite a bit of help.
Selling the FA 28 may be the answer .

---------- Post added 06-05-15 at 12:30 PM ----------

For your uses I'd go with the FA 20-35 - the flexibility outweighs the faster aperture of the FA* 24. It's sharp, light, has advanced coatings (for its age) and produces typically beautiful contrast and colours.

I have both lenses, would not part with either very easily, and the 20-35 is used far more often. Having said that there is something special about images produced by the FA*24 - the colours are probably the best I've seen (along with the FA*85) but you have to make sure you have a good copy, I've had one that was quite soft from f2.0 to f4.0 - but my current copy is fairly sharp at F2.0 and excellent by f2.8.

The real answer is buy both of these lenses - in the long run you won't regret it

Thanks LennyBloke.
It seems unanimous and I was leaning towards both but need to sell off
some current kit. I'll probably start with the FA 20-35mm and hopefully pick
up the FA 24mm maybe end of year if its available.

Thanks again for your sanity check. its most appreciated.