Originally posted by pres589 That's just it though; at 20mm on full frame, the edges are very far apart, if that makes sense. For me, if I'm going out with a lens that wide, it's either got to be a sunny day or I have to bring a tripod, there's really no middle ground. And at that point f8 to f11 apertures are fine, and the M 20 f4 performs quite well there. It is a bit of a "if you're going to own and use this lens, you should be aware of the full requirements of use" kinds of things. The K 20 is huge compared to the M 20 which is why I went for the M; I wanted something I could put in a small pouch or case and take with me camping where space is at a premium. The K 20 is not huge at all compared to what I think Ricoh might try to sell us if they brought out an ultra-wide prime today.
Hope you got a good copy of the M 20 coming to you.
My AdaptaptAll 17mm f/3.5 is not huge at all. Here is a photo of it next to my Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7.
Yes it is bigger, but small enough I could carry it in a "FF" bag regularly and not think about it until it is needed.
And right now it is the lens I would use if I were to go "FF".
Maybe Pentax
should leave WA and UWA "FF" to old and new manual focus lenses from other companies.