[Ascencio]

When I joined the forum, Photozone was the cat's meow, but, they haven't kept up. Not enough contributions from Pentax supporters to keep up the testing, I suspect. Most of their tests are on 10 MP, with a few on 16 MP. Pretty much dark ages kind of tests by now and at least 3 years out of date. There's no K-3, K-70-, K-P, or K-1 testing.

As far as i know Imagine resources is the only site that's done any K-1 testing and that only on the sensor, not on lenses.

PC Mag has recent lens reviews with K-1.

[normhead]

PC Mag has recent lens reviews with K-1.

I'll have to check them out. Thanks.

[Nicolas06]

The FA 77 is a nice lens (I own it), but it certainly isn't the pinnacle of Pentax optics. Of the lenses I've used, the DFA *70-200 probably takes that prize.

I don't find the DFA70-200 as an especially interresting lens. Performance was the only criteria and the focal range is an easy one. There no bad 70-200 f/2.8. I don't think that lens bring more performance per kg than the competition.

If the 70-200 achieved its performance at 800g then it would be an interresting design and a game changer and I would agree with you.

[c.perkins]

"stack of primes"
A 35-105mm f3.5
Just had to throw that in here

Clarence

[cyberjunkie]

"stack of primes"
A 35-105mm f3.5
Just had to throw that in here

Best prosumer MF zoom, along with the 4/70-210mm of the same vintage.
My late girlfriend took wonderful pictures on film (mostly chromes and B&W), using the 35-105mm and a rare russian wide angle zoom with PK mount. Two zooms covered most of her needs, and among my cameras, the Super-A was her favorite.

Not so sure it still proves as good on high resolution digital sensors. I confess I haven't tried any of those zooms on my K-1, and on APS-C I had other alternatives...

Btw, at first I thought "wait, it's not even a prime!"... then I realized why, it's a stack of primes

[normhead]

PC Mag has recent lens reviews with K-1.

Boy that is a really tough to navigate site, but here's link that will let you look at a lot of lenses.

Pentax HD D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC AW Review & Rating | PCMag.com

Use the lens list on the bottom.
Three stars for the 150-450.

Like photozone, the DA 35 2.4 is rated ahead of the 31 and 43 base on test chart sharpness.... so it's a sharpness opinion, not a rendering opinion. Personally I don't care about how sharp my 35 2.4 is, I rarely like the images.

The 35 2.8 macro get 4.5. Most Pentax lenses are rated 4s.

Among lower tier lenses, the 18-135 (2.5) 16-85 (3) and 28-195 *3,5) are rated but the Sigma 18-300 is rated 3.5 and the Sigma 17-70 is rated 4.

I'm trying to find out if Canon and Nikon have and 5 rated lenses but 'The best DSLR lenses of 2017 page lists no name brand lenses.and their best lens the Otis 85 1.4 is a 4.5 so I guess that's pretty good.

Also at 4.5 which seems to be the top mark PC Mag gives the Canon EF 85 ƒ 1.3 the first name brand to pop up in my search.

The Sigma 150-600 is rated 4.5 compared to 3.5 for the 150-450, has fast focusing, the 150-450 was rated "slow" .

This must be one of those sites people talk about.

[UncleVanya]

Like photozone, the DA 35 2.4 is rated ahead of the 31 and 43 base on test chart sharpness.... so it's a sharpness opinion, not a rendering opinion. Personally I don't care about how sharp my 35 2.4 is, I rarely like the images.

I am with you. I really can't explain why the FA 35 f/2 and the DA 35 f/2.4 do not sing the same to me. The FA is a much nicer lens to my viewing. But bias may certainly come into it as the plastic fantastic was never sexy. The FA 31 vs. FA 35 is a more subtle thing but in side by side shooting the FA 31 tends to win my heart more often.

[normhead]

I am with you. I really can't explain why the FA 35 f/2 and the DA 35 f/2.4 do not sing the same to me. The FA is a much nicer lens to my viewing. But bias may certainly come into it as the plastic fantastic was never sexy. The FA 31 vs. FA 35 is a more subtle thing but in side by side shooting the FA 31 tends to win my heart more often.

I'm a practical guy. I don't walk the dogs every day since my hip operation. but when I do I take a camera with one lens on it. Usually I take 30-40 images and have 4-15 I want to post. The last chance walk for the 35 2.4, I took close to 50 images and didn't have one I thought was good enough to post. To me, I could have had a lens I liked on the camera. I could have been a contender.

At this point I don't know if it will ever again get out of lens cabinet pugatory. I'm sure it works for some people, it just doesn't work for me.

[UncleVanya]

I'm a practical guy. I don't walk the dogs every day since my hip operation. but when I do I take a camera with one lens on it. Usually I take 30-40 images and have 4-15 I want to post. The last chance walk for the 35 2.4, I took close to 50 images and didn't have one I thought was good enough to post. To me, I could have had a lens I liked on the camera. I could have been a contender.

At this point I don't know if it will ever again get out of lens cabinet pugatory. I'm sure it works for some people, it just doesn't work for me.

I can understand that. @Tsuken makes great images with his. I never warmed to mine. That's the frustrating part of all of this. A lens that works for one of us may not for another - is it the lens or the eye? Hard to say. But I do know the same feeling you mention - some lenses click with me and others do not.

The 12-24 is a prime example. The photos people take with it are fantastic. But put me behind the viewfinder and I just don't seem to have the magic with it. I love my DA 15 - but the 12-24 and I don't see quite eye to eye. The lens isn't the problem - I am. I suppose I may be able to train myself over time...

[pepperberry farm]

it's the eye - my DA35 2.4 was capable of scathingly-sharp images, but I never cared for them; they just did not sing for me....


I could not tell you if it were the rendering or the bokeh... but I sold it off and replaced it...

[pres589]

The only reason I bought a DA 35 f2.4 is because a fast 28mm prime isn't currently sold by Pentax and for the price I didn't think I could lose. I still grab mine every once in a while but my reaction is the same.

Maybe it'd be more fun to use on film.

[JohnBee]

Of course you can ask what "best" means, and you would be right. By "best" I mean the highest lens rating. You might be thinking (quite incorrectly, as it turns out) that Pentax makes great small prime lenses - such as the FA 77.

Where are the DA lenses?

[leekil]

I'm pretty sure the DA 15 and maybe the DA 70 were mentioned in this thread.

[UncleVanya]

Where are the DA lenses?

Some are in my bag! My autofocus primes are:
DA 15 ltd (SMC), FA 31 ltd, FA 35 (no longer working in AF due to a severe drop), DA 40 ltd (SMC), F 50 f1.7, DA 70 ltd (HD), FA 77, DFA 100 WR, DA* 200, FA* 300. I think all of these are very good. The best one depends on what I want to shoot.

In the past I owned a Sigma AF 400 f5.6 - that is the only prime autofocus lens I have ever owned for Pentax that I didn't think had a shot at the title of "best for the job". The AF 400 quality was lower than a DA 55-300 cropped to make the difference up. But it was a fun bit of kit to own and sometimes I wish I still had it. Maybe I'll spring for something better at some point. I also once owned the DA 35 f/2.4 - but as said earlier I just didn't love it. It was never a bad lens.

[Steve Grosvenor]

Another problem with owner-ratings is that those posting the ratings don't have experience with all the possible choices. How many who rated the lenses own both a 31 and a 77? How many have used an older 50mm f1.7? How many have used a 200mm f4 macro, either SMCA or IF-AF version? How many have taken pictures with a 400mm f2.8 or 600mm f4, both outstanding lenses?

You nailed the biggest problem... even those who may have experience with many of the lenses may have experienced an exceptional or misaligned copy of a given lens.

Then one has to consider the type of photography a person enjoys... a person who shoots portraits may love a softer image while a person shooting wildlife make want a razor sharp focus. Same goes for preferences with regards to DoF, contrast and colour.

The 'best' lens I have is the 50mm 1:1.2 with which I get incredible shallow depth of field and Bokeh and razor sharp images. The fact that it may be subject to flair and other problems don't matter to me as it hasn't been a problem given the types of photos I have taken with it.

As it is the 'best' lens I have used I would vote for it as being the 'best of the best'... but with advances in coatings I suspect that the new DA* 55 F1.4 is likely a far better lens producing a better image.