Wide angle lenses

surfar · 08-08-2018, 01:24 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kerrowdown

Aye but is there life after Tasmania... with all them Devils and such.

Yes, lots developed their swimming skills to escape those Devils!

Melbourne proves that ! Adelaide proved some were long distance swimmers!

**Kerrowdown** · 08-08-2018, 01:27 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by surfar

Yes, lots developed their swimming skills to escape those Devils!

Fast swimmers too... to dodge all them sharks.

Another milestone posting, your my 37,000 post...

johnha · 08-08-2018, 03:37 PM

Before the K-1 arrived I started putting an FA lens kit together, the K-1 took a long time to arrive and I went for a P6x7 instead, but use the FA lenses on my film bodies. When it came to a wide-angle wider than 28mm I was a bit stuck. I couldn't decide between the 20 & 24mm options (both were 'rare and expensive' and I could only justify one). I then found a 20-35/4 which is perfect for my needs (a little slow for film in dim conditions without high ISO options) but a very good range and it's relatively compact.

**Scorpio71GR** · 08-08-2018, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by reh321

Are we talking about wide-angle here, or UWA? In the days of manual focus film, I heard a lot about 28mm, and some about 24mm, but little wider than that - which is probably why few used lenses are wider than that.

In the film days I can only think of three lenses that were UWA's. The K15, A20/FA20, and the FA20-35. In those days the 15 and 20mm primes were way out of my price range. They still are today. Many people were talking about the DFA 15-30, which starts out as a UWA. Making a FF lens below 24mm is very difficult and they are not cheap. The widest lens I had back then was an A24-50. I really liked that lens. Now I have a FA 20-35.

h4yn0nnym0u5e · 08-09-2018, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Scorpio71GR

In the film days I can only think of three lenses that were UWA's. The K15, A20/FA20, and the FA20-35. In those days the 15 and 20mm primes were way out of my price range. They still are today. Many people were talking about the DFA 15-30, which starts out as a UWA. Making a FF lens below 24mm is very difficult and they are not cheap. The widest lens I had back then was an A24-50. I really liked that lens. Now I have a FA 20-35.

There's also the K18, K20 and M20, and the FA J 18-35. Don't think the OP particularly mentioned whether they were after ultra-wide or not.

**Scorpio71GR** · 08-09-2018, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by h4yn0nnym0u5e

There's also the K18, K20 and M20, and the FA J 18-35. Don't think the OP particularly mentioned whether they were after ultra-wide or not.

Oh yeah I forgot about those. I actually remember trying to find a M20 F4 back years ago. I never did get one. I settled on the 24-50. I liked that one because of the A setting which was very handy my Super Program. I used that Super Program right up till I got my K10D.

northcoastgreg · 08-09-2018, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by str8talk83

I also prefer a 16-35 f/4 vs a faster lens, so that would be nice.

I would actually prefer an 18-35 f4-5.6. A Pentax designed 16-35 f4 would be nearly as expensive as the DFA 15-30 and perhaps only a half a pound lighter. An 18-35 f4-5.6 with comparable optics to the DFA 28-105 would be lighter and less expensive than the f4 zoom and, along
with the ~70-300 zoom on the roadmap, would make for a lightweight, relatively inexpensive variable aperture zoom trio. And unlike the variable aperture trio offered by Canon and Nikon, the Pentax would feature fairly high-end optics.

What is curious about Pentax's projected FF lineup is that it's top heavy with telephoto zooms. When the 70-200/4 and the ~70-300 come out, Pentax will have three zooms covering the 70-200 range, two zooms covering the 28-70 range, and only one zoom covering the rectilinear 15 to 30 range. It is often said that FF is better for wide angle, yet Pentax seems more intent on meeting the FF zoom needs of telephoto shooters.

**pres589** · 08-09-2018, 08:09 AM

The K-1 is also supposed to be "the landscaper's camera" which I think continues the odd-ness of this situation. Maybe 50mm is the new landscaper's focal length?

I'm a bit surprised some 3rd party company hasn't done a clone job on the M 20 f4 yet. That lens commands an ebay price (so maybe not real-world, grain of salt and all that) which makes me think Samyang or Laowa or whoever could sell copies with a street price of $400 to $500 USD and make money.

str8talk83 · 08-09-2018, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by northcoastgreg

I would actually prefer an 18-35 f4-5.6. A Pentax designed 16-35 f4 would be nearly as expensive as the DFA 15-30 and perhaps only a half a pound lighter. An 18-35 f4-5.6 with comparable optics to the DFA 28-105 would be lighter and less expensive than the f4 zoom and, along
with the ~70-300 zoom on the roadmap, would make for a lightweight, relatively inexpensive variable aperture zoom trio. And unlike the variable aperture trio offered by Canon and Nikon, the Pentax would feature fairly high-end optics.

What is curious about Pentax's projected FF lineup is that it's top heavy with telephoto zooms. When the 70-200/4 and the ~70-300 come out, Pentax will have three zooms covering the 70-200 range, two zooms covering the 28-70 range, and only one zoom covering the rectilinear 15 to 30 range. It is often said that FF is better for wide angle, yet Pentax seems more intent on meeting the FF zoom needs of telephoto shooters.

This would be ok as long as the optics were good. I rarely use my landscape lenses even close to wide open and I imagine a lot of other people are in the same boat. The DFA 28-105 seems to be a good lens that beats most variable aperture lenses out there. I think I get caught up in the stigma of variable aperture lenses because I don't care for mediocre lenses.

**SteveinSLC** · 08-09-2018, 12:13 PM

The downside of the 12-24 is that its not WR. Which would be super helpful for a travel/landscape lens.

The 15-30 is great...I'd honestly be surprised if a prime was actually much better from an image quality standpoint. You could get faster/lighter/smaller, but not necessarily better.

I'd be happy if there was a DFA WR 20 1.8/2.8 that I could bring along in addition to the 28-105 as a travel and hiking lens.

**blues_hawk** · 08-09-2018, 12:17 PM

Freak everbody out and turn in a killer epic prize winning post..with a DA18-55mm --it's happened before.

Wheatfield · 08-09-2018, 12:30 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by pres589

The K-1 is also supposed to be "the landscaper's camera" which I think continues the odd-ness of this situation. Maybe 50mm is the new landscaper's focal length?

50mm on full frame is an excellent general purpose focal length. If we are going to pigeon hole landscape lenses as always wide angle, then we might as well continue down that path and admit that landscapes always require deep depth of field.
Now, what does Pentax have on the market that is wide angle, has very good imaging quality and gives excellent depth of field?
They have the landscape user in the bag with the 15-30 f/2.8, and it's only a hundred dollars more than the D FA 50/1.4 (which is an excellent landscape lens).

As an example of what can be done with a standard focal length, I give you the following picture, shot with the 31mm LTD on an APS-C sized camera. This is a nine image stitch, which was required to get the entire scene into one picture.

h4yn0nnym0u5e · 08-09-2018, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Scorpio71GR

I actually remember trying to find a M20 F4 back years ago. I never did get one. .

Originally posted by pres589

I'm a bit surprised some 3rd party company hasn't done a clone job on the M 20 f4 yet. That lens commands an ebay price (so maybe not real-world, grain of salt and all that) which makes me think Samyang or Laowa or whoever could sell copies with a street price of $400 to $500 USD and make money.

And yet ... looking back over the sold items on PF, the last M 20 f/4 offered sold for only $235, less than half its unadjusted original retail in 1978 of $498! And that was after having its price lowered three times. I just got one off eBay for a similar amount. So it may be that there's actually not that much love for a slowish 20mm - everyone these days seems to want to lug around a super-corrected fast 15mm...

Cheers

Jonathan

h4yn0nnym0u5e · 08-09-2018, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

As an example of what can be done with a standard focal length, I give you the following picture, shot with the 31mm LTD on an APS-C sized camera. This is a nin image stitch, which was required to get the entire scene into one picture.

Can be done, yes. But I'd imagine that most people wouldn't want to make that effort if they could use a 10mm (APS-C) or 15mm (FF) lens instead. Otherwise we'd all own just a 100mm macro, and that rather nice image would have taken about 100 images stitched together!

**BarryE** · 08-09-2018, 02:19 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by LensBeginner

There's the 15-30, which is very, very good, and the third-party Irix 15, which I'm actually drooling over...
They have wider holes in the lineup to plug, IMHO.

I stopped drooling and bought one. Very pleased I did too ...

08-09-2018, 12:30 PM - 2 Likes	#42
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,976	Originally posted by pres589 The K-1 is also supposed to be "the landscaper's camera" which I think continues the odd-ness of this situation. Maybe 50mm is the new landscaper's focal length? 50mm on full frame is an excellent general purpose focal length. If we are going to pigeon hole landscape lenses as always wide angle, then we might as well continue down that path and admit that landscapes always require deep depth of field. Now, what does Pentax have on the market that is wide angle, has very good imaging quality and gives excellent depth of field? They have the landscape user in the bag with the 15-30 f/2.8, and it's only a hundred dollars more than the D FA 50/1.4 (which is an excellent landscape lens). As an example of what can be done with a standard focal length, I give you the following picture, shot with the 31mm LTD on an APS-C sized camera. This is a nine image stitch, which was required to get the entire scene into one picture. Last edited by Wheatfield; 08-09-2018 at 02:17 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Cheap Film-Era Wide Angle Zoom Lenses Club!	ChristianRock	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	10-06-2017 07:09 AM
Get wide angle lens from an extreme angle lens	jorgegetafe	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	10-08-2015 12:53 AM
Wanted - Acquired: Wide-angle zoom lenses (16/17- ?? & up)	12345	Sold Items	7	09-09-2015 05:34 PM
Wanted - Acquired: Wide / Ultra Wide angle lens for my K-5	GWARmachine	Sold Items	3	03-23-2013 12:03 AM

08-08-2018, 01:24 PM - 1 Like	#31
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,138	Originally posted by Kerrowdown Aye but is there life after Tasmania... with all them Devils and such. Yes, lots developed their swimming skills to escape those Devils! Melbourne proves that ! Adelaide proved some were long distance swimmers!

08-08-2018, 01:27 PM - 2 Likes	#32
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,815	Originally posted by surfar Yes, lots developed their swimming skills to escape those Devils! Fast swimmers too... to dodge all them sharks. Another milestone posting, your my 37,000 post...

08-08-2018, 03:37 PM	#33
johnha Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Lancashire, UK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,155	Before the K-1 arrived I started putting an FA lens kit together, the K-1 took a long time to arrive and I went for a P6x7 instead, but use the FA lenses on my film bodies. When it came to a wide-angle wider than 28mm I was a bit stuck. I couldn't decide between the 20 & 24mm options (both were 'rare and expensive' and I could only justify one). I then found a 20-35/4 which is perfect for my needs (a little slow for film in dim conditions without high ISO options) but a very good range and it's relatively compact.

08-08-2018, 06:21 PM	#34
Scorpio71GR Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,003	Originally posted by reh321 Are we talking about wide-angle here, or UWA? In the days of manual focus film, I heard a lot about 28mm, and some about 24mm, but little wider than that - which is probably why few used lenses are wider than that. In the film days I can only think of three lenses that were UWA's. The K15, A20/FA20, and the FA20-35. In those days the 15 and 20mm primes were way out of my price range. They still are today. Many people were talking about the DFA 15-30, which starts out as a UWA. Making a FF lens below 24mm is very difficult and they are not cheap. The widest lens I had back then was an A24-50. I really liked that lens. Now I have a FA 20-35.

08-09-2018, 12:55 AM	#35
h4yn0nnym0u5e Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: Cambridgeshire, UK Photos: Albums Posts: 333	Originally posted by Scorpio71GR In the film days I can only think of three lenses that were UWA's. The K15, A20/FA20, and the FA20-35. In those days the 15 and 20mm primes were way out of my price range. They still are today. Many people were talking about the DFA 15-30, which starts out as a UWA. Making a FF lens below 24mm is very difficult and they are not cheap. The widest lens I had back then was an A24-50. I really liked that lens. Now I have a FA 20-35. There's also the K18, K20 and M20, and the FA J 18-35. Don't think the OP particularly mentioned whether they were after ultra-wide or not.

08-09-2018, 03:20 AM	#36
Scorpio71GR Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,003	Originally posted by h4yn0nnym0u5e There's also the K18, K20 and M20, and the FA J 18-35. Don't think the OP particularly mentioned whether they were after ultra-wide or not. Oh yeah I forgot about those. I actually remember trying to find a M20 F4 back years ago. I never did get one. I settled on the 24-50. I liked that one because of the A setting which was very handy my Super Program. I used that Super Program right up till I got my K10D.

08-09-2018, 07:56 AM	#37
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,172	Originally posted by str8talk83 I also prefer a 16-35 f/4 vs a faster lens, so that would be nice. I would actually prefer an 18-35 f4-5.6. A Pentax designed 16-35 f4 would be nearly as expensive as the DFA 15-30 and perhaps only a half a pound lighter. An 18-35 f4-5.6 with comparable optics to the DFA 28-105 would be lighter and less expensive than the f4 zoom and, along with the ~70-300 zoom on the roadmap, would make for a lightweight, relatively inexpensive variable aperture zoom trio. And unlike the variable aperture trio offered by Canon and Nikon, the Pentax would feature fairly high-end optics. What is curious about Pentax's projected FF lineup is that it's top heavy with telephoto zooms. When the 70-200/4 and the ~70-300 come out, Pentax will have three zooms covering the 70-200 range, two zooms covering the 28-70 range, and only one zoom covering the rectilinear 15 to 30 range. It is often said that FF is better for wide angle, yet Pentax seems more intent on meeting the FF zoom needs of telephoto shooters.

08-09-2018, 08:09 AM	#38
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	The K-1 is also supposed to be "the landscaper's camera" which I think continues the odd-ness of this situation. Maybe 50mm is the new landscaper's focal length? I'm a bit surprised some 3rd party company hasn't done a clone job on the M 20 f4 yet. That lens commands an ebay price (so maybe not real-world, grain of salt and all that) which makes me think Samyang or Laowa or whoever could sell copies with a street price of $400 to $500 USD and make money.

08-09-2018, 12:09 PM	#39
str8talk83 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Bluffton, SC Photos: Albums Posts: 674	Originally posted by northcoastgreg I would actually prefer an 18-35 f4-5.6. A Pentax designed 16-35 f4 would be nearly as expensive as the DFA 15-30 and perhaps only a half a pound lighter. An 18-35 f4-5.6 with comparable optics to the DFA 28-105 would be lighter and less expensive than the f4 zoom and, along with the ~70-300 zoom on the roadmap, would make for a lightweight, relatively inexpensive variable aperture zoom trio. And unlike the variable aperture trio offered by Canon and Nikon, the Pentax would feature fairly high-end optics. What is curious about Pentax's projected FF lineup is that it's top heavy with telephoto zooms. When the 70-200/4 and the ~70-300 come out, Pentax will have three zooms covering the 70-200 range, two zooms covering the 28-70 range, and only one zoom covering the rectilinear 15 to 30 range. It is often said that FF is better for wide angle, yet Pentax seems more intent on meeting the FF zoom needs of telephoto shooters. This would be ok as long as the optics were good. I rarely use my landscape lenses even close to wide open and I imagine a lot of other people are in the same boat. The DFA 28-105 seems to be a good lens that beats most variable aperture lenses out there. I think I get caught up in the stigma of variable aperture lenses because I don't care for mediocre lenses.

08-09-2018, 12:13 PM	#40
SteveinSLC Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 568	The downside of the 12-24 is that its not WR. Which would be super helpful for a travel/landscape lens. The 15-30 is great...I'd honestly be surprised if a prime was actually much better from an image quality standpoint. You could get faster/lighter/smaller, but not necessarily better. I'd be happy if there was a DFA WR 20 1.8/2.8 that I could bring along in addition to the 28-105 as a travel and hiking lens.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-09-2018, 12:17 PM	#41
blues_hawk Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Patrick Co. Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,534	Freak everbody out and turn in a killer epic prize winning post..with a DA18-55mm --it's happened before.

08-09-2018, 01:37 PM	#43
h4yn0nnym0u5e Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: Cambridgeshire, UK Photos: Albums Posts: 333	Originally posted by Scorpio71GR I actually remember trying to find a M20 F4 back years ago. I never did get one. . Originally posted by pres589 I'm a bit surprised some 3rd party company hasn't done a clone job on the M 20 f4 yet. That lens commands an ebay price (so maybe not real-world, grain of salt and all that) which makes me think Samyang or Laowa or whoever could sell copies with a street price of $400 to $500 USD and make money. And yet ... looking back over the sold items on PF, the last M 20 f/4 offered sold for only $235, less than half its unadjusted original retail in 1978 of $498! And that was after having its price lowered three times. I just got one off eBay for a similar amount. So it may be that there's actually not that much love for a slowish 20mm - everyone these days seems to want to lug around a super-corrected fast 15mm... Cheers Jonathan

08-09-2018, 01:48 PM	#44
h4yn0nnym0u5e Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: Cambridgeshire, UK Photos: Albums Posts: 333	Originally posted by Wheatfield As an example of what can be done with a standard focal length, I give you the following picture, shot with the 31mm LTD on an APS-C sized camera. This is a nin image stitch, which was required to get the entire scene into one picture. Can be done, yes. But I'd imagine that most people wouldn't want to make that effort if they could use a 10mm (APS-C) or 15mm (FF) lens instead. Otherwise we'd all own just a 100mm macro, and that rather nice image would have taken about 100 images stitched together!

08-09-2018, 02:19 PM - 1 Like	#45
BarryE Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 1,653	Originally posted by LensBeginner There's the 15-30, which is very, very good, and the third-party Irix 15, which I'm actually drooling over... They have wider holes in the lineup to plug, IMHO. I stopped drooling and bought one. Very pleased I did too ...