[Hattifnatt]

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.

Thank you. This happened to me a lot of times but I choose not to mention it, however it's a fair point. When hiking I try to set the objective right from the start, hiking plus some photography or photography as the main objective. When I'm hiking with other people I try not delay the party, people tend to get impatient when you change lenses, set up the tripod or declare "Let's just wait here for a couple of hours, light will be great at sunset." If I want to do all this stuff I go hiking alone or with other photographers.

When hiking with other people it's very frustrating that often you get to the best spots for taking pictures at the worst possible time (at noon). Sure I snap a picture or two if I get the chance and definitively a zoom can help in this regard.

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?

Initially I wanted to get the FA 31, but I couldn't find any good offers and if I were to buy it new, it was very expensive in my country so I went for the Sigma 35 Art. From the samples I've seen on this forum, the FA 31 has slightly nicer bokeh (but that's a matter of taste and not important for landscapes) and warmer rendering. Sigma's colors are more clinical, but the lens is crazy sharp and it's so well corrected that missing in-camera correction profiles is not a problem (profiles are available in Lightroom anyway). Flare resistance is also quite nice, probably better than FA 31. It is however quite big and heavy, not so easy to carry around. Also, AF seems to be inconsistent (not a problem for me since most of the time I use contrast AF in liveview). When used with the K-1 it produces a scratch on the camera's body (but it's cosmetic only and Sigma has a program going to replace the mount of the lens for free). Below are two samples with the Sigma used on the K5IIs:

[Rondec]

I own the FA 31 and FA 77. I use both for landscape, although I use the FA 31 more, particularly on my K-1.

FA 31...





FA 77

[aslyfox]

Thank you. This happened to me a lot of times but I choose not to mention it, . . .

it is all how you look at it

you are not delaying them when you pause to capture what you want with the camera

you are allowing them to have a rest and catch their breath

" that's the truth - brthh"

You Tube

You Tube

[Hattifnatt]

it is all how you look at it you are not delaying them when you pause to capture what you want with the camera you are allowing them to have a rest and catch their breath

Haha I used this line too many times, it's not sticking anymore now I try to bait them with portrait shots.

[Ron Boggs]

Sure appreciate your skies Rondec. Do you use grads or post? Have to admit, it looks like traditional graduated filters (in a good way) and I like your handling very much.

---------- Post added 02-28-18 at 12:13 PM ----------

P.S. good hiking partner I am not...but like you, I won't be rude about it--usually. Typically turn the lens on the friends and shoot action instead of landscape...

[Na Horuk]

Any other opinions as to how that lens and the FA31 match up for landscapes?

You can not ask like that. They don't match up. They are different in many ways. It depends on your wishes. Sigma 35mm is super sharp, but it is massive and might have AF issues (read threads about this). FA 31mm has amazing character, but it is much older design than Sigma Art. A lot of people take good landscape photos with the cheap DA 35mm f2.4 (good lens, but not as good as FA limited or Sigma Art). Nobody is going to crown you the next Ansel Adams because your photos have 10% more resolution

[mtgmansf]

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.

Agreed about the lack of WR on many primes, but also on DX zooms. I feel Ricoh/Pentax could have owned the DX landscape market, but only if they would have come out with a 10-24mm - or the now eagerly awaited 11-18mm f2.8- weather-sealed lens years ago and WR'red their 14mm and 21mm primes! What good does it do to have the best weather-sealing of all cameras when their are no corresponding lenses in the wide to ultra-wide category? Others will disagree and may have a different preference, but 85-90% of the landscape photographs I love are taken with mostly the Nikon 14-24mm, but also with the Canon 11-24mm, Nikon 16-35mm, Canon 16-35's, etc., Given Pentax's relationship with Tamron, maybe they could have also eked out a Pentax version of the new, weather-sealed Tamron 10-24mm? Never been able to understand this omission, but thank the gods for new company Irix and their excellent 15mm and 11mm FX, well-sealed primes - I have the 11mm and put it through the (bad weather) wringer...

[grispie]

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

i often use the fa31 on my k3 for landscape. I love it's sharpness & rendering.
Think it would shine on a K1. Using filters on FF might be an issue.. not sure..
One other lens which i really like is the m28 f3.5 and my m85 f2 if you don't mind the manual way. But they have a special way of rendering and are tack sharp.
choices ;-)
some fa31 samples..
Talisker Bay Scotland by christophegryspeert - Photo 147933611 / 500px
Westcoast Australia by christophegryspeert - Photo 226720643 / 500px
Neist Point by christophegryspeert - Photo 155485019 / 500px

[jab2980]

I've used all 3 for "landscape" use and they do have their place. It really depends on what you're looking for though, as landscape is a pretty general term. The FA 31 might give you problems if you use filters due to the built in hood. My M or K 28 3.5 would always get the job over the FA 31. I would almost always reach for my DA 40 over my FA 43 as it is lighter, smaller, and has some of the best border sharpness out of any Pentax lens I've used. The 77 is an unbelievably good lens, but I prefer to keep that away from the dirt and water that I encounter on my hikes... the DA 70 and M 85 are what I reach for in that range. Same thing with those as well.. excellent performance, lighter, and smaller. I could see how one would miss out on some magic by using a DA 70 for a portrait shot instead of a 77, but not for a nature shot. I've also gotten really great results with zooms that cover the range of all 3 of these lenses... (DA 18-135 and D-FA 28-105) and never felt as though I missed out on quality or rendering that I would have gotten if I used an amigo instead.

So in summary I only own(ed) the amigos for portrait use... I much prefer the other lenses I mentioned for nature use.

That being said, here's my 3 favorite landscape shots with the FA 77:

[monochrome]

Before I had my windfall and did my (recently exhausted) ‘buy them and try them with intention to sell them’ orgy, I had it in my mind to own and use just the Three Princesses, the Holy Trinity Zooms and a K-1. My thinking was there can’t possibly be a meaningful style or image that I can’t capture* at publication quality with those six lenses and the right amount of patience and practice (skill). I still believe that is true.

I have other lenses and film cameras for the hobby aspects and a few Cult Classic lenses because they are what they are, but if I sold everything except the 6 core lenses and camera I don’t think other gear would improve the final image.


* except super telephoto

[wanderer2]

You can not ask like that. They don't match up. They are different in many ways. It depends on your wishes. Sigma 35mm is super sharp, but it is massive and might have AF issues (read threads about this). FA 31mm has amazing character, but it is much older design than Sigma Art. A lot of people take good landscape photos with the cheap DA 35mm f2.4 (good lens, but not as good as FA limited or Sigma Art). Nobody is going to crown you the next Ansel Adams because your photos have 10% more resolution

Apologies for my poor wording. I should have said something like "how do they compare, what are their positive attributes and their negatives for landscape shooting" or something like that.

Be assured that I don't think anyone is going to crown me the next Ansel Adams under any circumstances, not just how many megapixels I use. I have no delusions of grandeur regarding my photography skills, I do it only for my personal enjoyment.

[pakinjapan]

What about 100wr? It is a macro lens but I am using it for cityscapes photo all the time, and hardly ever use it for macro! Note that I am using K-3 body. I was looking at 77 and 70 first but ended up with 100wr because mainly it is a WR lens.
It is also cheaper than 77, Limited alike build quality, light weight, very sharp and optimized for Digital sensor.

a sample from 100wr


By the way, My list of cityscape lenses à 15, 21, fa50 macro, 100wr
I know, I have a big hole between 21 – 50. Not in hurry but I will fill it up with 35ltd or 31. It is more likely 35ltd green ring because of its starburst effect and cheaper price. I am more attracted to lens with nice starburst effect for cityscapes photo.

[aslyfox]

What about 100wr? It is a macro lens but I am using it for cityscapes photo all the time, and hardly ever use it for macro! Note that I am using K-3 body. I was looking at 77 and 70 first but ended up with 100wr because mainly it is a WR lens.
It is also cheaper than 77, Limited alike build quality, light weight, very sharp and optimized for Digital sensor.

a sample from 100wr


By the way, My list of cityscape lenses à 15, 21, fa50 macro, 100wr
I know, I have a big hole between 21 – 50. Not in hurry but I will fill it up with 35ltd or 31. It is more likely 35ltd green ring because of its starburst effect and cheaper price. I am more attracted to lens with nice starburst effect for cityscapes photo.

I got the older model - D FA 100mm macro 2.8 which shares the same optics as the WR

I like it a lot as well for macro or just as a short telephoto

very sharp

[grispie]

I own the FA 31 and FA 77. I use both for landscape, although I use the FA 31 more, particularly on my K-1.

FA 31...

gorgeous pics..
i really think fa31 is the most suited from the 3 amigos for landscape if you are into sharpness.
the 3 together is a nice set, but for the other 2 i see alternatives..
I'm not sure if you actually need the three. 31 & 77 will get you a long way..

[Sandy Hancock]

They're all good. Sure, none of these are pure landscapes, but you get the idea

FA31 (K-1, tripod)



FA43 (KP, handheld)



FA77 (KP, handheld)