31 limited, Sigma 35 1.4 or 24-70 for the first lens on K-1

JohsonChou · 11-22-2016, 12:23 PM

Just ordered K-1, need to think about lens.
There isn't a lot of information on how these lens perform on K-1, please help.

31 Limited:
Good:
Pixel Dust
Best Bokeh (IMO)
Small, light.

Bad:
CA, Purple Fringe, those problems with non-digital lens
Pentax might release a upgraded version soon.
-----------------------
Sigma 35:
Good:
Resolution
F1.4
Good price

Bad:
Heavy and bulky for 35
AF misses targets
-----------------------
24-70 HD:
Good:
Versatile
Cheap for 24-70 with WR and SMC
Keep me off buying new lens for a while (Need 85mm prime and ultra wide later if I buy 35mm prime)
Best AF

Bad:
I had 17-50/2.8 and 35mm Prime on APS-C, and I don't even touch 17-50.

ajack · 11-22-2016, 12:32 PM

If you never used your 17-50 on an APS-C camera I don't know why the 24-70 is really a contender for your first (and presumably, only) K-1 lens.

I don't have the Sigma but I do have the other two. The 31mm is *significantly* more compact than the 24-70. They're really totally different sizes. If you care at all about being compact I would not get the 24-70.

FWIW chromatic abberation is not really that big a deal since digital tools do a pretty good job getting rid of it. The focusing is definitely louder and slower than a modern SDM lens like the 24-70, whether that matters to you or not I can't say.

JohsonChou · 11-22-2016, 12:42 PM

Here is why 24-70 is on the table:
Would I be able to survive the holiday trips with just the 35mm Prime? I won't have cash to get 85mm Prime before mid next year.
(35mm Prime includes 31 and 85 includes 77)

**lithedreamer** · 11-22-2016, 12:47 PM

I haven't played with the 24-70, but the new HD coatings are really nice for low-effort editing, which is probably the kind of editing most of us want to undertake during the holidays. So, I'll vote for the 24-70. The 31mm is really special, but I've been eyeing the 24-70, despite owning it.

I don't think the extra light from the Sigma makes sense on full frame, in exchange for the weight trade-off. For reasonably close portraits, wouldn't the depth of field be too shallow on 35mm?

If you don't use 17-50 on APS-C, maybe you should look at the D FA* 70-200? I'm loving mine for portraiture.

Last edited by lithedreamer; 11-22-2016 at 01:30 PM.

Blacknight659 · 11-22-2016, 02:20 PM - **1 Like**

My 2 cents...

You seem partial to the 35mm lens and at your core you want that. You want the FA 31, but it has CA. You like the Sigma 35, but it isn't a Pentax and has its own faults.

I think you should pick up a DA 35 f2.4, Why you might ask...

It is cheap, you can buy the replacement to the 31mm when it arrives.

ajack · 11-22-2016, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by JohsonChou

Here is why 24-70 is on the table:
Would I be able to survive the holiday trips with just the 35mm Prime? I won't have cash to get 85mm Prime before mid next year.
(35mm Prime includes 31 and 85 includes 77)

Well there's no question that the 24-70 is more versatile in more situations. Nobody can answer the prime vs zoom debate for you. I'm just saying if you know that you prefer a single wide prime then I don't see why moving to FF should change that.

On a personal note: I have the 31 Limited and the D FA 24-70 (among others) and I can tell you I have the 24-70 on my K-1 at least 80% of the time. I don't care about size/weight and I don't care about losing the ultra-large apertures. I DO care about the weather sealing, the flexibility of the zoom range, and the autofocus. So for me the choice would be the 24-70.

jab2980 · 11-22-2016, 02:48 PM

What do you use your camera for primarily? When I was researching/comparing the 31 vs the sigma 35, the focus issues and weight made it an easy choice to not go with the sigma for weddings/portrait shoots. The 31 is great, but it also is a specific tool with a specific purpose and you're going to wish you had something longer if you're using this for travel shots. Again, I don't know what you're using it for, but is the D-FA 28-105 on your radar? There's a huge weight and price difference between that and the 24-70. Sorry for straying from your original question but, I'd also consider buying a few alternative DA primes to cover the focal lengths you've mentioned. You could buy a used DA 35 2.4, DA 40, DA 50, DA 70 and still pay less than what some people are asking for a used FA 31.

JohsonChou · 11-22-2016, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by jab2980

What do you use your camera for primarily? When I was researching/comparing the 31 vs the sigma 35, the focus issues and weight made it an easy choice to not go with the sigma for weddings/portrait shoots. The 31 is great, but it also is a specific tool with a specific purpose and you're going to wish you had something longer if you're using this for travel shots. Again, I don't know what you're using it for, but is the D-FA 28-105 on your radar? There's a huge weight and price difference between that and the 24-70. Sorry for straying from your original question but, I'd also consider buying a few alternative DA primes to cover the focal lengths you've mentioned. You could buy a used DA 35 2.4, DA 40, DA 50, DA 70 and still pay less than what some people are asking for a used FA 31.

Thanks for the reply.
I do street shots and indoor shots mostly. For Landscape I use ultra-wide so it is for later.
28-105 is on my radar, but it just doesn't have the bokeh I want. 24-70 has the minimal performance I want for bokeh.
I might get one to use it in weather in far future though if I went with primes.

DA35 2.4 is a good idea, how does it work on FF? How about FA35/2 ?

Blacknight659 · 11-22-2016, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by JohsonChou

Thanks for the reply.
I do street shots and indoor shots mostly. For Landscape I use ultra-wide so it is for later.
28-105 is on my radar, but it just doesn't have the bokeh I want. 24-70 has the minimal performance I want for bokeh.
I might get one to use it in weather in far future though if I went with primes.

DA35 2.4 is a good idea, how does it work on FF? How about FA35/2 ?

They both are great. Pick your poison.

**HippyHippo** · 11-22-2016, 03:15 PM

I was always a prime user on APS-C and understand where you're coming from I think.
But when I picked up the K1 I also went for the 24-70 to explore the best of the camera's focusing capabilities and because more people are asking me to do events and weddings again after a few years off, so handy to have.
To my surprise, I'm finding that I'm using it much of the time. Yes it's bigger and heavier. But it's fast to use, sharp and versatile. It isn't overly heavy in comparison to several primes in a bag. The bokeh quality isn't quite there in comparison to my FA prime, I agree. But still good and of course a 35mm sensor gives me that shallower dof again to partially compensate for not being f1.8. I'd not rule the 24-70 out for speed and versatility - I'm really enjoying mine!

HudsonShooter · 11-22-2016, 03:43 PM - **1 Like**

get the limited prime and add a 28-80 lens as they are cheap but do zoom when you want that.
good lens and and a mediocre one all in one package.

**walibo1** · 11-22-2016, 04:02 PM

Here is another option to consider:
Get the 31mm Limited
a Sigma 24-70 2.8
a Rokinon 85 1.4

and upgrade as your budget allows.

Blacknight659 · 11-22-2016, 04:30 PM

In response the concern of the impending lens replacements, I think a cheap go between lens is in your best interest.

I personally vote a FA 35mm f2. You could sell it easier if you upgrade later than the DA 35mm 2.4.

If you love it, enjoy the affordable lovely lens, if you want to replace with a more expensive 35, you can easily recover 85% of your investment.

johnkrumm · 11-22-2016, 06:18 PM - **2 Likes**

If you use the 31 limited with Lightroom it is profiled. I don't notice much fringing, unlike when I shoot with some older non-profiled K and M lenses. However, while super sharp in the middle I consider it only decent on the far edges, even stopped down. Likely the Sigma is better there, but I haven't tried one. Probably mostly an on-screen pixel-peeper problem. The FA 35 f2 is a little softer all around at infinity, at least my copy, but good close up. I don't know about the DA 35, but when I rented the DA 35 2.4 macro it vignetted too much in the far corners for me, kind of a sharp drop-off, especially up top. The 31 is quite sharp even wide open in the middle--and it maintains good contrast and color.

Here's one of my favorite 31 limited shots, and it printed very well.... Shot at F13 with the K1..

**clackers** · 11-22-2016, 07:46 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by johnkrumm

I don't know about the DA 35, but when I rented the DA 35 2.4 macro it vignetted too much in the far corners for me, kind of a sharp drop-off, especially up top.

You would have rented the DA35 f2.8 Macro Limited, John, which has nothing to do with the DA35, and is an APS-C only lens.

The cheaper DA35 is a plastic fantastic, and can be thought of as a younger sibling to the full frame FA35. The DA35/FA35 are sharp because they have a two piece (glass/resin) aspherical element. These are excellent lenses. The bokeh will never be as smooth as the FA31 though because they have six straight aperture blades instead of nine rounded.

11-22-2016, 12:23 PM	#1
JohsonChou Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: San Luis Obispo Photos: Albums Posts: 146	31 limited, Sigma 35 1.4 or 24-70 for the first lens on K-1 Just ordered K-1, need to think about lens. There isn't a lot of information on how these lens perform on K-1, please help. 31 Limited: Good: Pixel Dust Best Bokeh (IMO) Small, light. Bad: CA, Purple Fringe, those problems with non-digital lens Pentax might release a upgraded version soon. ----------------------- Sigma 35: Good: Resolution F1.4 Good price Bad: Heavy and bulky for 35 AF misses targets ----------------------- 24-70 HD: Good: Versatile Cheap for 24-70 with WR and SMC Keep me off buying new lens for a while (Need 85mm prime and ultra wide later if I buy 35mm prime) Best AF Bad: I had 17-50/2.8 and 35mm Prime on APS-C, and I don't even touch 17-50.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The first day with K-1 and: 15-30, 24-70, 31, 77, 100 lenses	braver	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	8	04-19-2021 11:40 AM
Options, options, K-1, 24-70 or 31 Limited.	lesmore49	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	03-10-2017 08:30 AM
Pentax 31/1,8 Or Sigma 35/1,4 Art?	hence84	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	10-20-2016 12:57 AM
Sigma 28 1.8 macro vs. 31 limited on K 1	johnkrumm	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	6	07-31-2016 02:58 AM
Lens tests on K-1 : 15-30, 24-70, 70-200, 31, 43, 77, 100 Macro, 28-70 and 80-200	Mistral75	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	06-28-2016 11:46 AM

11-22-2016, 12:32 PM	#2
ajack Forum Member Join Date: May 2016 Location: Maine Posts: 95	If you never used your 17-50 on an APS-C camera I don't know why the 24-70 is really a contender for your first (and presumably, only) K-1 lens. I don't have the Sigma but I do have the other two. The 31mm is significantly more compact than the 24-70. They're really totally different sizes. If you care at all about being compact I would not get the 24-70. FWIW chromatic abberation is not really that big a deal since digital tools do a pretty good job getting rid of it. The focusing is definitely louder and slower than a modern SDM lens like the 24-70, whether that matters to you or not I can't say.

11-22-2016, 12:42 PM	#3
JohsonChou Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: San Luis Obispo Photos: Albums Posts: 146 Original Poster	Here is why 24-70 is on the table: Would I be able to survive the holiday trips with just the 35mm Prime? I won't have cash to get 85mm Prime before mid next year. (35mm Prime includes 31 and 85 includes 77)

11-22-2016, 12:47 PM	#4
lithedreamer Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,799	I haven't played with the 24-70, but the new HD coatings are really nice for low-effort editing, which is probably the kind of editing most of us want to undertake during the holidays. So, I'll vote for the 24-70. The 31mm is really special, but I've been eyeing the 24-70, despite owning it. I don't think the extra light from the Sigma makes sense on full frame, in exchange for the weight trade-off. For reasonably close portraits, wouldn't the depth of field be too shallow on 35mm? If you don't use 17-50 on APS-C, maybe you should look at the D FA* 70-200? I'm loving mine for portraiture. Last edited by lithedreamer; 11-22-2016 at 01:30 PM.

11-22-2016, 02:20 PM - 1 Like	#5
Blacknight659 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 731	My 2 cents... You seem partial to the 35mm lens and at your core you want that. You want the FA 31, but it has CA. You like the Sigma 35, but it isn't a Pentax and has its own faults. I think you should pick up a DA 35 f2.4, Why you might ask... It is cheap, you can buy the replacement to the 31mm when it arrives.

11-22-2016, 02:29 PM	#6
ajack Forum Member Join Date: May 2016 Location: Maine Posts: 95	Originally posted by JohsonChou Here is why 24-70 is on the table: Would I be able to survive the holiday trips with just the 35mm Prime? I won't have cash to get 85mm Prime before mid next year. (35mm Prime includes 31 and 85 includes 77) Well there's no question that the 24-70 is more versatile in more situations. Nobody can answer the prime vs zoom debate for you. I'm just saying if you know that you prefer a single wide prime then I don't see why moving to FF should change that. On a personal note: I have the 31 Limited and the D FA 24-70 (among others) and I can tell you I have the 24-70 on my K-1 at least 80% of the time. I don't care about size/weight and I don't care about losing the ultra-large apertures. I DO care about the weather sealing, the flexibility of the zoom range, and the autofocus. So for me the choice would be the 24-70.

11-22-2016, 02:48 PM	#7
jab2980 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Albums Posts: 578	What do you use your camera for primarily? When I was researching/comparing the 31 vs the sigma 35, the focus issues and weight made it an easy choice to not go with the sigma for weddings/portrait shoots. The 31 is great, but it also is a specific tool with a specific purpose and you're going to wish you had something longer if you're using this for travel shots. Again, I don't know what you're using it for, but is the D-FA 28-105 on your radar? There's a huge weight and price difference between that and the 24-70. Sorry for straying from your original question but, I'd also consider buying a few alternative DA primes to cover the focal lengths you've mentioned. You could buy a used DA 35 2.4, DA 40, DA 50, DA 70 and still pay less than what some people are asking for a used FA 31.

11-22-2016, 03:09 PM	#8
JohsonChou Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: San Luis Obispo Photos: Albums Posts: 146 Original Poster	Originally posted by jab2980 What do you use your camera for primarily? When I was researching/comparing the 31 vs the sigma 35, the focus issues and weight made it an easy choice to not go with the sigma for weddings/portrait shoots. The 31 is great, but it also is a specific tool with a specific purpose and you're going to wish you had something longer if you're using this for travel shots. Again, I don't know what you're using it for, but is the D-FA 28-105 on your radar? There's a huge weight and price difference between that and the 24-70. Sorry for straying from your original question but, I'd also consider buying a few alternative DA primes to cover the focal lengths you've mentioned. You could buy a used DA 35 2.4, DA 40, DA 50, DA 70 and still pay less than what some people are asking for a used FA 31. Thanks for the reply. I do street shots and indoor shots mostly. For Landscape I use ultra-wide so it is for later. 28-105 is on my radar, but it just doesn't have the bokeh I want. 24-70 has the minimal performance I want for bokeh. I might get one to use it in weather in far future though if I went with primes. DA35 2.4 is a good idea, how does it work on FF? How about FA35/2 ?

11-22-2016, 03:14 PM	#9
Blacknight659 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 731	Originally posted by JohsonChou Thanks for the reply. I do street shots and indoor shots mostly. For Landscape I use ultra-wide so it is for later. 28-105 is on my radar, but it just doesn't have the bokeh I want. 24-70 has the minimal performance I want for bokeh. I might get one to use it in weather in far future though if I went with primes. DA35 2.4 is a good idea, how does it work on FF? How about FA35/2 ? They both are great. Pick your poison.

11-22-2016, 03:15 PM	#10
HippyHippo Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Derby Posts: 98	I was always a prime user on APS-C and understand where you're coming from I think. But when I picked up the K1 I also went for the 24-70 to explore the best of the camera's focusing capabilities and because more people are asking me to do events and weddings again after a few years off, so handy to have. To my surprise, I'm finding that I'm using it much of the time. Yes it's bigger and heavier. But it's fast to use, sharp and versatile. It isn't overly heavy in comparison to several primes in a bag. The bokeh quality isn't quite there in comparison to my FA prime, I agree. But still good and of course a 35mm sensor gives me that shallower dof again to partially compensate for not being f1.8. I'd not rule the 24-70 out for speed and versatility - I'm really enjoying mine!

11-22-2016, 03:43 PM - 1 Like	#11
HudsonShooter Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 108	get the limited prime and add a 28-80 lens as they are cheap but do zoom when you want that. good lens and and a mediocre one all in one package.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-22-2016, 04:02 PM	#12
walibo1 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 155	Here is another option to consider: Get the 31mm Limited a Sigma 24-70 2.8 a Rokinon 85 1.4 and upgrade as your budget allows.

11-22-2016, 04:30 PM	#13
Blacknight659 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 731	In response the concern of the impending lens replacements, I think a cheap go between lens is in your best interest. I personally vote a FA 35mm f2. You could sell it easier if you upgrade later than the DA 35mm 2.4. If you love it, enjoy the affordable lovely lens, if you want to replace with a more expensive 35, you can easily recover 85% of your investment.

11-22-2016, 06:18 PM - 2 Likes	#14
johnkrumm Senior Member Join Date: May 2016 Location: Duluth, MN Posts: 141	If you use the 31 limited with Lightroom it is profiled. I don't notice much fringing, unlike when I shoot with some older non-profiled K and M lenses. However, while super sharp in the middle I consider it only decent on the far edges, even stopped down. Likely the Sigma is better there, but I haven't tried one. Probably mostly an on-screen pixel-peeper problem. The FA 35 f2 is a little softer all around at infinity, at least my copy, but good close up. I don't know about the DA 35, but when I rented the DA 35 2.4 macro it vignetted too much in the far corners for me, kind of a sharp drop-off, especially up top. The 31 is quite sharp even wide open in the middle--and it maintains good contrast and color. Here's one of my favorite 31 limited shots, and it printed very well.... Shot at F13 with the K1..

11-22-2016, 07:46 PM - 1 Like	#15
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by johnkrumm I don't know about the DA 35, but when I rented the DA 35 2.4 macro it vignetted too much in the far corners for me, kind of a sharp drop-off, especially up top. You would have rented the DA35 f2.8 Macro Limited, John, which has nothing to do with the DA35, and is an APS-C only lens. The cheaper DA35 is a plastic fantastic, and can be thought of as a younger sibling to the full frame FA35. The DA35/FA35 are sharp because they have a two piece (glass/resin) aspherical element. These are excellent lenses. The bokeh will never be as smooth as the FA31 though because they have six straight aperture blades instead of nine rounded.