[UncleVanya]

So the only ultra high quality wide angle zoom made for Full Frame K mount right now is the 15-30. Full stop, the end.

There are many legacy zooms that exist that may work depending on your needs. The FA 20-35 is one of those - it has gotten rather pricey. Recent ebay sales are in the range of $500-800 for a used lens that has a limited range.

[BruceBanner]

So the only ultra high quality wide angle zoom made for Full Frame K mount right now is the 15-30. Full stop, the end.

There are many legacy zooms that exist that may work depending on your needs. The FA 20-35 is one of those - it has gotten rather pricey. Recent ebay sales are in the range of $500-800 for a used lens that has a limited range.

Yeh... so quickly looking at DA lenses the wide angle option seems to be richer for choices;

• 16-85
• 12-24
• 18-55
• 20-40
• 17-70
• 16-45

and heaps more I imagine...

Does it make sense then to consider the ASP-C to fill the gap in this range and focus the K-1 on the longer FL's? I mean I always thought one of the advantages of the FF was that more powerful bokeh affect (more pronounced DoF, ie better for portrait work)...

Or perhaps the K-1's strengths lie more in the wide angle/landscape category, it's just you have to settle for a prime in this regard perhaps (or not settle... but makes better sense perhaps than the 15-30, especially if size, weight and filters are a consideration).

Just curious to know what combos people might run with (in theory, I haven't even really thought about a budget yet).

[monochrome]

Depends on your patience. By summer, KP + DA*11~18/2.8 ED DC AW, then FF DFA 15~30/2.8 (huge) or add DA*16~50/2.8 and DA*50~135/2.8 rumored reissues maybe in the fall with better coatings and motors. You wouldn’t need APSc primes at all.

[UncleVanya]

Yeh... so quickly looking at DA lenses the wide angle option seems to be richer for choices;

• 16-85
• 12-24
• 18-55
• 20-40
• 17-70
• 16-45

and heaps more I imagine...

Does it make sense then to consider the ASP-C to fill the gap in this range and focus the K-1 on the longer FL's? I mean I always thought one of the advantages of the FF was that more powerful bokeh affect (more pronounced DoF, ie better for portrait work)...

Or perhaps the K-1's strengths lie more in the wide angle/landscape category, it's just you have to settle for a prime in this regard perhaps (or not settle... but makes better sense perhaps than the 15-30, especially if size, weight and filters are a consideration).

Just curious to know what combos people might run with (in theory, I haven't even really thought about a budget yet).

Honestly the opposite. The thing to remember is that at any given focal length the Full Frame will show a much wider angle of view if the lens is a full frame lens as well. So an 18mm on APS is only as wide as a roughly 27-28mm on Full Frame. A 15mm on APS is about the same as a 22mm on Full Frame. Thus the 20mm Full Frame coverage of an FA 20-35 is quite wide - almost as wide as the 12mm coverage offered by the DA 12-24 (but not quite).

[clackers]

Bruce, I've got the Pentax FA J18-35 and FA20-35 as legacy lenses, the DA 12-24 (works from 17mm onward) and the Sigma DG12-24.

But if you've got pro aspirations, just go for the 15-30, I reckon.

Yes, it's a big boy's lens for a big boy's camera with a price tag to match. I'm sure you understand.

You may do everything you need with the 24-70 f2.8. Remember that's an angle of view at the wide end not much different from the DA15 on a cropped body.

[SteveinSLC]

The 15-30 is very large. But the most common things I use it for are landscapes or astro, both of which are mostly done on a tripod, where the weight doesn't really matter. 15mm on FF is really wide...not typically a focal length you'd use for a walk-around street picture. The 28-105 is much better for that.
I have a K-70 as my back up/lighter weight option. For that I have a 15mm Limited and an 18-135. The two of those put together weigh less than the 15-30, so are a much better solution for hiking, backpacking or lightweight travel.

[BruceBanner]

Honestly the opposite. The thing to remember is that at any given focal length the Full Frame will show a much wider angle of view if the lens is a full frame lens as well. So an 18mm on APS is only as wide as a roughly 27-28mm on Full Frame. A 15mm on APS is about the same as a 22mm on Full Frame. Thus the 20mm Full Frame coverage of an FA 20-35 is quite wide - almost as wide as the 12mm coverage offered by the DA 12-24 (but not quite).

You're right, I tested this because I have a 24mm Pentax-A old lens and used to compare (roughly) with the DA 15mm. I dunno why I don't dig the 24mm out more and use, I guess the DA 15mm in all its silver coating glory just looks so good with the same silver coating KP makes me not want to split up that 'relationship'

I have a Sigma 10-20mm, and tbh I don't feel the need much with what I shoot to go past the 15mm FoV. So if I could get a FF lens that extends down to 24mm it probably is enough and will do the majority of landscape shoots.

Using that mentality means I'm seeking a 70-200mm (or equivilient FoV partner) for the KP/APS-C sensor.... which would lead to what suggestions I wonder?

Bruce, I've got the Pentax FA J18-35 and FA20-35 as legacy lenses, the DA 12-24 (works from 17mm onward) and the Sigma DG12-24.

But if you've got pro aspirations, just go for the 15-30, I reckon.

Yes, it's a big boy's lens for a big boy's camera with a price tag to match. I'm sure you understand.

You may do everything you need with the 24-70 f2.8. Remember that's an angle of view at the wide end not much different from the DA15 on a cropped body.

I am not a big boy nor a rich boy clackers :'( Just, loan me the 18-35 and 20-35 already

The 15-30 is very large. But the most common things I use it for are landscapes or astro, both of which are mostly done on a tripod, where the weight doesn't really matter. 15mm on FF is really wide...not typically a focal length you'd use for a walk-around street picture. The 28-105 is much better for that.
I have a K-70 as my back up/lighter weight option. For that I have a 15mm Limited and an 18-135. The two of those put together weigh less than the 15-30, so are a much better solution for hiking, backpacking or lightweight travel.

This was what I was thinking, perhaps less expense and weight and a more versatile approach.

[clackers]

?


I am not a big boy nor a rich boy clackers :'( Just, loan me the 18-35 and 20-35 already

(Laughs).

The 18-35's forgettable, the 20-35 is surprisingly good.

[BruceBanner]

(Laughs).

The 18-35's forgettable, the 20-35 is surprisingly good.

Well think of little ol' me when you experience tough times and need the extra cash flow, potential sale over here

(jks right now... totally cannot afford anything in 2018

[aslyfox]

. . . right now... totally cannot afford anything in 2018

you mean, I think,

" I have more vital and necessary things to get for the family, my hobby can wait "

which is a wise and notable decision to make

we have all been there I am sure

[bdery]

So the only ultra high quality wide angle zoom made for Full Frame K mount right now is the 15-30. Full stop, the end.

That's not correct. As I mentioned earlier, there are two Irix lenses (11/15mm), a Laowa 12mm, the old Zenithar 16mm (that one's a fisheye, granted), and a few others.

[UncleVanya]

That's not correct. As I mentioned earlier, there are two Irix lenses (11/15mm), a Laowa 12mm, the old Zenithar 16mm (that one's a fisheye, granted), and a few others.

I think you missed a word, "Zoom".

[bdery]

I think you missed a word, "Zoom".

That I did, it seems My bad.

[aslyfox]

That I did, it seems My bad.

details, details

what's a character or 2 [ to, too, two, on, or, of, if, its, it's, wore, were, an, any, and, be, bee ------ ] among friends any way

[UncleVanya]

That I did, it seems My bad.

No harm. The info may be useful to someone else who missed it earlier.