Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-22-2016, 12:23 PM   #1
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.

11-22-2016, 12:32 PM   #2
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
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,743
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
Veteran Member
Blacknight659's Avatar

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
Forum Member




Join Date: May 2016
Location: Maine
Posts: 95
QuoteOriginally posted by JohsonChou Quote
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
Veteran Member
jab2980's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 458
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
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Luis Obispo
Photos: Albums
Posts: 146
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jab2980 Quote
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
Veteran Member
Blacknight659's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 731
QuoteOriginally posted by JohsonChou Quote
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
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
HippyHippo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Derby
Posts: 89
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
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.
11-22-2016, 04:02 PM   #12
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 100
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
Veteran Member
Blacknight659's Avatar

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
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
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 14,356
QuoteOriginally posted by johnkrumm Quote
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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, 35mm, af, full-frame, k-1, lens, pentax, sigma
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
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 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
The first day with K-1 and: 15-30, 24-70, 31, 77, 100 lenses braver Pentax K-1 6 05-12-2016 03:23 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:04 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top