[garywakeling]

A different thought on the need for ND filters is to play around with the multiple exposures mode on the K1, it can take many shots and average the exposures to give the same effect as the filter, think of waterfalls and flowing creeks . Good luck on the hunt

[mikesbike]

I have Tokina AF 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 (plastic but pretty good construction) and Tokina AF ATX 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 II with 77mm filter size (metal- fine construction). and have been happy with performance overall using film. Cannot comment regarding digital, since don't own a K-1.

[northcoastgreg]

I already owned an FA 20-35 when I purchased the K-1, so for the first eight, nine months or so, I made do with that impressively light and compact wide-angle zoom. It's really a very nice lens — sharp, nice colors, very good contrast. At the typical apertures one would use for landscape photography, it's nearly as sharp as the DFA 15-30, except at the far edges and in the corners. I eventually did purchase the DFA 15-30, primarily for astrophotography (the FA 20-35 suffers from bad coma) and because I've come to really appreciate HD coated lenses for landscape photography. Indeed, the biggest difference I notice between the FA 20-35 and the DFA 15-30 is not corner and edge sharpness, but the superior flare control, contrast, and richer saturation of images produced by the DFA wide-angle behemoth. The DFA is large and heavy — but it's not been as bad as I originally feared. Filters are a problem if you need them on a fairly constant basis. I don't — and on the few occasions when I do, I can always reach for the FA 20-35.

I also own an M 20 f4. That is a little gem of a lens. Corners and far edges are a bit worse than the FA 20-35, but it's a true art lens which, in the right sort of light, can produce uniquely beautiful images. The M 20 might be the best low-cost option among Pentax legacy wide angles, although it still can fetch over $300.

From what I've merely seen online, of all the legacy ultra-wides, the one that's most impressed me is the FA 20. It seems to have the best contrast and color, and I'd probably chase one down if I had deep enough pockets. But I don't think you can go wrong with any of the legacy Pentax ultra-wides, provided you're willing to put up with soft corners. If you want sharp corners and the best of the best, there's always the DFA filter-ringless 15-30 behemoth.

From the FA 20-35:



From the M 20 f4:



From the DFA 15-30:

[MaineNative]

y0chang: I uploaded a couple of pictures to Flickr. Look for "Relocated Maine Native" under People and you will see three shots from today with the K-1 and FA-20. One is a lake shot, one intentionally has the sun in it to check flare and one is of a church. I didn't do any editing; they are full-size straight out of the camera. (I don't know the Pentax Forum interface well enough paste the links and don't have the space to post here full-size.) If you aren't able to see them, send me a private message and I can get them to you.

---------- Post added 10-03-19 at 07:30 PM ----------

Here are the image links:
_IMG2506 | Relocated Maine Native | Flickr
_IMG2509 | Relocated Maine Native | Flickr
_IMG2532 | Relocated Maine Native | Flickr
They look pretty good to me. I am just stating to play with the lens. Almost no fringing on the limbs.

[bdery]

Indeed, the biggest difference I notice between the FA 20-35 and the DFA 15-30 is not corner and edge sharpness, but the superior flare control, contrast, and richer saturation of images produced by the DFA wide-angle behemoth.

I agree with this. I got the FA20-35 to serve as a DA21 replacement on full frame (starbursts were an important criteria for me). The FA performs well, is light and compact, however I find its images a bit lacking regarding saturation and contrast. I need to process them more heavily to really pull out the best in them.

It's an excellent night lens, however, dependable and capable of beautiful results.

The 15-30 is optically superb, but it IS larger.

[johnha]

I've just researched the size & weight of the 15-30, it seems huge compared to the FA20-35 - by my reckoning larger than the 67 55-100 zoom and almost as heavy. The 67 55-100 handles OK on the larger camera - but I'm pretty sure you'd need the grip on a K-1 (more weight & bulk) to make it comfortable to use.

As mentioned, the multiple exposure composite mode on the K-1 allows you to simulate an ND filter to some extent, although you may need to tweak the parameters to get the best out of it (I doubt the effect is equivalent) and there are the drawbacks related to multiple exposures.

[y0chang]

I've just researched the size & weight of the 15-30, it seems huge compared to the FA20-35 - by my reckoning larger than the 67 55-100 zoom and almost as heavy. The 67 55-100 handles OK on the larger camera - but I'm pretty sure you'd need the grip on a K-1 (more weight & bulk) to make it comfortable to use.

As mentioned, the multiple exposure composite mode on the K-1 allows you to simulate an ND filter to some extent, although you may need to tweak the parameters to get the best out of it (I doubt the effect is equivalent) and there are the drawbacks related to multiple exposures.

Yes I am quite familiar with interval blending (I do it all the time for turning a set of interval shot into star trail photo), and it has its own draw backs.

I am leaning towards just saving more money and looking into getting a 15-30mm in the future unless I stumble upon a FA 20 or 24mm that isn't either beat up or overpriced. Pentax if you are listening those road-mapped wide angle primes can't come soon enough for me.

[bdery]

I've just researched the size & weight of the 15-30, it seems huge compared to the FA20-35 - by my reckoning larger than the 67 55-100 zoom and almost as heavy. The 67 55-100 handles OK on the larger camera - but I'm pretty sure you'd need the grip on a K-1 (more weight & bulk) to make it comfortable to use.

Have a look here to get a better idea of how it looks on different camera bodies.