[Sandy Hancock]

However, between 15mm and 35mm, there is currently no Pentax glass that works on FF.

DA10-17 covers full frame from about 14mm upwards.
FA31 goes OK too I am told

[biz-engineer]

DA10-17 covers full frame from about 14mm upwards.

I guess it was a joke :-)

FA31 goes OK too I am told

:-) Yes, sure, ok, I should have written between 15mm and 31mm...

[pinholecam]

Thanks Steve.

---------- Post added 28-09-15 at 07:35 ----------



Actually, I already have the Tamron 28-75, already having unsharp corners on APSC, so I suppose this is specific to my copy. While this is still acceptable on APSC , I expect that it won't be acceptably sharp in the corners with an FF body.
But, the thing with Pentax DA glass and limited, is that focal length below 35mm do not cover the image circle: DA15, DA21, DA12-24, and 16-17 -> 50/70 zooms. From 35mm onward, as Steve mentioned, the FA35 is a good prime candidate (... and also the FA50 1.4). Beyond 35mm FL, the DA40 , DA70 also seems to cover the FF image circle. Then the DA*200 and DA*300 also supposedly work on FF. However, between 15mm and 35mm, there is currently no Pentax glass that works on FF. As stated by pinholecam, yes there is a Samyang 14 f2.8, if we don't mind using Samyang MF lenses. To me it feels weird to have not other k mount choice than using a Samyang lens, on an expensive Pentax FF body. So, I definitely look forward to a good 15-30, or a good wide angle prime in K-mount, for two reasons: I can use them on my K-3 first, and use them later on on a FF body whenever I get a FF body.

I had the Tamron 28-75/2.8.
It was a good lens on aps-c, but hard to judge on IQ vs current cameras from what I have since my picts with it was on a K100D at 6mp.

FA35, FA50, both good.
I have both lenses and '0' issues on FF.
In fact, the FA35 is excellent.

DA40XS is a surprise as well.
Highly usable from wide open with only the corners being soft and is totally ok at f8.
Far better than say a Voigtlander M-mount 40/1.4, 35/1.4 or Canon ltm 35/1.8 which have issues on digital (esp on a thick sensor stack camera) and hence soft off center performance even at f2.8.



Generally, I'd advise going for a modern UWA.
The tech was just not as good in the old days for many of the UWA. (edges; CA; flare; though they often too more care about distortion since there was no software to handle that in film days)
So even a cheap Samyang 14/2.8 goes toe to toe with a Zeiss 15 and Nikon 14-24 and certainly beats any Canikontax legacy wide in the 15mm to 18mm range.
Ultrawide Comparison: Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 15 mm f/2.8 vs. Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 vs. Samyang 14mm f/2.8

DA10-17 covers full frame from about 14mm upwards.
FA31 goes OK too I am told

31ltd, totally fine.
In fact there was a thread posted here and FM forums where the user pitted it against the FF RX1 and it came on top wrt the shots presented.

I certainly have no issues with all the FA limiteds on FF.

[beholder3]

But, the thing with Pentax DA glass and limited, is that focal length below 35mm do not cover the image circle: DA15, DA21, DA12-24, and 16-17 -> 50/70 zooms. .... However, between 15mm and 35mm, there is currently no Pentax glass that works on FF.

The Pentax DA 12-24mm F4 suprisingly does work on FF somewhere around between 16mm and 18mm.

[biz-engineer]

The Pentax DA 12-24mm F4 suprisingly does work on FF somewhere around between 16mm and 18mm.

Thanks for the info. For me, a 12-24 that works only from 16mm is not a 12-24. I don't know how to express it, but , if we have to resort to this kind of tradeoff because we have Pentax mount, then it is just sad.

[Sandy Hancock]

Have patience Grasshopper. The camera is a few months away still....

[biz-engineer]

So even a cheap Samyang 14/2.8 goes toe to toe with a Zeiss 15 and Nikon 14-24 and certainly beats any Canikontax legacy wide in the 15mm to 18mm range. Ultrawide Comparison: Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 15 mm f/2.8 vs. Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 vs. Samyang 14mm f/2.8

All are doing pretty well when stopped down to f5.6 or more. The Zeiss wins.

[pinholecam]

The Pentax DA 12-24mm F4 suprisingly does work on FF somewhere around between 16mm and 18mm.

There is usually this psychological thing when this is the case.
It eventually eats into the user, that 'something is lacking' or 'make do'.

This was the case too when the Sony A7 series was launched w/o a proper native UWA option.
Their E-mount (apsc) 11-16mm worked too from 14mm-16mm.
But eventually, users all moved to other options and the new 16-35.


I'd just wait for the new UWA or just use a Samyang 14 or M20/4 anyway.

[beholder3]

There is usually this psychological thing when this is the case.
It eventually eats into the user, that 'something is lacking' or 'make do'.

Obviously. It's just a Workaround. But it does provide an autofocussing 17mm F4 Option on FF for free for owners today.
Nobody can claim there "is no" option. It's just luxury to prefer others.


Depending on personal funds for another $1,500 lens and frequency of use of UWA lenses there is a decision to be made then.


Let's not forget this thread is all about "APSC Budget".

[pinholecam]

Obviously. It's just a Workaround. But it does provide an autofocussing 17mm F4 Option on FF for free for owners today.
Nobody can claim there "is no" option. It's just luxury to prefer others.


Depending on personal funds for another $1,500 lens and frequency of use of UWA lenses there is a decision to be made then.


Let's not forget this thread is all about "APSC Budget".

Indeed so.
In fact, I would consider 16-18mm very adequate in FOV on FF for a lens the size of a DA12-24 (ie. not big).
Especially so if one already has the lens.


As for the claim by some regarding 'no option', the 'psychological' part I mentioned upsets some folks more than others. (and thats personal pref).

[Rondec]

A lot of lenses are very usable on a full frame. I currently own the FA 31, DA 40, DA *55, FA77, DFA 100, DA *200, all of which should be OK on full frame. I think that I would probably get a 24-70 and a 20-ish mm prime and be done with that.

I know that older lenses are usable on full frame, but honestly for wide angles, I really do want borders that are sharp. Some lenses are better with regard to that. I also do want auto focus and auto metering.

On the other hand, I have no desire to shoot at 14mm on full frame either -- too wide for me.

[RonHendriks1966]

I wrote an article about budgetting for a nice aps-c set for the Dutch forum a few years ago. I was already some years into photography and when you are smart you could see it as an investement making over a long period. When you start ofcourse it is expensive, but over time you can Add more stuff when time comes and needs are going up.

Different things.....

• camera body (or more)
• lenses
• battery and sd cards
• camera bagage and camera support
• printing
• extra's for PC, laptop or storage
• Costa for hosting a website
• Costa to make for making images like Driving your car
• course to take or symposia to visit
• flashes and rand other stuff
• studio equipement or rent

So not all are for everyone. But basicly in the long run with 200 euro each month you can do a lot.

http://www.pentaxforum.nl/smf/index.php?topic=20288.0

Ofcourse you car and studio rent are not in this budget.

[northcoastgreg]

Now, would it make sense to buy a FF DSLR to use inexpensive lenses on, or an APS-c body with higher end lenses? That remains to be seen.

I'd much rather shoot higher end lenses on APS-C than cheap lenses on FF. Most of the FF images I see are taken with expensive Canon and Nikon pro glass. When I've see an FF image taken with consumer grade zoom glass, I'm not all that impressed. And so when people talk about the FF look, I'm inclined to assume that what they're really seeing (especially if you're talking about landscape images) is the FF pro glass look. That's not suggest there aren't real advantages to FF. Undoubtedly, that the old F 35-70 will perform "better" on a FF camera than on an APS-C camera. It will be sharper, provide a wider FOV, provide a stop more of DOF control, etc. etc. But the critical question is not how the lens performs against itself on FF, but how it performs on FF against higher quality APS-C glass. I have no doubt that if you compared images taken with the F 35-70 on FF to images taken, say, with the DA 16-85 on APS-C, the DA 16-85 would produce the best looking image. And the reason for this is that the DA 16-85 has better lens contrast (and therefore better overall tonality) than the F 35-70. Mike Johnston has argued that "lens contrast of fairly large image structures is a primary determinant of subjective optical quality in a camera lens" and that "resolution of very fine structures seldom helps pictorial photographs much, and, in my opinion, is an overrated property where lens quality is concerned." Contrast, particularly "local" contrast (which is hard to mimic in post) is what gives images snap and bite. It also enriches and brightens colors. It improves image quality, regardless of the size by which the image is viewed (whereas sharpness only comes into play at large print sizes and/or big crops).

Since higher end lenses normally feature better lens contrast than lower end lenses, higher end lenses shot on APS-C should provide better looking images than lower contrast consumer grade lenses shot on FF. This is true even when the consumer grade lenses on FF yield better resolution (due to the larger FF sensor).

[biz-engineer]

So not all are for everyone. But basicly in the long run with 200 euro each month you can do a lot.

Ok, I see. It is realistic since technology evolves so we can't consider the spending is forever.

[mholford]

I'd much rather shoot higher end lenses on APS-C than cheap lenses on FF. Most of the FF images I see are taken with expensive Canon and Nikon pro glass. When I've see an FF image taken with consumer grade zoom glass, I'm not all that impressed. And so when people talk about the FF look, I'm inclined to assume that what they're really seeing (especially if you're talking about landscape images) is the FF pro glass look. That's not suggest there aren't real advantages to FF. Undoubtedly, that the old F 35-70 will perform "better" on a FF camera than on an APS-C camera. It will be sharper, provide a wider FOV, provide a stop more of DOF control, etc. etc. But the critical question is not how the lens performs against itself on FF, but how it performs on FF against higher quality APS-C glass. I have no doubt that if you compared images taken with the F 35-70 on FF to images taken, say, with the DA 16-85 on APS-C, the DA 16-85 would produce the best looking image. And the reason for this is that the DA 16-85 has better lens contrast (and therefore better overall tonality) than the F 35-70. Mike Johnston has argued that "lens contrast of fairly large image structures is a primary determinant of subjective optical quality in a camera lens" and that "resolution of very fine structures seldom helps pictorial photographs much, and, in my opinion, is an overrated property where lens quality is concerned." Contrast, particularly "local" contrast (which is hard to mimic in post) is what gives images snap and bite. It also enriches and brightens colors. It improves image quality, regardless of the size by which the image is viewed (whereas sharpness only comes into play at large print sizes and/or big crops).

Since higher end lenses normally feature better lens contrast than lower end lenses, higher end lenses shot on APS-C should provide better looking images than lower contrast consumer grade lenses shot on FF. This is true even when the consumer grade lenses on FF yield better resolution (due to the larger FF sensor).

+1 on most of this... As I said earlier in this thread... I have a pretty decent range of FF glass - so I could buy a body and get going without other expenses... but some of my *best* glass (i.e. pro) is best suited for APS-C (like my DA* zooms - and possibly my limiteds). I agree - am I going to grab a FF body and pop on my Pentax F 35-105 zoom, or my K5 (upgrade to k3?) and pop on my DA*50-135 with roughly same FOV. Which combination do I think will take the better shot? the second.....