[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Indeed, the FA-J 18-35 is kinda slow (f4-5.6) but it's really a good and very light lens !

I "bulleted the blue sky" today with the FAJ 18-35mm to look for vignetting.

18mm: f4 = moderate vignetting, f5.6 = minor vignetting, f8 and higher all vignetting gone

24mm: f4.5 (videst apperture at 24mm) = minor vignetting, f5.6 and above no vignetting

30mm and 35mm: no vignetting at any apperture


For the FA 28-70 f4 (constant f4):

28mm: f4 = moderate vignetting, f5.6 minor vigeneting, f8 and above no vignetting

50mm and 70mm: no vignetting at any apperture

I'll try to get time too shoot some brickwall with them to look for corner-softness etc.

Thinking I should include the FAJ 18-35, FA 20-35, FA 24-90 and FA 28-105 PZ since I suspect these are good candidates for at least decent bargain alternatives (for the many Pentaxians who sold their mother-in-law to buy the K-1 and can't yet afford the new FF zooms). I can include my F and FA tele zooms as well, though I don't expect much from them.

For the "bargain primes" I've tested for vignetting

FA35/2: f2 = tiny vignetting, f2.8 and beyond no vignetting

FA50/1.4: f1.4 = moderate vigneting f2,8 and beyond no vignetting

FA135/2.8 no vignetting

DA50/1.8 moderate vignetting at f1.8, minor vignetting at f2.8, from f4 no vignetting.

FA28/2.8 vignets moderate at f2.8, minor at f4, and it is all gone from f5.6.

---

Last edited by Douglas_of_Sweden; 05-11-2016 at 01:33 PM.

[loco]

Douglas, thanks for that additional info!

I'm looking forward to seeing how the F 70-210 does. If you could post a few pics with that lens, that would be most helpful.

[UncleVanya]

I tried it briefly over the weekend. I found it vignetted pretty badly everywhere except around 150-170mm.

Was that with or without hood?

[loco]

Was that with or without hood?

Without.

[UncleVanya]

Without.

Thanks. That is disappointing. The shoot out I did between the 80-320 and the 55-300 showed that the copy of the 80-320 I had (black version) was not able to keep up. It was softer, had more purple fringing, and it had lower contrast.

I did not however try adding a strong UV filter.

[loco]

Thanks. That is disappointing. The shoot out I did between the 80-320 and the 55-300 showed that the copy of the 80-320 I had (black version) was not able to keep up. It was softer, had more purple fringing, and it had lower contrast.

I did not however try adding a strong UV filter.

It was a quick test, just playing around, so I didn't try all focal lengths. But it definitely was not good at either the wide or long end. I have the cheap DA L version of the 55-300 but I don't think there is much difference in the optics?

[UncleVanya]

It was a quick test, just playing around, so I didn't try all focal lengths. But it definitely was not good at either the wide or long end. I have the cheap DA L version of the 55-300 but I don't think there is much difference in the optics?

Some have reported their HD was superior to their DA but that could be sample variation. The three are supposedly the same optical formula.

[stemked]

You are not aware that the K-1 was released with a new DFA 28-105mm lens?

My bad. Nope, I didn't know there was another 28-105. Sorry about that.

[JBox]

Another lens I've found to be disappointing is the FA 20mm F2.8. Could be my copy, but it was considerably softer than the DA 12-24mm at 20mm.

I found the same thing...first time using the lens so no prior reference. Also feeling like I way overpaid for it now. Stopping down to f8 seems to get rid of the vignetting, but still does not appear as detailed as you'd expect. Just a quick test but I'm guessing not really usable below 5.6

Hi Adam,

I am in a similar situation as lurker56 in that I recently got an FA20 and don't really have a baseline to compare it to. Do you have any sample pictures you could post that compare the FA20 and the DA 12-24 @20 that demonstrate where you think the FA20 should have done better?

[jimr-pdx]

My perpetual-bargain 100-300 is the Sigma DL / Quantaray at around $30. Focus is faster than the 55-300 copies but above 250mm it's f/6.7 so light is at a premium. I don't shoot long that often so a 100-250mm f/4.5-5.6 is still a nice lens. Other than needing a contrast boost at times it's done me quite well, and oh boy that's a FF bargain. The similar-era 28-90 Quantaray / 28-80 Sigma with 1:2 closeups is similarly priced and talented.

28-90 on K-01


100-300, pretty tight crops



As to bargain primes - you're too late, I'm not giving the M100/2.8 back after buying it on the Marketplace today

[Adam]

Hi Adam,

I am in a similar situation as lurker56 in that I recently got an FA20 and don't really have a baseline to compare it to. Do you have any sample pictures you could post that compare the FA20 and the DA 12-24 @20 that demonstrate where you think the FA20 should have done better?

I took a few snaps with the DA 12-24mm, but I will likely continue testing with the 15-30mm since the latter is designed for FF.

[rgknief60]

The SMC Pentax-F 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 is currently an inexpensive lens. I've probably shot fewer than 10 shots with it as the 18-250 was standard kit on my previous bodies.

The following test shot is handheld, non-macro setting (green line) at 1/13th second, wide open. Actual pixel center crop. Sharpening in Camera Raw is 60. I think that a good copy of this lens would be a nice option for someone on a budget.



Test Shot - SMC Pentax-F 35-70mm F3.5-4.5, on Flickr

[Barry Pearson]

The D FA 28-105mm is definitely the way to go for your walkaround lens. It's waaaay better than any legacy budget zoom I've tested so far (including the FA 28-105mm F4-5.6).

I'm not sure if this point has been made, but here goes:

The D FA 28-105mm is smaller and lighter than (say) the DA 16-85mm lens. And takes a smaller filter.

For walk-about purposes, that adds to its value!

[UncleVanya]

I'm not sure if this point has been made, but here goes:

The D FA 28-105mm is smaller and lighter than (say) the DA 16-85mm lens. And takes a smaller filter.

For walk-about purposes, that adds to its value!

In APSC terms it is an 18-70 (< 4x zoom range) so it isn't surprising that it is smaller and lighter. The 16-85 (> 5x zoom range) would be a 24-130.

[edo]

I took a look at the review in the review section about the new DFA 28-105mm and surprisingly it's seems like another budget zoom, but costs 600€...

Prior to K1 launch, I thought why not buy all those highly rated cheap zooms for cheap before the K1 storm unleashes and price to climb up.

Here I only mention auto aperture Pentax lenses.

PS : there are more or less CA in those corner, and even on the edge of the UWA zoom. But this is to be expected and nothing LR or even profiling won't cure! So no issue for me. If you want no CA, be prepared to pay the price or make automatic profiles for those lenses.

I have,
F 70-210 : superb lens.

F 80-200 : extraordinary lens. The best I think but slow. It's a non issue with the sensitivity of the K1 IMHO.

F 35-70 : nice.

F 35-105 : disapointing (may be my copy that I cleaned)

F 100-300 : fair. But gets the job done. CA on the edge but SHARP!

F 35-80 : extraordinary but short range and not that wide.

FA 28-70 AL : very very nice. Less CA than usual

FA 28-105 PZ : superb lens

Now the manual zoom lenses:

A 24-50 : superb

A 70-210 : superb


And the expensive zoom and prime so no bargain there. But for the price I paid I would say yay bargain for me!

F 17-28 FishEye : just superb

FA 20-35 : I love this one

FA 50 1.4 : I always loved the 50 1.4 from asahi till now

FA*24 : I love the rendering for portait. Fresh.


The review section, if dig up smartly is immensely rewarding for user experience.

Lens sample varies too, expectations from a lens too. But be aware than they are either for film, or for APSC so the real deal with K1 is not yet very clear in those review.
I guess it's just why there are still hidden gems to discover on the K1.


Was a bargain not long ago :
Pentax K 85mm 1.8 WO