[lesmore49]

I'm considering getting a K-1 sometime down the road. I've got a number of Pentax digital lenses which include, a 10-17 fisheye, 150-500 Sigma, 50 F 1.4 normal, 50 F 2.8 Macro, 55-300, 40 Ltd., 70 Ltd....which from reading reports I think I can use these lenses on a full frame and they will work fine.

The 10-70 fisheye, that I;ve used with my ASP-C camera bodies...I've generally used at 17mm only. I find it I work with it at 17mm...I can get a nice extra wide angle...that doesn't have too much noticeable fisheye distortion. With a K-1 body I'm assuming that if I just use at 17mm the effect would be the same.

I have a 16-45, 12-24 (love this lens), 18-135, 21mm Ltd and I believe these lenses will only work well, when the K-1 is on the crop setting.

I've read a lot about the Pentax (Tamron) 24-70 F 2.8 and it seems some really like this lens and others are just so-so about it. I like the focal length and the speed (F 2.8) ...but it's not cheap and if pay the kind of money asked, I want something completely top notch.

I've been thinking of alternatives and the latest option to this lens, to occur to me, is the Pentax 31mm F 1.8 Limited. I'm pleased with my other Limiteds, everything I've read about the 31 indicates that this is a sharp, well constructed (metal), robust, top quality lens from every angle.

The 31 is only a couple hundred dollars less than a 24-70...so cost isn't that much of a factor to me.

Of course it's a prime, doesn't have the zoom focal lengths like the 24-70...but I started photography nearly 50 years ago, just using primes...a 50, 35mm and a 135mm. They were Takumars, except for the 35...it was a Bushnell. So although I really like the convenience of zooms, I figure I can myself move in and out with a prime. When I want a portrait lens, I can pop on my 70 Limited.

Also the 31mm on a FF of course won't give me as wide an angle as the 24-70.

Anyways, I would ask opinions out there. Maybe there is something I haven't considered, or maybe the 24-70 is better than my impression.

[BarryE]

I've been one of those who has been so-so about the 24-70. I haven't radically changed my mind, but I am more positive towards it.

I've now had it for two months. Initially I was far from impressed. Compared with da* and aps-c limiteds the results were worse. However, my view is changing. My mistake was thinking that if I worked with the raw files in the same way as did with cropped I should expect to see better or at least the same output. This was not happening.

I took a step back, used just the 24-70, forgot about comparisons and processed the files differently and the results are definitely improving.

I will not say I'm blown away and I do think that for the work I do and sell, the k-1/24-70 is not a step change in quality over the k-3s I used, but the k-1 in combination with the 24-70 will be able to offer me a different range of options- the 24-70 is not looking like it will let the side down as it did at the start.

It's big and heavy, but balances well and with a different approach, works well with the k-1, and is probably an 'essential' workhorse lens. Not stunning, but capable - probably, getting better as I appreciate the differences in formats and what that means in reality. I still wish it was a bit more even across the entire frame, though, but that was probably just too hopeful.

---------- Post added 11-03-16 at 09:03 PM ----------

My 70 and 40 limiteds are hopeless on the k-1. No where near off in my mind.

[UncleVanya]

My 70 and 40 limiteds are hopeless on the k-1. No where near off in my mind.

? I think you are saying they aren't Full Frame ?

That's the first time I have heard that. Most reports seem to indicate only minor vignetting.

[BarryE]

? I think you are saying they aren't Full Frame ?

That's the first time I have heard that. Most reports seem to indicate only minor vignetting.

For me they are not FF. I ran a series of tests eg brick wall and real subjects across the range of apertures and there was vignetting and a significant drop off in IQ at the edges. For my use I would only consider them as APS-C plus a bit, which makes them not really that useful for FF. A pity as I thought I'd be able to re-purpose them on the K-1.

[wizofoz]

I have a lot of the equipment listed in this thread. My most recent acquisitions are the K-1 and the 24-70. In my opinion, the 24-70 is an outstanding lens. I spent a lot of time agonising over the option of purchasing the 15-30 or the 24-70. I ended up opting for the 24-70 as a general purpose walk around lens, mainly because I was put off by the bulbous front element of the 15-30. I also have the 3 amigo's so I have the range of the 24-70 more or less covered, which was also a consideration.

I'm not sure where you get the pricing of the 31 being only a couple of hundred less than the 24-70, it certainly isn't true in my local market.

I had reasonably mediocre expectations of the 24-70, but I was very pleasantly surprised. It pairs brilliantly with the K-1, and is tack sharp where it counts. I have not noticed any softness in the corners of my images, but maybe I'm not as pernickety about these things as some others. It is very well built, WR and packs an optical punch. good enough for me.

The 10-17 is only usable in crop mode on the K-1, unfortunately.

[btnapa]

I'm considering getting a K-1 sometime down the road. I've got a number of Pentax digital lenses which include, a 10-17 fisheye, 150-500 Sigma, 50 F 1.4 normal, 50 F 2.8 Macro, 55-300, 40 Ltd., 70 Ltd....which from reading reports I think I can use these lenses on a full frame and they will work fine.

The 10-70 fisheye, that I;ve used with my ASP-C camera bodies...I've generally used at 17mm only. I find it I work with it at 17mm...I can get a nice extra wide angle...that doesn't have too much noticeable fisheye distortion. With a K-1 body I'm assuming that if I just use at 17mm the effect would be the same.

I have a 16-45, 12-24 (love this lens), 18-135, 21mm Ltd and I believe these lenses will only work well, when the K-1 is on the crop setting.

I've read a lot about the Pentax (Tamron) 24-70 F 2.8 and it seems some really like this lens and others are just so-so about it. I like the focal length and the speed (F 2.8) ...but it's not cheap and if pay the kind of money asked, I want something completely top notch.

I've been thinking of alternatives and the latest option to this lens, to occur to me, is the Pentax 31mm F 1.8 Limited. I'm pleased with my other Limiteds, everything I've read about the 31 indicates that this is a sharp, well constructed (metal), robust, top quality lens from every angle.

The 31 is only a couple hundred dollars less than a 24-70...so cost isn't that much of a factor to me.

Of course it's a prime, doesn't have the zoom focal lengths like the 24-70...but I started photography nearly 50 years ago, just using primes...a 50, 35mm and a 135mm. They were Takumars, except for the 35...it was a Bushnell. So although I really like the convenience of zooms, I figure I can myself move in and out with a prime. When I want a portrait lens, I can pop on my 70 Limited.

Also the 31mm on a FF of course won't give me as wide an angle as the 24-70.

Anyways, I would ask opinions out there. Maybe there is something I haven't considered, or maybe the 24-70 is better than my impression.

I do not have the 24-70 but do have the 31 and the other two from the Three Amigos trio. I cannot draw a side-by-side comparison. However, the 31 and for that matter the 43 and the 77 are finally on my K1 which is what they were intended for. The quality of the 31 is beyond my expectations so are 43 and 77.

I rarely shoot wide open with any of the FA Limiteds but I decided to do so with the 31 to see if it is as good or as bad as everyone claims. The ugly CA is there and vey pronounced but an easy fix in post. How did the 31 perform wide open, one word, Wow. You cannot deny the flexibility of the 24-70 but for pure no compromise quality in images, especially in wider aperture (where lenses are at their weakest), the 31 and the other FA Limiteds have no equal, at least in Pentax land. I have contemplated letting the Three Amigos go in favor of the 24-70 just because of its flexibility but I cannot bring myself to letting the Three Amigos out my sight. BTW, let's not forget how compact the Pentax primes are, if that is important to you.

[noelpolar]

I use the 10-17 on the K-1 in ff mode..... like most things, it depends on your needs....some crop on this shot for framing purposes....17 is the new 10 though....

[lesmore49]

I have a lot of the equipment listed in this thread. My most recent acquisitions are the K-1 and the 24-70. In my opinion, the 24-70 is an outstanding lens. I spent a lot of time agonising over the option of purchasing the 15-30 or the 24-70. I ended up opting for the 24-70 as a general purpose walk around lens, mainly because I was put off by the bulbous front element of the 15-30. I also have the 3 amigo's so I have the range of the 24-70 more or less covered, which was also a consideration.

I'm not sure where you get the pricing of the 31 being only a couple of hundred less than the 24-70, it certainly isn't true in my local market.

I had reasonably mediocre expectations of the 24-70, but I was very pleasantly surprised. It pairs brilliantly with the K-1, and is tack sharp where it counts. I have not noticed any softness in the corners of my images, but maybe I'm not as pernickety about these things as some others. It is very well built, WR and packs an optical punch. good enough for me.

The 10-17 is only usable in crop mode on the K-1, unfortunately.

Thx for the info. My price comparison regarding 24-70 (around $ 1599) vs 31 (around $ 1299) comes from Canadian prices. I'm a Canuck and generally I buy, it's been from Canadian stores. I might be out a bit with those prices, as they are from memory.

---------- Post added 11-03-16 at 08:31 PM ----------

I use the 10-17 on the K-1 in ff mode..... like most things, it depends on your needs....some crop on this shot for framing purposes....17 is the new 10 though....

That is a wonderful photograph...and as you say with a 10- 17mm @ 17... on a K-1. Right ? Thx for posting, it confirms my understanding that by using 17mm on the 10-17 FE...you can get wide angle pix like that.

---------- Post added 11-03-16 at 08:32 PM ----------

I do not have the 24-70 but do have the 31 and the other two from the Three Amigos trio. I cannot draw a side-by-side comparison. However, the 31 and for that matter the 43 and the 77 are finally on my K1 which is what they were intended for. The quality of the 31 is beyond my expectations so are 43 and 77.

I rarely shoot wide open with any of the FA Limiteds but I decided to do so with the 31 to see if it is as good or as bad as everyone claims. The ugly CA is there and vey pronounced but an easy fix in post. How did the 31 perform wide open, one word, Wow. You cannot deny the flexibility of the 24-70 but for pure no compromise quality in images, especially in wider aperture (where lenses are at their weakest), the 31 and the other FA Limiteds have no equal, at least in Pentax land. I have contemplated letting the Three Amigos go in favor of the 24-70 just because of its flexibility but I cannot bring myself to letting the Three Amigos out my sight. BTW, let's not forget how compact the Pentax primes are, if that is important to you.

Thx for your informative post...helps in decision making.

---------- Post added 11-03-16 at 08:34 PM ----------

I've been one of those who has been so-so about the 24-70. I haven't radically changed my mind, but I am more positive towards it.

I've now had it for two months. Initially I was far from impressed. Compared with da* and aps-c limiteds the results were worse. However, my view is changing. My mistake was thinking that if I worked with the raw files in the same way as did with cropped I should expect to see better or at least the same output. This was not happening.

I took a step back, used just the 24-70, forgot about comparisons and processed the files differently and the results are definitely improving.

I will not say I'm blown away and I do think that for the work I do and sell, the k-1/24-70 is not a step change in quality over the k-3s I used, but the k-1 in combination with the 24-70 will be able to offer me a different range of options- the 24-70 is not looking like it will let the side down as it did at the start.

It's big and heavy, but balances well and with a different approach, works well with the k-1, and is probably an 'essential' workhorse lens. Not stunning, but capable - probably, getting better as I appreciate the differences in formats and what that means in reality. I still wish it was a bit more even across the entire frame, though, but that was probably just too hopeful.

---------- Post added 11-03-16 at 09:03 PM ----------

My 70 and 40 limiteds are hopeless on the k-1. No where near off in my mind.

Thx Barry for the info. Appreciate the personal experience with the equipment.

[MegaPower]

I have both lens.
I recently got the 24-70 and I use it way more than my FA31.
I really depends on what fits your need.

[HopelessTogger]

Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art?

Half the price of either the 24-70 or 31mm

[Nicolas06]

I'm considering getting a K-1 sometime down the road. I've got a number of Pentax digital lenses which include, a 10-17 fisheye, 150-500 Sigma, 50 F 1.4 normal, 50 F 2.8 Macro, 55-300, 40 Ltd., 70 Ltd....which from reading reports I think I can use these lenses on a full frame and they will work fine.

The 10-70 fisheye, that I;ve used with my ASP-C camera bodies...I've generally used at 17mm only. I find it I work with it at 17mm...I can get a nice extra wide angle...that doesn't have too much noticeable fisheye distortion. With a K-1 body I'm assuming that if I just use at 17mm the effect would be the same.

I have a 16-45, 12-24 (love this lens), 18-135, 21mm Ltd and I believe these lenses will only work well, when the K-1 is on the crop setting.

I've read a lot about the Pentax (Tamron) 24-70 F 2.8 and it seems some really like this lens and others are just so-so about it. I like the focal length and the speed (F 2.8) ...but it's not cheap and if pay the kind of money asked, I want something completely top notch.

I've been thinking of alternatives and the latest option to this lens, to occur to me, is the Pentax 31mm F 1.8 Limited. I'm pleased with my other Limiteds, everything I've read about the 31 indicates that this is a sharp, well constructed (metal), robust, top quality lens from every angle.

The 31 is only a couple hundred dollars less than a 24-70...so cost isn't that much of a factor to me.

Of course it's a prime, doesn't have the zoom focal lengths like the 24-70...but I started photography nearly 50 years ago, just using primes...a 50, 35mm and a 135mm. They were Takumars, except for the 35...it was a Bushnell. So although I really like the convenience of zooms, I figure I can myself move in and out with a prime. When I want a portrait lens, I can pop on my 70 Limited.

Also the 31mm on a FF of course won't give me as wide an angle as the 24-70.

Anyways, I would ask opinions out there. Maybe there is something I haven't considered, or maybe the 24-70 is better than my impression.

10-17, 55-300 and 70ltd are not truely full frame. You may have to crop a bit to remove some heavy vigneting and don't expect perfect sharpness on border. This mean you have to take it into account when you frame the scene otherwise, you may miss some part of your subject once cropped. To me, this would kind of kill the shooting experience. I don't want to this that I may have to crop some bit, a bit more or less depending of the apperture or focussing distance...

For the 24-70, I can only guess unhappy customers got a bad sample or compared it to much too their FAltds. They should ask for a new sample or stick to primes (I do the later strategy).

[reeftool]

I like the versatility of good zoom so I will naturally suggest getting the 24-70 to go along with the K1. Using crop sensor lenses are OK for a while but why buy the K1 and then put up with compromises?

Anyways, I would ask opinions out there. Maybe there is something I haven't considered

You really want both of them don't you?

[lesmore49]

I like the versatility of good zoom so I will naturally suggest getting the 24-70 to go along with the K1. Using crop sensor lenses are OK for a while but why buy the K1 and then put up with compromises?


You really want both of them don't you?

When you get right down to it, I'm like Charles Dickens' character, Oliver Twist. I want 'more'.

[C_Jones]

I have a lot of the equipment listed in this thread. My most recent acquisitions are the K-1 and the 24-70. In my opinion, the 24-70 is an outstanding lens. I spent a lot of time agonising over the option of purchasing the 15-30 or the 24-70. I ended up opting for the 24-70 as a general purpose walk around lens, mainly because I was put off by the bulbous front element of the 15-30. I also have the 3 amigo's so I have the range of the 24-70 more or less covered, which was also a consideration.

I'm not sure where you get the pricing of the 31 being only a couple of hundred less than the 24-70, it certainly isn't true in my local market.

I had reasonably mediocre expectations of the 24-70, but I was very pleasantly surprised. It pairs brilliantly with the K-1, and is tack sharp where it counts. I have not noticed any softness in the corners of my images, but maybe I'm not as pernickety about these things as some others. It is very well built, WR and packs an optical punch. good enough for me.

The 10-17 is only usable in crop mode on the K-1, unfortunately.

Thanks for the valuable opinion/information.