[BarryE]

I'm very happily using the D-FA 50 and FA 35 primes on my K-1 and I'd like to extend the range wider, probably around 24mm. I can see on the lens search there are 4 x 24mm variants, what I'd appreciate knowing is the relative merits of each in comparison. I appreciate it's unlikely anyone has tried all 4 on the K-1, but what are your views on each, please ?

What I like about the 50 and 35 I have is their size and sharpness for landscapes, especially when cropped. Going wider to 24 mm, I appreciate the edges will depreciate compared with the 50 & 35, but I'd like it to be better than the D-FA 24-70. I'd prefer AF, but happy enough to focus manually if required. I shoot quite a lot into the sun so flare susceptibility is an issue, but again I can cope if this is a problem with the older lenses as compared with the new HD coatings that I've used.

Maybe 20mm might be OK, but 28mm will be too close to the 35mm

Possible availability is worth asking about. In the UK there's not many used like these lenses appearing very often, that I've seen. The possibility of importing from Japan is a complete unknown to me. From the USA may be easier, but I've not done this either.

Thoughts please ?

[clackers]

Worth looking at the Samyang 24mm f1.4, Barry!

[BarryE]

Worth looking at the Samyang 24mm f1.4, Barry!

Thanks Clackers, I did. It's a little large for me...

[Kozlok]

The old A-24 is reasonably compact, and OK performance.

[RobA_Oz]

If size is an issue, and you don't mind MF, I can recommend the SMC Pentax 24mm f2.8. I bought mine new in 1982, to use on my K2DMD, and it's still a delight on the K-1. I imagine the A version would be slightly easier to use. Mind you, they're not cheap, but there's quite a number on eBay right now.

If you want AF, and you don't mind spending a fair bit more, then the FA*24mm f2 has its fans, me included.

[jtkratzer]

I can vouch for the SMC K24/3.5. Never tried the 2.8. I assume it's considerably more money than the 3.5. It's been fast enough for me. I'm not doing portraits with it, so thin depth of field isn't necessary. Maybe a bit brighter in the viewfinder with the 2.8, but the K24 and 28/3.5 have been fine.

[monochrome]

I can vouch for the SMC K24/3.5. Never tried the 2.8. I assume it's considerably more money than the 3.5. It's been fast enough for me. I'm not doing portraits with it, so thin depth of field isn't necessary. Maybe a bit brighter in the viewfinder with the 2.8, but the K24 and 28/3.5 have been fine.

I have had the K24/3.5 and I currently have the K24/2.8. I suggest you read the Reviews here, especially the contributions by gofour3. Phil is a K lenses aficionado and his comments are spot-on for film. They carry over well for K-1; on APSc you have the benefit of not capturing the edges.

My experience with the K24/2.8 on K-1 has been about the same as on film cameras - sharp stopped down a bit, some distortion, bright punchy colors and very small and delightful to use (if you like manual focus). The 3.5 is larger and heavier and I think has an earlier coating formula than the 2.8 - it renders a bit cooler.

The 2.8 takes 52mm filters and has a somewhat often available square plastic hood, which I recommend.
The 3.5 takes 58mm filters and a metal 'plate' hood (thumbscrew pinch ring IIRC) that it shares with the 18/3.5 and 20/4. I had it with the 3.5 and stupidly sold them to KEH in a fit of anti-LBA. It took me years to find that hood.

[pres589]

The Sigma Super-Wide II AF has always seemed interesting to me. 24mm, autofocus, and it's always reviewed pretty well. It's in the User Reviews section here on this site. They seem to run around $200 or $250 on the auction sites. Older lens and not without faults but optically they seem good. Pretty small as well, physically, which I like.

[RKKS08]

SMC Pentax-A 2.8/24
SMC Pentax-A 4/24-50
Tokina 2.8/24 (PK-A mount, not RMC!)
Sigma 2.8/24 II

I don't own the Pentax zoom, but heard multiple times the IQ is excellent (prime like). The older M version is said to much worse. On German eBay it can be found 5-6 times a year, auction prices between €90 and €150. But I don't know whether it is better than the D-FA 24-70, which you don't like.

Mind the Tokina mentioned is NOT the "RMC" one, but a newer design (with "A" contacts only). This one is VERY seldom (maybe once a year or less often on German eBay), and mostly not expensive. I guess people think the missing RMC designation makes it a less desireable itmem; so they miss what a gem this lens is. In our lens database this version is not mentioned, just the RMC one. But one of the reviews (member pericombobulation) is about it. I own both versions (the older one has now developed a stuck aperture), the difference in IQ is big.

The Sigma seems to have extreme copy variation. If you read reviews (on PF and elsewhere), you will find everything (excellent, paper weight, and anything in between).

If you wonder why all these are MF: I don't own many AF lenses.

[jtkratzer]

I have had the K24/3.5 and I currently have the K24/2.8. I suggest you read the Reviews here, especially the contributions by gofour3. Phil is a K lenses aficionado and his comments are spot-on for film. They carry over well for K-1; on APSc you have the benefit of not capturing the edges.

My experience with the K24/2.8 on K-1 has been about the same as on film cameras - sharp stopped down a bit, some distortion, bright punchy colors and very small and delightful to use (if you like manual focus). The 3.5 is larger and heavier and I think has an earlier coating formula than the 2.8 - it renders a bit cooler.

The 2.8 takes 52mm filters and has a somewhat often available square plastic hood, which I recommend.
The 3.5 takes 58mm filters and a metal 'plate' hood (thumbscrew pinch ring IIRC) that it shares with the 18/3.5 and 20/4. I had it with the 3.5 and stupidly sold them to KEH in a fit of anti-LBA. It took me years to find that hood.

Other than being wrong on my assumption about the price of the 2.8 being higher, did I miss something? I read the reviews and the 3.5 version is higher rate, seems to be rated better for sharpness, etc.

[monochrome]

Other than being wrong on my assumption about the price of the 2.8 being higher, did I miss something? I read the reviews and the 3.5 version is higher rate, seems to be rated better for sharpness, etc.

No, I don't think you missed anything. I sold the 24/3.5 some years ago and perhaps my memory is suspect. They're both nice lenses, though the 24/2.8 doesn't seem to get as much love here as the 3.5 does.

[fb_penpho]

The Cosina 24mm f2.8, available as A pin MF and fairly cheap. Goes under other brand names,

[lytrytyr]

I can see on the lens search there are 4 x 24mm variants, what I'd appreciate knowing is the relative merits of each in comparison. I appreciate it's unlikely anyone has tried all 4 on the K-1, but what are your views on each, please ?

I've used both the A and K 24/2.8 lenses on APS-C.
They have the same optical formula, but I think the coatings on the A are a little better.

Both are excellent in the closer range, but seem to be weaker towards infinity.
No surprise here really, as back in the day they were designed as reportage lenses.

If you're looking for a landscape lens, I think the Zeiss 25/2.8 would be a better choice,
if you don't mind the larger size, and if you can find one (probably around GBP 500).

[D1N0]

The only AF 24mm's for Pentax are FA* 24mm F2 and de AF version of the Sigma Super-Wide II (which is ok but does suffer from flare). The FA* 24 is probably the best 24mm for Pentax full frame right now.
There is also a newer Sigma but it is not very highly rated. There's one on ebay right now Sigma 24mm F1.8-PENTAX EX Asp DG DF MACRO AF Lens. London | eBay

Whether there is a better 24 for the K-1 than the D FA 24-70 I don't know. Did anybody compare it yet with the FA* F2?

[BarryE]

Many thanks, as usual folks for some good and helpful feedback - much to think about ...

The K and A lens formula are the same I now realise, so I can look out for those, but as has been pointed out they may not be ideal for distant focus. In APS-C I rarely used the 15mm, preferring the 21mm for walkabout, but there were occasions where the small 15mm just did the job and this was what I was looking for in FF, ie a small 24mm at FF.

Having rarely used the 15mm on cropped I realise I don't have a natural eye for this focal length, though on analysis of past images I do see that I have sold quite a few from the wide end of my 16-50 which surprised me. I suppose it's the wide prime mindset that I'm probably not in, rather than just this focal length. A small lens at around 24mm on FF is my target that I can carry easily and train myself to 'see' with it, but not if it's not so good at distant shots. Yes I know, wide angles tend to need a strong foreground, but also the distance needs to be able to be properly distinguishable. The 15mm on cropped managed this well, albeit, the edges did die quite a bit, but at least they don't distort too badly, I feel.

Thinking about it, the *small* 15mm on cropped allowed me a good deal of freedom of movement, something I'm struggling with using the 24-70 on FF - it's just too bulky and awkward, and optically not what I was hoping for. Maybe I should look at the 28mm options instead ? They'll be some reasonable gain in field-of-view over my 35mm - not, perhaps what I was planning, but maybe this is a compromise, if the 28mm lenses are better optically and in size for me ... I need to take a look at them as well ...

Thanks again ...