[UncleVanya]

How about building a Sony system. The Sony A7RIII would be a little more expensive than the Pentax K1, but you could save money on the new Tamron lenses: 17-28 RXD (or the up coming 20mm f2.8 priced $350), 28-75 RXD and the up coming 70-200 f2.8 for FE mount that'll weight ~ 850gr. That would be a compact kit. Now if you go the DSLR route and Tmaron, you could still get a D810 with the 17-35 f4 Tamron, 24-70 Tamron and 70-210 f4 Tamron.

---------- Post added 24-10-19 at 16:34 ----------

(*) The DA 12-24 is a crop lens, not great on the K1, heavy vignetting, uncontrolled edge perf at wide). The FA 70-210, well that's a possibility for the compact landscape tele, cheap, light weight, but it's a old lens, not up to the today's standards of the other new lenses you could get from evenTamron or Sigma.

RE: 12-24 - I see a lot of shots from 20-24 or even 17-24 on the 12-24 that look acceptable. But I do not own a K1 and have not shot this combo myself.

RE: F/FA 70-200 - I agree it could be limited in performance but when landscape is mentioned and I suspect f/8 then I don't worry too much.

[bdery]

So any ideas or thoughts regarding these three, and specifically a 70-200 F4 FF Pentax lens equal? (Currently produced would be a bonus!)

Seems obvious to pick the 60-250 and modify it for full frame. It's going to offer a better range than a 70-200.

As for wide, it depends. If you don'T want a zoom, then there are several primes to pick from. If you do want a zoom, the FA 20-35 is closest, the DFA15-30 is faster and bigger. If you're mainly interested in the wider end of Canon's 16-35, then an Irix 15, a DA*11-18 used between 16 and 18mm, or even a wider lens like the Laowa 12mm would work. Samyang also have a lot of options.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I don't get the impression the OP wants to match his style as much as he respects his gear choices and the flexibility the three lens kit is offering.

I interpreted the original post as just another of those "Why doesn't Pentax do this thing that Canon does?" moans. But I can see that others who know the original poster's history are taking it as a genuine question to be considered seriously, so my apologies to the OP if I misinterpreted his point.

[Qwntm]

I interpreted the original post as just another of those "Why doesn't Pentax do this thing that Canon does?" moans. But I can see that others who know the original poster's history are taking it as a genuine question to be considered seriously, so my apologies to the OP if I misinterpreted his point.

No worries. I could have just said "what are some good choices to put together a Pentax FF three zoom kit for landscape photos." (Which I probably should have now that I think about it... ) And I'm not particularly interested in copying Thomas Heaton either. (Not at all actually ) But Canon has arguably the largest in production lens range of any manufacturer and if I were to choose a Canon FF body I'd have the 16-35 F4/24-105 F4 (or maybe the 24-70 F2.8) and the 70-200 F4 IS as my lens selection (which as you notice is actually different from what TH chose.)

There may be more selection in Pentax land actually than Canon if you factor in ALL the lenses made for the K mount over the years, but identifying them and finding them can make for difficult navigation, but it's also part of the fun of shooting Pentax. (And why I asked the PF, and look at the AWESOME suggestions!!!)

The K1/Mark II is a great body and Pentax's ergos are the best in the business. I also have an Oly system, but I am considering swapping that over to APSc Pentax, either the KP or the new K? whatever it will be. Mirrorless is fun, but it also creates it's own issues, I see it as 6 of one 1/2 dozen of another. But mirrorless is smaller and lighter, at least for the bodies.

[EssJayEff]

I don't get the impression the OP wants to match his style as much as he respects his gear choices and the flexibility the three lens kit is offering.

That was my impression, too, and was going to mention that . . . so I second that emotion.

---------- Post added 10-24-19 at 01:23 PM ----------

I'd say the da 12-24 as noted earlier would be a rational wide angle zoom that isn't super large.

The 24-70 f2.8 is a solid lens, but for landscape work the 28-105 might be a better fit which cuts the weight down.

The 70-200 f4 is harder to replace with current gear, but the f/fa f4-5.6 lenses might be the best fit. Other options include the da 60-250 or even a prime, the DA 200 (This pairs well with the 28-105)


If it were me I'd go with:

DA 12-24 f4
DFA 28-105
F 70-210

I would supplement these with the lenses below whenever this was required:

FA 31 LTD
DA* 55
FA 77 LTD
DFA 100 Macro WR
DA* 60-250
DA* 200
FA* 300

Of course I already own all of these except the 28-105.

I would supplement these with the lenses below whenever this was required: ...FA 77 LTD...

I dream of the day I can afford an FA 77 and use it only for landscapes.

[biz-engineer]

but I am considering swapping that over to APSc Pentax, either the KP or the new K? whatever it will be.

That's a good idea. I guess the logic of Pentax is to keep offering apsc as the lighter weight alternative to the K-1 system. The downside of Pentax apsc is with using the SDM lenses such as the DA 60-250 known for reliability issues. My position (if of any interest) with the new Pentax apsc flagship, would be to buy it for macro and willdlife with the D-FA 100 macro and D-FA 150-450, because I feel like the K1 and D-FA 28-105 is THE right kit for landscape, I stitch 3 vertical shots at 28mm when I need wider, that gives me about 20mm equ. FL. plus more pixels.

[EssJayEff]

So Thomas Heaton shoots a Canon 5D Mark IV with a Canon 16-35 F4, Canon 24-70 F2.8 and a Canon 70-200 F4 for his landscape work and it's a solid kit based on solid choices.


I have been pondering how to put together a K1 Mark II kit with somewhat equivalent lenses.

The only direct swap is the Pentax 24-70 2.8, it's a direct equal (except $700 cheaper!)

For the 16-35 F4, I think the Rokinon 20mm 1.8 is a decent choice. Thomas shot with a Zeiss 20mm for years before getting the 16-35. And 20mm is a great focal length and what you need when you need a wide landscape, so no issues there for me. The 15-30 is massive, doesn't take filters easily and weighs a ton. Great lens but not an f4 equivalent for me.


The 70-200 F4 is the tricky one. I have the 55-300 WR and though it works fine in crop mode, it's weird in FF mode from about 70-170. The 70-200mm 2.8 Pentax is a fine lens, but for mobility it's not an F4 size and weight lens.

So any ideas or thoughts regarding these three, and specifically a 70-200 F4 FF Pentax lens equal? (Currently produced would be a bonus!)

So any ideas or thoughts regarding these three, and specifically a 70-200 F4 FF Pentax lens equal? (Currently produced would be a bonus!)

It's not currently produced, but I use a Soligor C/D 78-210mm f/3.5 that is generally in that focal length range. The C/D line was Soligor's higher grade lenses. I found a 1979 camera store advertisement listing it for $259 . . . that's $916 today. The ad copy says, "Soligor with its fine reputation for superior optics . . ." and "Soligor C/D zoom lenses offer superior performance, compact size, multi-coated optics, macro focusing, more." Sounds like qualities you seek. I'm pretty certain I paid far less than $259 just a few years ago. It may fit the bill for you.

---

Last edited by EssJayEff; 10-24-2019 at 10:44 AM. Reason: Added link to lens specs

[kiwi_jono]

I ended up with a prime kit (which fits most of what I do):
* Sigma EX 20mm f1.8 (although I would like to replace this one as its a bit on the big side for most of my needs)
* FA 31 f1.8 Ltd
* FA 43 f1.9 Ltd
* FA77 f1.8 Ltd

Oh and if I think I might be shooting in less desirable conditions I take the DFA 28 - 105 instead of a couple of the primes.

When I think I will need longer focal lengths (i.e. wild life etc) then I might take either:
* Sigma 70-300 (cheap, relatively compact and pretty good IQ).
* Tamron 500 f8 SP Mirror
* Tamron SP 70-200 f2.8 (rarely for more sports oriented)

BTW... I quite enjoy catching the odd Thomas Heaton episode too.

[StiffLegged]

Some good suggestions here for the landscape shooter! Since the OP mentioned Thomas Heaton and his Canon gear, I'll declare an interest:- I watch his YouTube channel regularly, because he's more interested in finding and making good landscape images at home and abroad than boring on about gear, Not a Canonhead, more a photographer. He had a brief try at gearing about a year ago and it didn't go well, so he went back to the photography and outdoor adventuring instead (which he is good at...)

[SSGGeezer]

Find a used FA* 80-200 F/2.8 for less than the new model and get the classic Pentax * lens rendering. Most folks who have both, (I do not,) say that it is sharper at 200mm than the FA*200. I love the lens, weight from the Power Zoom system at all!

[EssJayEff]

Some good suggestions here for the landscape shooter! Since the OP mentioned Thomas Heaton and his Canon gear, I'll declare an interest:- I watch his YouTube channel regularly, because he's more interested in finding and making good landscape images at home and abroad than boring on about gear, Not a Canonhead, more a photographer. He had a brief try at gearing about a year ago and it didn't go well, so he went back to the photography and outdoor adventuring instead (which he is good at...)

I also regularly watch Thomas Heaton's YouTube channel; Adam Gibbs, too, whose photography I like even more.

[Lowell Goudge]

I guess the point needs to be made:

Thomas Heaton (whoever he is) will take photos that look like Thomas Heaton photos no matter what gear he's using, whether it's Canon, Pentax, Phase One, or an iPhone.

You and I won't take photos that look like Thomas Heaton photos even using exactly the same gear that he does, and we shouldn't be trying to. We should be trying to take photos that look like our own. So just use the lenses that will let you do the things that you want to do, because trying to replicate the stuff that some guy on the internet uses is just a recipe for frustration.

I looked him up, because I too did not know who he was

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Heaton_(photographer)

But I agree with you, if photography is an art form, why is someone trying to duplicate the gear someone else uses,

For the op. Duplicating focal lengths and apertures of the lenses will not result in assuring you have the right kit for what you as a photograph / artist like to photograph, you need to learn how to see through the gear you have. You will never learn to see someone else’s images no matter how hard you try and duplicating someone’s kit does not ensure you have what you need for you

[clickclick]

I've got to cast another vote for the 60-250, and do the baffle mod. It's easy to do, and 3D printing is getting pretty accessible. I think the hardest part about this venture is if you want to buy new, you'd technically void the warranty. That said, it's basically a non-destructive modification you can undo if needed. I had a friend print both baffle shapes. I've settled on the one with the cutout, but It's nice having the option to play around with them, so print both styles while you're at it..

[ZombieArmy]

The M75-150 is a great light lens for telephoto landscapes, and really inexpensive too. @Northcoastgreg has done some beautiful shots with it, and I've been having a good experience with mine.

Here is a small collection of some of the stuff I've done with it. My favorite part about the lens is how consistent it is throughout the range.

M75-150 f4 | Flickr

[UncleVanya]

Find a used FA* 80-200 F/2.8 for less than the new model and get the classic Pentax * lens rendering. Most folks who have both, (I do not,) say that it is sharper at 200mm than the FA*200. I love the lens, weight from the Power Zoom system at all!

I owned the FA* 80-200 and the DA* 200 at the same time. I could not tell them apart in shots. Actually I made shots with both and the only takeaway I had was that in very tough contrasty lighting the zoom was better than the prime (likely more corrected which wasn't visible on film but on digital the zoom didn't purple fringe as easily.


Check it out:
DA* 200 vs. FA* 80-200 battle of f2.8 | Flickr

Obviously some shots show the zoom at 80mm and the final magnification shows one of the two has a larger effective focal length than the other at "200" but I think you can see that there is very little else to tell them apart with.