[TerryL]

Hello,
Is there a DA lens that would be compatible with the K-1 and give me less than 20mm focal length?
Thank you,
Terry

[Adam]

The DA 12-24mm starts giving decent coverage right around 20mm. Vignetting stops around 18mm but the corners are still very "meh" at that point.

None of the 16-xx/18-xx zooms or wide primes even come close. Your next best bet would be the 10-17mm fisheye around 14mm, but that's a fisheye.

IMO if you want to do wide-angle shooting with the K-1 your best bet is to get a dedicated lenses with proper coverage.

[normhead]

The DA 12-24mm starts giving decent coverage right around 20mm. Vignetting stops around 18mm but the corners are still very "meh" at that point.

None of the 16-xx or 18-xx zooms even come close. Your next best bet would be the 10-17mm fisheye around 14mm, but that's a fisheye.

IMO if you want to do wide-angle shooting with the K-1 your best bet is to get a dedicated lenses with proper coverage.

I went with the Rokinon 14mm ƒ2.8 for my K-1. It' clearly not a Pentax lens (and I'm not even sure why.) None the less, it's a really good lens. They also make a 20 and a 24. With a lens that wide, lack of autofocus is not an issue as long as you understand hyperfocal settings.

[stevebrot]

Is there a DA lens that would be compatible with the K-1 and give me less than 20mm focal length?

Why DA?

As noted above, there are several non-Pentax lenses available in this space and which cover the 24x36mm format and which are reputed to be quite good.


Steve

[DeadJohn]

No, there are no DA lenses wider than 20mm that cover the K-1 full frame sensor. Why limit it just to DA lenses?

Some ultrawide full frame options to consider:

• DA 15: The corners will blacken on the K-1. You can set the K-1 to APS-C rectangular crop mode and get 16mp of data simulating a 22mm field of view. Or use square crop to get extra height in those images and 24mp of data. The DA 15 is generally not a good companion to the K-1 unless you need a lightweight, tiny lens.
• Pentax DFA 15-30. This is the default ultrawide since the K-1 was released. It's a heavy lens which might be why you don't want it.
• Samyang/Rokinon sells a 14mm/f2.8 and 20mm/f1.8 that cover full frame. Manual focus only.
• Tamron 10-24. It's usable full frame in the 15-24 range.
• Irix has some ultrawide primes. I have no experience with them.

Informal comparison of 4 ultrawide options at Wide Angle Lens Test | Flickr

[angerdan]

Why DA?
The FA 20mm 2.8 also delivers good resolution. FA 20-35mm too.
Legacy Full Frame Lenses with Autofocus | PentaxForums.com

[TerryL]

Thank all you guys. That gives my exactly what I need. I'm just tossing around a few ideas about my next lens.
Terry

---------- Post added 06-05-18 at 02:04 PM ----------

I went with the Rokinon 14mm ƒ2.8 for my K-1. It' clearly not a Pentax lens (and I'm not even sure why.) None the less, it's a really good lens. They also make a 20 and a 24. With a lens that wide, lack of autofocus is not an issue as long as you understand hyperfocal settings.

Very nice. Thank you.
Terry

[garywakeling]

Or the FAJ 18-35mm the first digital lens for the *ist D camera and it has full frame coverage

[TerryL]

I went with the Rokinon 14mm ƒ2.8 for my K-1. It' clearly not a Pentax lens (and I'm not even sure why.) None the less, it's a really good lens. They also make a 20 and a 24. With a lens that wide, lack of autofocus is not an issue as long as you understand hyperfocal settings.

Honestly, I have no experience with using hyperfocal settings, which may be the problem I'm having with the Irix 15. I can't get a single sharp image from it. I've tried focus confirmation, magnified live view, SR off, 2 sec delay, and on a very sturdy tripod. Nowhere in the image is sharp. This is my second copy.
Terry

[normhead]

Or the FAJ 18-35mm the first digital lens for the *ist D camera and it has full frame coverage

I own the FAJ 18-35, I own it and use it as a stop gap , but it's definitely not the final solution. My guess is it has no aspherical elements and at 18mm it's pretty close to fish eye. It's also not sharp enough for use on a K-3 but does reasonably well on a K-1, with it's larger photo sites. On K-1 or K-5 its definitely stretching the limits of it's resolution. I'm guessing it was better on 6 and 10 MP cameras.

That being said, I've taken some awesome images with it.

---------- Post added 06-06-18 at 11:01 AM ----------

Honestly, I have no experience with using hyperfocal settings, which may be the problem I'm having with the Irix 15. I can't get a single sharp image from it. I've tried focus confirmation, magnified live view, SR off, 2 sec delay, and on a very sturdy tripod. Nowhere in the image is sharp. This is my second copy.
Terry

I just set the 14 2.8 to a point just this side of infinity, and with a 14mm lens everything from about 8 feet to infinity should be in focus at ƒ8. There must be something wrong with your lens.

[pres589]

Post samples of images from your lens that you are not happy with and include EXIF data. Let people here take a look and give ideas as to what is going on.

Norm: I think the thing about the Sy 14 that makes it feel not-Pentax is the size of the thing with that huge hood. Also the color rendering is maybe a bit cool?
I need to get out with that Tamron 17 SP I bought from pepperberry but my film camera is in the shop currently and 17mm on digital crop is not that exciting, and I've already got the Sy 14 and a DA 15 on the shelf...