[ReadyAimPhoto]

Hey FF gang

I recently picked up a used K-1 (coming from a K-3 ii) from MPB and got an amazing deal. I've had my eye on the K-1 since it was announced as I love landscape photography and milky way shots.

I've done a tonne of research around FF lenses and I'm a little spoilt for choice it seems. There seem to be a lot of comparisons between various FF lenses such as the FA 50 1.4 and 1.7 but I'm struggling to find comparisons with FF compatible DA lenses like the 50 1.8.

My current lens setup is as follows and I'm trying to work out which to upgrade and which to hang onto:

Sigma 17-50 EX HSM - picked this up as a walk around lens and was really unimpressed with it. Will definitely be selling this as it doesn't cover the FF sensor.

Pentax 50mm f1.8 - easily my favourite lens on the K-3, super sharp and great bokeh. Considering replacing this with a F1.4/1.7

Pentax 35mm f2.4 - slight vignetting on FF wide open but definitely usable. I generally use this as my walkaround as it's far sharper than the Sigma although if I get a 24-70 or 28-105 I doubt I'd get any use out of a 35mm prime.

Samyang 14mm f2.8 - my go to astro/landscape lens. Definitely keeping this one and can't wait to see how milky way shots come out on the K-1.

DA 55-300mm - I don't get too much use out of this so it seems a waste to upgrade. Definitely feels usable on the K-1 either in crop mode or with post cropping in FF. Nice to have for the odd wildlife shot I guess and much lighter than FF equivalents.

With the 50mm being my favourite lens on the K-3 I'm thinking about getting the 77 limited and either the FA 50 1.4 or 1.7 (although I might struggle to pick the 1.7 up in the UK).

My local Jessops/Wex stock very few, if any Pentax lenses so testing them out before buying is pretty difficult.

I'm interested to hear which lenses everyone here thinks I should prioritise and any I've missed! I definitely won't be buying all these lenses straight away as some of them are pretty pricey!

Cheers all!

[jatrax]

Just get the DFA 28-105 and be done. Its better (IMHO) than any lens you currently have. Add the FA 77mm if you want a Limited and a fast 50mm just because. You have the 14mm for very wide and the 55-300 for long when you want it.

[pres589]

When I bought my DA 50 1.8, I also got an F 50 1.7, from the same person. He had used them both on the K-1 and had upgraded to something else (I think the DA*55) and I want to say he thought the DA 50 1.8 vignetted less on full frame than the F 50. Take that with a grain of salt. But, if you like the DA 50 1.8's IQ, I don't see any reason to upgrade to a 50 1.7.

[DeadJohn]

For general walkaround and landscapes, IMO get the 28-105. It's a very sharp lens, weather sealed, fairly compact, and not too expensive. Build the rest of your lens collection around that.

Alternatively, there's the 24-70. f2.8 is good for astro and might be a do-everything lens for you. Will f2.8 give you enough bokeh? If yes get the 24-70, if no get the 28-105 and supplement it with specialized primes.

Your Samyang 14 will work for Milky Way shots. Comparing your new FF K-1 to former APS-C K-3, expect a wider view, corners might look weaker, less noise when using the same settings. Samyang/Rokinon have a lot of sample variation, and if your copy has issues in far corners just crop things later.

Another lens to consider down the road is the Pentax DFA 15-30. It's big, heavy, more expensive, but gives you a lot of versatility for astro and landscapes. It's a good companion to the 28-105.

[vector]

Your DA 50mm and 35mm will both work perfectly well on the K1, as will the Samyang 14mm (I use all 3 on mine). As has been mentioned here I think an every day zoom would be your highest priority and the reputation of the DFA 28-105mm is pretty good. Personally I have a Tamron 28-75mm and it is decent affordable option as well. It really depends on your budget and needs though, as the DFA 24-70mm will be better but cost 3-4x as much. If you really loved your 50mm on apsc then a FA 77 is the natural replacement. After that I would be looking for something in the 70-200mm range.

[aslyfox]

I wonder if the OP has read this article ?

Full Frame Coverage of DA Lenses: Comprehensive Test
Which DA lenses cover the full 24x36 mm frame?


Read more at: Full Frame Coverage of DA Lenses: Comprehensive Test - Gear Guides | PentaxForums.com

[Wasp]

A Samyang 85mm f/1.4 would be a good low budget alternative to the 77mm Limited, if you don't mind the manual focus.

You can also look at the Sigma 70-300mm APO. I don't think they are available any more, but a used one can be had for not too much of your hard earned.

I use both of the above on my crop frame bodies and I love them. They are full frame by design, though.

[ReadyAimPhoto]

Thanks for all the replies so far, the 28-105mm looks like a good option based on your comments, although I am a little worried about the sharpness as different people seem to have different views on it. I think the sharpness (or lack of) is the reason I got so little use out of my Sigma 17-50. There are definitely times I want more bokeh than 2.8 will give though so I'll definitely be keeping my primes.

I've read a fair bit about DA lenses on FF but hadn't seen that page with the ratings on. It's interesting as I definitely feel like there's more vignetting on the 35mm than the 50mm but that article suggests otherwise!

I'm definitely interested in the 77mm, although it'd be nice to test it before buying a prime in that price range. Maybe I'll test one next time I'm in Japan or the US!


The Samyang 85 1.4 does look like an excellent budget lens (as is my 14mm) but I think for portraits I definitely want something with AF, stars and landscapes are far less time critical when tweaking focus!

[pres589]

There's also the DA 70 Ltd which is available in both SMC (read: makes starbursts) or HD (read: slightly better flair and ghosting control) versions. Not as fast as the FA 77 but quite compact and renders nicely. You could get a used DA 70 SMC and an F 135 for about what an FA 77 costs.

[DeadJohn]

Thanks for all the replies so far, the 28-105mm looks like a good option based on your comments, although I am a little worried about the sharpness as different people seem to have different views on it...

My copy of the 28-105 is very sharp, and holds up well to cropping. I don't recall many PF members claiming the lens is optically soft. I consider my copy as sharp as a good prime.

Reports of "shutter shock" blur seem to be be common with the lens, and might lead some to think their lens isn't sharp. Not everyone reports it, so it might depend on mechanical tolerances within each camera, how you hold the camera, and how much you pixel peep.

Shutter shock can be minimized by using electronic shutter or the 2-second timer on a tripod. Handheld, hold the camera carefully when using shutter speeds between 1/100 and 1/200.

[Billk]

My FA43, FA77, DA300 and DA200 all get lots of love on the K1. Have just got a DFA100 macro too.

The Sigma 35 F1.4 was great on the K1 but I had to part with it. Might get another when I have the readies.

I'm also looking out for any 2nd hand Zeiss glass that might become available.

[DeadJohn]

Here are samples of the 28-105, taken at 28mm and 105mm to show the extreme ends of the focal range. Click if you want to see larger, less compressed versions.

[zahnski]

I‘ve tested many glasses with my K1. During the last journeys I mostly took the D FA 24-70, f2,8, the DA* 60-250 f4 (modified for FF) and the F 31mm Limited (especially for Street Photography or at night).
I really love the 60-250. Of course it covers almost the same field as your 55-300 but you don’t need to crop afterwards and you can easily modify it yourself.
When hiking I usually use the 28-105 in combination with the F 17-28 f3,5-4,5 Fisheye.
The D FA 15-30mm really is huge and heavy so it mostly stays at home when I travel by foot!

[builttospill]

I'm surprised so many have recommended the 28-105, when they probably shouldn't. I own the lens and can say it's decent, but it still doesn't come close to the quality of a prime. When making a recommendation for a lens it helps to know about the needs of the photographer.

You have the 14mm for astrophotography so the 28-105 won't add anything there. You disliked the 17-50 and rarely use the 55-300, so why get another zoom you won't use? It seems like you enjoy primes much more, so let's focus there. The 77 has been tested by many here for years and it has passed all the tests. Just get it. You'll be glad you did.

The 50 1.7 doesn't give you anything above the 1.8 except an aperture ring in case you shoot with older film cameras, so if that's not a need, keep the 1.8 (or sell it and get the 43 1.9 to go with the 77). The 1.4 is nice, but 1.4 and 1.8 isn't that much difference in the field. Lastly, I'd also recommend you find a used FA* 24 for sale here. Then you'd have the 14, 24, 35, 43/50, and 77.

[landofcourtness]

Like everyone else has said... I think every person with a K-1 should have a 28-105 in their kit. For the price ($325) there probably isn't a better lens offered by anyone... provided you have the light. It provides the same quality as any of the other DFA lenses, just not quite the bokeh. Is usually the walk-around lens I carry, and fills the need if I ever get caught in a wet area (ex: rain/beach). I do think that the 24-70 2.8 ($600) is also a great choice, or good to pair with this. That extra 30mm is really helpful, so they're both nice to have, provided its in the daytime. If the price is a bit high, the Tam 28-75 2.8 ($175-200) isn't that far off. It acted as a pretty good stepping stone for me for 2+ years (also given to brother's wife). The Tam does vignette (or it did on my K-1) if you have the hood on, kind of weird to me.

If you like the DA 50 1.8 you should just keep that. It didn't vignette for me, and was a pretty good workhorse/portrait lens on my APS-C kit prior to and when I first got my K-1... and still the best value lens Pentax might ever offer. Focus noise/loudness is really the only thing that makes it stand out. The only reason I don't have it is because I gave it to my brother's wife (when she got her first Pentax camera, and I already had a Sigma 35 1.4). I don't know if you'll see that big of a difference (unless you step up to DFA).

I feel something Macro should be there, as the higher resolution 36MP really pops there. I really like the Tam 90 2.8 1:1 ($195) as the best value but there are other options too. There's a recent thread looking at the different options.

I use my Sigma 70-200 2.8 quite a bit (used to have Tam til a student sent it tumbling... RIP), but that's because I shoot sports (for my students/school) and events (non-profit work/education program). I also just find it super useful when trying to shoot people 'low-key' as students would say. It's nice to have either. But that's just me... sounds like you don't find yourself in that position. I was just using the PLM 55-300 before sending it off to my brother's wife (early present), and so I assume the older version works like this too... FYI: it only seems to vignette in the 70-100 range, and if that bothers you, you can always switch to the 1:1 which at 24MP is still a pretty good level of detail. You could also just crop in post though (I forget if there is a difference in file size, based off the amount of pictures, I don't think so).

If I had to prioritize (would seem like a pretty good kit): 28-105, Macro, 70-200, 24-70
I don't know if you still have your K-3ii, but I think the K-3/K-1 combo actually balance each other out really nicely. My K-3 does all of the things that makes me frustrated with my K-1. The 1.5x crop/zoom that you get and fps/RAW buffer boost is a nice compliment.