[wanderer2]

I'm starting to put together a kit of primes for landscape use (only) on my K-1. The 3 Amigos seem to be legendary in the Pentax world and very appealing. Do they have any drawbacks or negative features for landscape use? For example, the 77 is often used for portraits and for this use some softness may be desired. I would like maximum sharpness my lenses as I want the capability to make large prints. Would these three lenses provide that? Are there other lenses in this range of focal lengths that would be better for landscapes? Any advice or opinions will be much appreciated.

Those lenses are excellent choices, I've used all three on my K-1 and I highly recommend them.

The 77mm is very sharp, I've even shot it at f/22 using pixel-shift and gotten pretty stunning results.
The 43mm is a lens that I really enjoy but it doesn't have the best edge performance, however, I have made it work in a number of situations.
The 31mm is also top-notch, shooting it between f/4-f/11 (pixel-shift or not) will likely find the most use in landscape settings.

[pschlute]

The only thing i would say is that the 31mm ltd can be prone to purple fringing if you photograph tree branches against a cloudy sky. Stopping down reduces this and it can be dealt with in post too. Certainly would not vote against it as a landscape lens on that alone, it has too many magical properties working in it's favour.

If you shoot with the sun encroaching into your frame the hood can be a bit limiting too, but a strategically placed hand will sort that out.

[robjmitchell]

The FA limiteds are fantastic lenses for landscapes. They have a slightly different way with colours that particularly lends them golden hour/sunrise/sunset. If you are stopping down though some of the zooms are also going to be very good.

[Hattifnatt]

I'm starting to put together a kit of primes for landscape use (only) on my K-1. The 3 Amigos seem to be legendary in the Pentax world and very appealing. Do they have any drawbacks or negative features for landscape use? For example, the 77 is often used for portraits and for this use some softness may be desired. I would like maximum sharpness my lenses as I want the capability to make large prints. Would these three lenses provide that? Are there other lenses in this range of focal lengths that would be better for landscapes? Any advice or opinions will be much appreciated.

I am mostly shooting landscapes and before getting the K-1 I didn't have a quality all-around zoom so I was using my primes: FA 77 and FA 43 (I got the Sigma 35 Art instead of FA 31 so I won't comment on that one). I would say both are really excellent for landscape photography, at least regarding the image quality. The FA 77 was fringing in some cases but nothing serious, easy to fix in PP.

The biggest drawbacks that I can see when using the 3 amigos for landscapes are flexibility and the lack of WR. Shortly after getting the K-1, I also bought the DFA 24-70 which I used quite a lot so now I can compare. I would say the flexibility and the WR of the zoom lens far outweighs the better IQ of the prime lenses.

It may depend on your style of shooting landscapes, but I often do hiking and climbing, sometimes in really bad weather. Changing lenses all the time (in bad weather) was a nightmare, considering that I had a lot of other stuff to carry with me: backpack, hiking equipment etc. I was missing a lot of shots because of that. For instance I'm on a mountain ridge, it's raining, it's cold, wind is blowing, I need a wide-angle for a shot and but I have my FA 77 on camera. Most of the times I wouldn't stop to change lenses and take the shot. Sometimes you can zoom in or out with your feet, but not always, especially on a ridge.

Lately I have been visiting Ireland quite a lot and there is a lot of landscape potential there without having to climb. Within walking distance from the city you find nice landscapes. So I thought using the 3 Amigos would be much more easier. Only problem is the weather, it rains pretty much all the time and wind is also strong so it was not so easy to change lenses all the time without getting the sensor dirty, despite my best effort. I ended up leaving home with just one lens on the camera (either FA 77 or FA 43) and see what I can get with it. Of course I missed some opportunities because of the wrong focal length. Overall, most of the pictures that I'm really happy with were taken with the 24-70.

I added some samples below with all the above mentioned lenses. Unfortunately I don't have a sample taken with all of them in the same condition for direct comparison. You can click on the photos to see the details (Flickr).

FA 43mm (K-1 & K5IIs):






FA 77mm (K-1 & K5IIs):






DFA 24-70mm (K-1):






Although I think the limiteds have a specific rendering (which I like), I would say the flexibility and the WR of the 24-70 allowed me to take some pictures in conditions that would have been risky for the primes. To sum it all up, consider the type of shots and the environment that you will be shooting in.

If you think you can manage to safely carry and swap around the Limiteds, I'm sure they will do a good job, given good light. I would be a bit worried about flare when shooting into the sun (because of the lack of HD coating), but then again I've seen some nasty flare even with top quality coatings.

On the other hand, if you need more flexibility and often shoot in hostile environments where changing lenses too often could be a problem, I would strongly consider the DFA 24-70mm. Maybe pixel peeping the edges will tell you have a zoom lens ... but it's a damn good one though.

[BarryE]

I'd say replace the 43mm with the DFA 50mm macro f2.8. This is a stunning lens, very sharp across the frame. Then with the money saved buy the DFA 100mm f2.8. Again flat across the frame. These 4 lenses are my standard 4 lens landscape kit.

The 50mm can be cropped to the edge of the frame for a usable 3:2 or 1:1 large print - I rate it my best, accurate lens. Second best is the 77 for it's 3D effects and just all round, 'wow ! where did that come from" results.

I will be contentious and say you might consider replacing the FA31 with the FA35 f2 . I've used both, and to be honest the differences are negligible, for my landscape work, except price. I regularly print to A1 size for sale with these lenses.

Good choice in not mentioning the DFA 24-70 ...

[Ron Boggs]

The amigos are really strong at deep depth of field apertures (which is NEVER analyzed by the "how is it wide open" non-landscape world. I can proudly say that in 20 years of use, I've only made one image wide open with any of the amigos and that was a publicity photo/portrait with the 43 that was published in several places). The amigos also do a fantastic job of subject clarity in the foreground (3D effect is hidden by full frame of focus) and remember, the difference between publication or print quality landscape work and snapshots is the foreground 20% of the frame--every phone can photograph the sunset, mountain or trees!

Wish I had saved the press releases back in 1999...the 77 was not designed for dreamy portrait qualities with softish corners...it was designed for accurate yet punchy colors for the fashion world. The portraiture it was engineered to excel at is the bright and detailed fashion advertising world. There's no soft corners in a fashion mag or ad for Vera Wang! That's the clientele Pentax went after with this lens. The subtleties of various shades of red don't just fade to the same tone with this lens. The nuances of various leaf shades are visible with the 77. It is perhaps a touch less warm than other FA Ltd and * lenses to keep accurate flesh tones--flesh tones were mentioned in virtually all the press releases on the 77. Starting a landscape shot with accurate colors makes adding a tiny bit of saturation worthwhile, not just a tone-muddying type of vibrance you see in all those oversaturated "mud" pictures online. Like the "sparkly" fashion shots the 77 was designed for, you'll find the "sparkle" jumps off the print in your landscape work with this lens. Realistically, you won't be doing near/far stuff with the 77...hyperfocal distance is just too far...so you usually will use this lens for extractions rather than grand scenics. It's the Elliot Porter lens in my kit and I recommend it highly!

[aslyfox]

those who chose to respond to this thread:

the limiteds do they live up to the reputation and why - Page 10 - PentaxForums.com

clearly are impressed by the " Limited " lenses, both the F A and the D A series

[Na Horuk]

I would like maximum sharpness my lenses as I want the capability to make large prints.

Then you might prefer DFA 50mm f2.8 macro and DFA 100mm macro. They have flat field of focus, sharp into the edges. These are properties of macro primes in general. Not as artistic, but high resolution and lots of correction. And Sigma 35mm Art. Or the newly announced DFA*50mm f1.4, which will likely be the sharpest Pentax 50mm ever.
I doubt you need such high resolution. People were printing posters even with the 12MP, 6MP bodies of the past. Something like K-1 with PS and good PP should give you more than enough resolution with any halfway decent prime. And the FA limiteds are much more than halfway decent

That said, I would probably prefer to use the FA limiteds over macro lenses, at least for everyday stuff, travel, portraits, nature photos.. More character, faster AF, smaller lenses, less weight.. As is I am using a DA 21mm limited, DFA 100mm, and some really affordable primes in between. Note DA 21mm is APSC, not FF

[SSGGeezer]

What I have seen recently from the DFA-50 Macro shots here on PF lately have been nothing short of amazing. Check out the thread Prime, prime, everywhere a prime to see what Pepperberry farm is extracting from his new DFA. I have gotten some very nice panoramas blended in ICE using my FA 77. The rendering of the lens makes everything better than my meager skills should allow.
With the quality of the three amigos, if you like the rendering, you can use them for pretty much anything!

[aslyfox]

Then you might prefer DFA 50mm f2.8 macro and DFA 100mm macro. They have flat field of focus, sharp into the edges. These are properties of macro primes in general. Not as artistic, but high resolution and lots of correction. And Sigma 35mm Art. Or the newly announced DFA*50mm f1.4, which will likely be the sharpest Pentax 50mm ever.. . .

FYI

something that might be of interest if the 100mm lens is of interest

and $ is an issue ( and when isn't $ an issue )


" The optical design is the tried-and-proven formula of the previous generation D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro lens, which in turn had inherited the optical design from the well-respected FA 100mm F2.8 and F 100mm F2.8 macro lenses introduced in 1991 and 1987, respectively. None of these earlier lenses had rounded aperture blades. "

Read more at: Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 WR Macro Review - Specifications | PentaxForums.com Reviews

so if you are willing to " settle " for an " experienced " lens and give up the advances of the latest D FA 100mm 2.8 macro WR, you might be able to save some $

[wanderer2]

Thanks to all of you who have replied with such helpful information. A couple of you mentioned the Sigma 35, which I have also had under consideration. Any other opinions as to how that lens and the FA31 match up for landscapes?

I should have mentioned that manual lenses are also acceptable although, everything else being equal, auto would be preferred. WR, size and weight are not big factors for me, although again, everything else being equal, they would play into the decision.

Much appreciate the help. These decisions involve a lot of money and I would like to get it right the first time.

[DeadJohn]

I would like maximum sharpness my lenses as I want the capability to make large prints.

What's the maximum print size you expect?

I'm not disparaging the 3 amigos, but if you don't own any of them yet, and don't need to shoot wide open for thin depth of field (landscapes are often stopped down), consider building your landscape kit around the 24-70 or 28-105.

Comparing my 28-105 to FA 43, both are sharp enough that I've never felt a need for a pixel peep comparison. The zoom offers freedom from lens changes, weather resistance, and less purple fringing. The FA 43 only gets used for low light, when I want a very small lens, or the rare occasions when I want thin depth of field.

[pentaxfall]

I also bought the DFA 24-70 which I used quite a lot so now I can compare. I would say the flexibility and the WR of the zoom lens far outweighs the better IQ of the prime lenses.

These pictures are really nice. When hiking along with other people, they have to wait until I finish taking pictures. Having zoom reduces waiting time. So I too like the idea of zoom lens.

[Ron Boggs]

The OP's first comment was "building a set of primes." I too have star lens zooms which do pretty great work. But we were all asked to help with the decision on primes.

So it's kind of a question of how far back the legacy? An A kit would be cool and I have an A 50/2.8 macro landing tomorrow so I get it if you go that route.

An FA kit is cool too...it would be a mix of Ltd's, standards and stars...

DFA kit would be modern and work great. You could choose SMC green band or HD red band versions.

I personally opted for a prime kit of all Limited models (cheating the 100 WR Macro in as a close facsimile) combining FA and SMC DFA Limiteds. I'm too old for HD!

It sure is nice to hear so many people loving on the new 2.8 zooms! When I started shooting FA* 2.8 zooms in 1995, some folks thought I was nuts. They were right, but not in relation to lens choices. Yes, the wide 2.8 kills for landscapes, but don't forget the 80-200 2.8 zoom--probably the most significant photographic lens for landscape extractions across all brands. Also, a workhorse when you can't get close due to water, cliffs, restrictions or other limitations--fabulous "public viewpoint" lens. I don't think anyone has anything bad to say about the IQ of the new 2.8 zooms, however, they don't make a good prime kit!

---------- Post added 02-28-18 at 11:36 AM ----------

When hiking along with other people, they have to wait until I finish taking pictures. Having zoom reduces waiting time.

Best reason ever to avoid photography with friends!

I have only one psycho friend who enjoys actually working a subject, perhaps shooting one pinecone for an hour or two, waterfall is half-day at least depending on light (probably have to return at dawn or dusk tomorrow too)...I once spent 4 days and dozens of rolls of medium format film and 35mm film shooting an impressive hoarfrost display the size of a suburban backyard (it was super worth it...half a dozen published/paid images and a few sold copies of an Ilfochrome 16x20 print, plus a background wash shot used in a direct mailer ad piece for an art gallery. Oh and several images used in a close-up photo seminar at a science center. Oh yeah, that "wash shot" got used as background on the cover of an ad pamphlet for a downtown art walk too. Slooowww dooowwnnn iisss goooood!).

It takes less than 30 seconds to change a lens. Judging from your thoughtfulness, I'm guessing the holdup was less equipment-oriented and more you being a reasoned and introspective photographer! Make 'em wait if it looks good! I've seldom regretted sticking with a subject. I've often regretted leaving one!