[rparmar]

your 16mm is 24mm.

Oh no, not that can of worms again! A 16mm is always a 16mm relative to a given camera. If I take a 16mm made for film and put it on my camera it will act exactly the same as a 16mm made for digital.

As I clearly stated, I am only considering lenses for digital, so the fact that a lens might cover FF is not an advantage to me.

But please understand I am sympathetic to this search for hidden gems. Otherwise I would not have put so much time and money into buying up Vivitar 28mm variants for that "other thread". But the situation is a bit different if an older lens is going to cost $300 instead of $30, mainly because it's going to have many more current lenses in its price range to compete against.

Though I have a 16-45mm I basically treat it as something nice to have on the shelf, which I might pull out for specific purposes. I'm far more likely to walk out with a manual focus 28mm or 24mm. They have the advantages of build and compactness.

I would love for there to be something similar in the wide end. Unfortunately the announced 15mm is unlikely to make much sense to me since it'll be more expensive than the DA16-45 and no faster. Though again it will have build and size on its size.

I will be tempted.

[Gooshin]

Oh no, not that can of worms again! A 16mm is always a 16mm relative to a given camera. If I take a 16mm made for film and put it on my camera it will act exactly the same as a 16mm made for digital.

As I clearly stated, I am only considering lenses for digital, so the fact that a lens might cover FF is not an advantage to me.

But please understand I am sympathetic to this search for hidden gems. Otherwise I would not have put so much time and money into buying up Vivitar 28mm variants for that "other thread". But the situation is a bit different if an older lens is going to cost $300 instead of $30, mainly because it's going to have many more current lenses in its price range to compete against.

Though I have a 16-45mm I basically treat it as something nice to have on the shelf, which I might pull out for specific purposes. I'm far more likely to walk out with a manual focus 28mm or 24mm. They have the advantages of build and compactness.

I would love for there to be something similar in the wide end. Unfortunately the announced 15mm is unlikely to make much sense to me since it'll be more expensive than the DA16-45 and no faster. Though again it will have build and size on its size.

I will be tempted.

you misunderstood completly...

you said "go find me a 16mm f2.8 lens"

and i told you that BACK THEN, there was no need for a rectalinear 16mm F2.8, in fact it would be expensive to build such a thing that was free from distortion and was tac sharp at wide open

canon has a 16-35 F2.8 zoom, it costs ALOT of money, even used.

BACK THEN, 20 or 24mm was considered pretty damn wide

there is a reason why ziess 20mm lenses cost alot of money

and why the pentax 15mm f3.5 still pulls 1500 dollars!

because these lenses, covered a large image area, and they covered with with little to no distortion, and they were sharp

the 16mm f2.8 DIGITAL lens of today has different engineering constrictions than lenses of the past.

its easier to make, making said feat not as glamarous as you make it out to be, and you're entire request moot.

[nixite]

It is interesting, is any test of 20mm old lenses. I am interesting of 21lim and 20M comparation. What about CA/PF on this lenses and MTF comparation...? Shots too nice...

[gofour3]

The K18/3.5 is the best Pentax Ultra Wide angle lens (for a film camera) from that period. It's about half the size, weight and price of a K or A15/3.5 and also has the built in filters. It's also faster than the K & M 20/4.

[AndrewG NY]

It isn't a prime, but if you are thinking about spending 300 euros, take a look at the FA 20-35mm zoom. It is a great lens, very sharp even wide open, has the SMC, will do auto focus, and minimum aperture f/4. I've really enjoyed mine.

I've also enjoyed this zoom, though I suspect quality-wise it is quite close to the (albeit very good) DA 16-45. The benefit is that it is considerably smaller. Works nicely with a FA43 or FA50 in the kit. The focus ring is kind of narrow and too close to the (too-big-for-APS-C) hood.

[AndrewG NY]

The K18/3.5 is the best Pentax Ultra Wide angle lens (for a film camera) from that period. It's about half the size, weight and price of a K or A15/3.5 and also has the built in filters. It's also faster than the K & M 20/4.

And it has some built-in filters.

I *hate* these threads. Starts re-awakening the LBA demons. See, 30 minutes ago I didn't know that I would feel less complete without an M20 f/4 and K18 f/3.5 in my LBA cupboard!

[8540tomg]

I'm thinking of bidding on a K 20mm f4. I already have a K 24mm 2.8 which is similar in focal length and a lot faster. There are no reviews on this puppy in the database. Anyone out there have this lens? What are your impressions?

Thanks

Tom G

[rparmar]

you misunderstood completly...

For some reason you keep bringing in film lenses as though that's what I'm asking for. So it is you that's misunderstanding.

We have a good DA14 f/2.8 so obviously it's not impossible to make a DA 20 f/2.8 that would be significantly smaller and of excellent IQ wide open. Instead we are getting a slower 15mm... not so exciting (but still interesting). In fact I would imagine a DA 20 f/2 would be possible for a price.

My point is that these lenses are not available, not even in older lenses, at least not at any price that is competitive with the DA 16-45. Much of what you say appears to be making the same point. Though you seem fixed in the idea I don't understand.

...and you're entire request moot.

I am an entire request moot? Now that I don't understand.

[Miserere]

Instead we are getting a slower 15mm... not so exciting (but still interesting). In fact I would imagine a DA 20 f/2 would be possible for a price.

Well, they were capable of producing the reasonably small FA* 24mm f/2, so I don't see why they couldn't build a DA* 20mm f/2; a bit wider in focal length, but covering a smaller sensor, so... Furthermore, the FA 20mm f/2.8 is only a bit larger than the FA 50mm f/1.4. Yeah, I think Pentax could make a DA 20mm f/2.4 Ltd with a size similar to the FA 20mm f/2.8, or a DA* 20mm f/2 of a size similar to the FA* 24mm f/2.

What I would like to know (and this is completely off topic) is why the DA Ltds are all so slow. With the advent of APS-C cameras I envisioned small, fast primes being common-place in the Pentax line-up, and yet all we have are small, slow primes

Let's see what size the DA* 55mm and 30mm (if it's ever released) are.

[jsherman999]

I'm thinking of bidding on a K 20mm f4. I already have a K 24mm 2.8 which is similar in focal length and a lot faster. There are no reviews on this puppy in the database. Anyone out there have this lens? What are your impressions?

Thanks

Tom G

Tom,

tranq78 has a K 20 f/4 that he might be interested in selling, shoot him a PM.

Here's a 100% crop from near the bottom of that first image (IDS tower in mpls):




Looks pretty good. I think that was either f/8 or f11, ISO 200.


Couple more from that walkabout:






And here are a couple from earlier this summer - I was very close to the pop can...
well, you now the aspect ratio of WA, I was closer to him than this image
may seem:






It's been said a million times before, but shooting a WA prime makes you think
about framing and perspective more than a zoom, and you get better shots -
and have a fun time getting them.





.

[jsherman999]

.

Couple snaps from yesterday:





This is simply an over-exposure, no other PP! Thought it was kinda cool: