[hangu]

Unfortunately, those are out of his price range, too. The FA fetches $600+ these days with the A only $100 or so behind it. I've been wanting one for film, but at the price of a used DA 12-24mm, its a no-go.

Pretty positive any Pentax lenses are out of my budget range. I'm looking toward third party makers like Soligor, Vivitar, Kiron and etc. I want MF anyway so there should be something. The Vivitar 18mm looks good but it's got some distortion, there also aren't any on sale currently, looks like a rare one.

You're probably right. Plus, I can get the Sigma online at Wal-Mart with a 10% discount.
And now that I look at my photo, it doesn't look sharp. I think the 100% crop is okay, but not the reduced image.

Remember to use Bicubic Sharper under the Image Resize panel in Photoshop to achieve the best reduction results. It also wouldn't hurt to use sharpening in Lightroom for export/resize either.

Trust me, you'll get tired of a fisheye in a month at most. Then it's going to sit on your shelf and you're going to bemoan having to wait for your next retirement check to get the rectilinear version.

[GeneV]

Pretty positive any Pentax lenses are out of my budget range. I'm looking toward third party makers like Soligor, Vivitar, Kiron and etc. I want MF anyway so there should be something. The Vivitar 18mm looks good but it's got some distortion, there also aren't any on sale currently, looks like a rare one.
Remember to use Bicubic Sharper under the Image Resize panel in Photoshop to achieve the best reduction results. It also wouldn't hurt to use sharpening in Lightroom for export/resize either.
Trust me, you'll get tired of a fisheye in a month at most. Then it's going to sit on your shelf and you're going to bemoan having to wait for your next retirement check to get the rectilinear version.

That is a good tip on the bicubic option on image resize, and I will have to try that. I've noticed that several of my images posted do not appear anywhere near as snappy on the board as on my screen. Often they are actually sharper when I post a large file and let the IMGWIDE function reduce them.

[Marc Sabatella]

I've pretty much filled out my lens collection, with the exception of a wide angle lens. My widest is 35mm (Super-Takumar 35mm f2.0 and Pentax-A 35-105mm f3.5). I'd like something along the lines of 10-20mm. Ideally it'd be manual focus, fast, under $300, rectilinear and has low distortion. I don't think any lenses in the review section fits under those criteria so I'm open to suggestions....

Based on everything said here, I'd recommend the M20/4. There's one for $339 on KEH.com right now. OK, there's also one for $525, but that's a hefty premium for being in "LN-" condition.

[hangu]

Based on everything said here, I'd recommend the M20/4. There's one for $339 on KEH.com right now. OK, there's also one for $525, but that's a hefty premium for being in "LN-" condition.

There are 24mm f2.0 available for less than a quarter of that price. The only reason it's worth that kind of money is because it's relatively rare, not because of its visual prowess. Is the 4mm difference worth the $250+ price tag and loss of a stop? Let's just say I'm not keen on that lens when you can get modern 10-20mm lenses for relatively the same price.

[thirdofthree]

There are 24mm f2.0 available for less than a quarter of that price.

I think "that price" is the $339 and $525 for an M 20 f/4. What 24mm f/2 lenses are available for < $85 - $130? Might just have to get one!

[Pentaxie]

In the film era, the 20mm is consider very wide, and anything under 20mm was not required in the pre APS-C period.

I have a Tammy 24mm from film era, but I find that there is a gap between 24mm and my kit lens at 18mm. I sometimes used the 24mm manual focus for some events together with my Pentax 50mm prime. (Both are manual fous lens)

I would like to have wide AF lens, but the only issue with AF wide angles is that most are made for APS-C sensors. Also these are way too expensive.

[Just1MoreDave]

I think "that price" is the $339 and $525 for an M 20 f/4. What 24mm f/2 lenses are available for < $85 - $130? Might just have to get one!

I got one for the low end of your price range, and one for a lot less. Results not typical - people usually notice the auctions. You have to look for the Kiron or Vivitar 24mm f2.0 but they're available. Make sure it doesn't have element separation in the rear. Many of these have oily blades, not a big deal and it keeps the price down.

To the OP's point, the Samyang 14mm f2.8 (rectilinear) might be the right lens. It will be like the 85mm f1.4, a manual focus KA mount. You'll have to wait until it's available.

[hangu]

How is the Samyang 14mm? I can't seem to find much info on it. Price? Image quality? build? Etc.

[Kryosphinx]

In the film era, the 20mm is consider very wide, and anything under 20mm was not required in the pre APS-C period.

Not only were they not needed, they were difficult to make and very expensive. Designing a rectilinear FF 16mm lens, for instance, is the very much like designing a 10mm for APS-C. It's a tough optical formula requiring lots of glass. I would imagine that in the film era, it would not have been practical to try and make (or mass produce) such a wide lens.

If you've seen the optical formula for the new Sigma 8-16mm, it has a nearly comically bulbous front element to get the required field of view.

In short, finding low priced MF lenses smaller than 20mm from the film era may be entirely impossible.

[jslifoaw]

I'm not sure why you're anti-AF. Is it because you're assuming MF will be cheaper for the same quality? In the wide range price often doesn't indicate anything about quality more than scarcity or subjective views (such as if one gets hyped up). There might be amazing wides for not much, or really crappy and expensive ones.

I think if you look long enough you can get a DA21 for a bit more than $300 and get AF, AE, distortion/CA correction, and high quality. A lot of old wide angles for film weren't great; it would be difficult for me to visualize a better wide than the DA21 other than the Zeiss 21 (which is huge and probably 4-5x more expensive). I've used an SMC Tak 20 and it wasn't even close. Ones reputed to be good such as the A20 or the K18 are expensive and rare.

[raymeedc]

Bite the bullit & go for a Super or Super -Multi-Coated Takumar 20mm lens. Can be had for around $300 if you're patient enough to wait for one to pop up. If you're willing to sacrifice a few millimeters, you can save about $100 & a little time by picking up the more common 24mm Takumar. I have both.

[marcinski]

How is the Samyang 14mm? I can't seem to find much info on it. Price? Image quality? build? Etc.

See here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/98451-samyang-...mpressive.html


Marcin

[Ben_Edict]

Not only were they not needed, they were difficult to make and very expensive. Designing a rectilinear FF 16mm lens, for instance, is the very much like designing a 10mm for APS-C. It's a tough optical formula requiring lots of glass. I would imagine that in the film era, it would not have been practical to try and make (or mass produce) such a wide lens.

If you've seen the optical formula for the new Sigma 8-16mm, it has a nearly comically bulbous front element to get the required field of view.

In short, finding low priced MF lenses smaller than 20mm from the film era may be entirely impossible.

Pentax made quite a lot lenses below 20mm in film days. Extreme wide angles were not really a rareity, but made by all major manufacturers. Looking back, I think wide angles were the one area, where Pentax really excelled!

The old Pentax SMC 15/3.5 is a legend and deservedly so! It still is very useable on digital, fully rectilinear and with the tell tale bulging front element. There have been 16mm and 17mm lenses as well.

[jsherman999]

Based on everything said here, I'd recommend the M20/4. There's one for $339 on KEH.com right now. OK, there's also one for $525, but that's a hefty premium for being in "LN-" condition.

.

I was just going to recommend the M 20 f/4. Small, super sharp across the frame on aps-c. It really renders like my DA 15ltd. It's contrast and sharpness is closer to the DA 15 than my Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 - the M 20 f4 is a better lens than that Nikon (and I like the Nikon 20 2.8)

But... I think you should consider saving for another month or two and getting a DA 15ltd, though. It may seem like there's a vast difference between $300 and $600, but if you can save $300, you can save $600 in twice the time. In the years to come, I think you'll be glad you waited and purchased the Limited (unless you really need WA right now for something - and if that's the case, consider the 18-55 II as a stopgap ).

[hangu]

I'm not sure why you're anti-AF. Is it because you're assuming MF will be cheaper for the same quality? In the wide range price often doesn't indicate anything about quality more than scarcity or subjective views (such as if one gets hyped up). There might be amazing wides for not much, or really crappy and expensive ones.

I think if you look long enough you can get a DA21 for a bit more than $300 and get AF, AE, distortion/CA correction, and high quality. A lot of old wide angles for film weren't great; it would be difficult for me to visualize a better wide than the DA21 other than the Zeiss 21 (which is huge and probably 4-5x more expensive). I've used an SMC Tak 20 and it wasn't even close. Ones reputed to be good such as the A20 or the K18 are expensive and rare.

I enjoy using MF lenses. AF takes a lot of fun out of the process. I'm getting relatively fast at MF now and I'm pretty sure eventually I'll get it down to a speed on par with AF.

I'm fully aware of everything you're saying here, which is why I refuse to pay $300+ for a MF wide angle lens since there are superior AF versions available for relatively the same price.

[B]The old Pentax SMC 15/2.5 is a legend and deservedly so! It still is very useable on digital, fully rectilinear and with the tell tale bulging front element. There have been 16mm and 17mm lenses as well.

Do you mean f3.5? Yeah these babies go for $600+, actually probably a bit more now. I really don't think they fit in my criteria of under $300, not until I rob a few banks.

See here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/98451-samyang-...mpressive.html


Marcin

Thank you.