Best wide angle lens for K-1?

**clackers** · 03-10-2016, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by todd

Trounce as well because it weighs 27.7 ounces more than the FA20. Solution: You need both.

Spoken like a true Lens Buying Addict, Todd ... see you at the meeting next month!

**todd** · 03-10-2016, 04:12 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by clackers

see you at the meeting next month!

Don't save me a seat. I am pretty sure I am faaar from hitting my bottom... As long as you're asking me and not my wife!

reh321 · 03-10-2016, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by normhead

That solidifies my opinion of the Pentax FA* 24 as one of the worst * quality lenses ever made.

I have to admit that the Pentax auto-focus lenses available in 1995 {presumably mostly FA series} were the primary reason I went from Pentax to Canon {because I was comparing those lenses to Canon's USM lenses} when I went to auto-focus that year

**TwoUptons** · 03-10-2016, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by reh321

I have to admit that the Pentax auto-focus lenses available in 1995 {presumably mostly FA series} were the primary reason I went from Pentax to Canon {because I was comparing those lenses to Canon's USM lenses} when I went to auto-focus that year

I almost switched to Canon about that same time, but I got a ridiculously good deal on a PZ-20 and 28-105/100-300 outfit. If not for that and a small pack of lenses that were hard to replace in Canon at the time, the Elan was a heck of a camera back then... and their 28-105 was so much quieter than the Pentax one (though the Pentax one sure took a lot of good photos...)

I'll admit to a big sigh of relief when I mounted the 16-50 on my K10 for the first time and it focused like the USM lenses from the 90s... it felt modern...

-Eric

normhead · 03-10-2016, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

Norm, I'm pretty sure the FA*24 wasn't out yet, when that 24mm comparison was published in the 80s. I'm pretty sure it was introduced in 1991.

I pretty sure the edges of the FA*24 are way to soft for a landscape lens. But this is just one test of one lens. Maybe it was a lemon.

Sandy Hancock · 03-10-2016, 07:30 PM - **3 Likes**

I must have missed the memo about the FA*24 being a terrible lens.

Wide open....

f/4

And stopped down a bit

normhead · 03-10-2016, 07:37 PM

Definitely good enough for web sized images, I'll add those to the knowledge base.

rawr · 03-10-2016, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

must have missed the memo about the FA*24 being a terrible lens.
Wide open....

Clearly a dud lens. I'll do you a favour: I'll send you $5 for postage, you send the lens to me, and you will never need to be embarrassed about using it ever again.

Sandy Hancock · 03-10-2016, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by rawr

Clearly a dud lens. I'll do you a favour: I'll send you $5 for postage, you send the lens to me, and you will never need to be embarrassed about using it ever again.

I appreciate the gesture, but I might hang onto it until I can give it a workout on the K-1

ChristianRock · 03-10-2016, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I pretty sure the edges of the FA*24 are way to soft for a landscape lens. But this is just one test of one lens. Maybe it was a lemon.

It is said that what it lacks in sharpness, it makes up for in contrast and color...

Also, I've seen a few breathtaking landscapes taken with it. I assume they were all at least f/8 - and even by that photozone lens standard, at f8 the center is "excellent" and the borders are "very good".

Lest we forget, it's a Jun Hirakawa lens, so it won't win prizes for outright sharpness...

normhead · 03-11-2016, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

It is said that what it lacks in sharpness, it makes up for in contrast and color...

Also, I've seen a few breathtaking landscapes taken with it. I assume they were all at least f/8 - and even by that photozone lens standard, at f8 the center is "excellent" and the borders are "very good".

Lest we forget, it's a Jun Hirakawa lens, so it won't win prizes for outright sharpness...

Given the resolution bump it will get from being on a 36 MP sensor, who knows, it may end up being a star. It does have that 77 ltd. characteristic curve, but the 77 keeps it's edges up close to excellent at ƒ5.6 and ƒ8 where as at least on the lens tested for this chart, it doesn't really give you that one aperture setting where it just blows everything else out of the water.

If a lens gives me one exceptional setting, I'm generally happy with it. If it's s better average kind of lens all the way through it's range, not so much. That doesn't inspire me.

I can buy an 18-135 for 24mm ƒ5.6 and ƒ8 and all I think about very sharp centre at 24mm, excellent edges @5.6 and ƒ8. That people would call the lens "soft on the edges", well, it's also excellent on the edges. You can see the lens either way. Anyway, the 18-135 and Tamron 17-50 are my current 24mm lenses, and I've seen nothing that convinces me that should change.

I really think to make my FF functional I think I'm going to need the 15-30 for landscape eventually although I'll start off with the FA -J 18-35, and DA 35 2.4, 40 XS and FA 50 1.7. A also have a SIgmama 70 macro and Tamron 90 macro, so the mid range zoom is probably never going to happen for me. I have lots of primes in that range.

Interesting Sandy almost uses the lens as a portrait /macro type lens, which is it's curve characteristic. I never really thought of 24mm as a portrait FL, but it seems to work nicely for that, for environmental portraits.

**WPRESTO** · 03-11-2016, 06:41 AM

I have not gone through all the recommendations here, so excuse me it I repeat earlier posts.
1) The Pentax FF 15mm had/has a good reputation but it is BIG and still commands a premium price, high enough that the 15~30 would be a better choice (IMHO).
2) The Laowa 15mm is very good to excellent in the center, not so great at the corners but improves more and more as stopped down (best across the frame @ f16, where it's almost unnecessary to focus). It's probably better than the Samyang 14mm as best I can tell from published reviews.
3) The 17mm Tokina is a very good WA, but SFAIK was made only in K, not PKA mount (had one of these for my LX, liked it immensely).
4) The Tamron Adaptall 2 17mm had a very good reputation, and could be fitted with a PKA mount if you can find both.
5) I had a Pentax 20~35 FA which was very good.
6) For super wide, the current Sigma 15mm fish-eye has an excellent reputation.
7) I had a Pentax 16mm fish-eye that was 100% satisfactory, but it is a rare lens, so good luck finding one.

Sandy Hancock · 03-11-2016, 07:47 AM

I now also have a FA20/2.8 on the way, so it will be very interesting to see how it stacks up against my FA20-35/4 on the K-1, and on APS-C against the the DA21/3.2

My testing on film has convinced me the DA10-17 covers full frame from about 15mm, so I reckon my wide needs should be covered for now, until I can no longer resist the siren call of the DFA15-30/2.8

**Hattifnatt** · 03-11-2016, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by clackers

I would expect it to trounce the FA20 despite that being a prime, Hattifnat. Possibly the best wide angle zoom in the world.

Originally posted by todd

Trounce as well because it weighs 27.7 ounces more than the FA20. Solution: You need both.

What I'm afraid of is that I will get the 15-30 because I expect it to be the best option, then I'll get the FA20 because it's cheap and I like primes and I have to get both, then in 2017 Pentax will release a new FF wide angle prime which I will just MUST have also.

Not to mention that after I've seen Sandy's pics I also want the FA*24.

Originally posted by clackers

I'd love to see what a photographer as capable as you would do with it!

I think you're giving me too much credit but thanks!

**todd** · 03-11-2016, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Hattifnatt

then in 2017 Pentax will release a new FF wide angle prime which I will just MUST have also.

This is why I got the FA20, which I love and am so glad I happened upon a good deal for. And if you don't get an FA20, I promise to try my very hardest to make you regret it.

I'm sure our 15-30 shooters are going to be on the same mission to make me wish I had it, but I really don't want a lens that big/heavy. The FA20 is perfect imho to tide over until our next new UWA FF prime arrives.

03-11-2016, 06:16 AM	#116
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by ChristianRock It is said that what it lacks in sharpness, it makes up for in contrast and color... Also, I've seen a few breathtaking landscapes taken with it. I assume they were all at least f/8 - and even by that photozone lens standard, at f8 the center is "excellent" and the borders are "very good". Lest we forget, it's a Jun Hirakawa lens, so it won't win prizes for outright sharpness... Given the resolution bump it will get from being on a 36 MP sensor, who knows, it may end up being a star. It does have that 77 ltd. characteristic curve, but the 77 keeps it's edges up close to excellent at ƒ5.6 and ƒ8 where as at least on the lens tested for this chart, it doesn't really give you that one aperture setting where it just blows everything else out of the water. If a lens gives me one exceptional setting, I'm generally happy with it. If it's s better average kind of lens all the way through it's range, not so much. That doesn't inspire me. I can buy an 18-135 for 24mm ƒ5.6 and ƒ8 and all I think about very sharp centre at 24mm, excellent edges @5.6 and ƒ8. That people would call the lens "soft on the edges", well, it's also excellent on the edges. You can see the lens either way. Anyway, the 18-135 and Tamron 17-50 are my current 24mm lenses, and I've seen nothing that convinces me that should change. I really think to make my FF functional I think I'm going to need the 15-30 for landscape eventually although I'll start off with the FA -J 18-35, and DA 35 2.4, 40 XS and FA 50 1.7. A also have a SIgmama 70 macro and Tamron 90 macro, so the mid range zoom is probably never going to happen for me. I have lots of primes in that range. Interesting Sandy almost uses the lens as a portrait /macro type lens, which is it's curve characteristic. I never really thought of 24mm as a portrait FL, but it seems to work nicely for that, for environmental portraits. Last edited by normhead; 03-11-2016 at 06:41 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best sharp wide angle lens? (For wedding group shots)	NeilGratton	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	36	07-06-2016 04:30 PM
Best Wide Angle Lens for Pentax Kx	ArtyDiana	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	30	11-21-2014 07:40 AM
Best performing wide angle K mount lenses?	Raffwal	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	09-24-2014 08:10 AM
Wanted - Acquired: Wide / Ultra Wide angle lens for my K-5	GWARmachine	Sold Items	3	03-23-2013 12:03 AM
Best wide angle for K-5 IIs	djc737	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	8	09-29-2012 08:14 AM

03-10-2016, 03:27 PM	#106
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by todd Trounce as well because it weighs 27.7 ounces more than the FA20. Solution: You need both. Spoken like a true Lens Buying Addict, Todd ... see you at the meeting next month!

03-10-2016, 04:12 PM - 1 Like	#107
todd Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,794	Originally posted by clackers see you at the meeting next month! Don't save me a seat. I am pretty sure I am faaar from hitting my bottom... As long as you're asking me and not my wife!

03-10-2016, 05:32 PM	#108
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	Originally posted by normhead That solidifies my opinion of the Pentax FA* 24 as one of the worst * quality lenses ever made. I have to admit that the Pentax auto-focus lenses available in 1995 {presumably mostly FA series} were the primary reason I went from Pentax to Canon {because I was comparing those lenses to Canon's USM lenses} when I went to auto-focus that year

03-10-2016, 05:55 PM	#109
TwoUptons Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,214	Originally posted by reh321 I have to admit that the Pentax auto-focus lenses available in 1995 {presumably mostly FA series} were the primary reason I went from Pentax to Canon {because I was comparing those lenses to Canon's USM lenses} when I went to auto-focus that year I almost switched to Canon about that same time, but I got a ridiculously good deal on a PZ-20 and 28-105/100-300 outfit. If not for that and a small pack of lenses that were hard to replace in Canon at the time, the Elan was a heck of a camera back then... and their 28-105 was so much quieter than the Pentax one (though the Pentax one sure took a lot of good photos...) I'll admit to a big sigh of relief when I mounted the 16-50 on my K10 for the first time and it focused like the USM lenses from the 90s... it felt modern... -Eric

03-10-2016, 05:58 PM	#110
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by ChristianRock Norm, I'm pretty sure the FA24 wasn't out yet, when that 24mm comparison was published in the 80s. I'm pretty sure it was introduced in 1991. I pretty sure the edges of the FA24 are way to soft for a landscape lens. But this is just one test of one lens. Maybe it was a lemon.

03-10-2016, 07:30 PM - 3 Likes	#111
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	I must have missed the memo about the FA*24 being a terrible lens. Wide open.... f/4 And stopped down a bit

03-10-2016, 07:37 PM	#112
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Definitely good enough for web sized images, I'll add those to the knowledge base.

03-10-2016, 08:43 PM	#113
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock must have missed the memo about the FA*24 being a terrible lens. Wide open.... Clearly a dud lens. I'll do you a favour: I'll send you $5 for postage, you send the lens to me, and you will never need to be embarrassed about using it ever again.

03-10-2016, 08:59 PM	#114
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Originally posted by rawr Clearly a dud lens. I'll do you a favour: I'll send you $5 for postage, you send the lens to me, and you will never need to be embarrassed about using it ever again. I appreciate the gesture, but I might hang onto it until I can give it a workout on the K-1

03-10-2016, 09:23 PM	#115
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	Originally posted by normhead I pretty sure the edges of the FA*24 are way to soft for a landscape lens. But this is just one test of one lens. Maybe it was a lemon. It is said that what it lacks in sharpness, it makes up for in contrast and color... Also, I've seen a few breathtaking landscapes taken with it. I assume they were all at least f/8 - and even by that photozone lens standard, at f8 the center is "excellent" and the borders are "very good". Lest we forget, it's a Jun Hirakawa lens, so it won't win prizes for outright sharpness...

03-11-2016, 06:41 AM	#117
WPRESTO Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 59,108	I have not gone through all the recommendations here, so excuse me it I repeat earlier posts. 1) The Pentax FF 15mm had/has a good reputation but it is BIG and still commands a premium price, high enough that the 15~30 would be a better choice (IMHO). 2) The Laowa 15mm is very good to excellent in the center, not so great at the corners but improves more and more as stopped down (best across the frame @ f16, where it's almost unnecessary to focus). It's probably better than the Samyang 14mm as best I can tell from published reviews. 3) The 17mm Tokina is a very good WA, but SFAIK was made only in K, not PKA mount (had one of these for my LX, liked it immensely). 4) The Tamron Adaptall 2 17mm had a very good reputation, and could be fitted with a PKA mount if you can find both. 5) I had a Pentax 20~35 FA which was very good. 6) For super wide, the current Sigma 15mm fish-eye has an excellent reputation. 7) I had a Pentax 16mm fish-eye that was 100% satisfactory, but it is a rare lens, so good luck finding one.

03-11-2016, 07:47 AM	#118
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	I now also have a FA20/2.8 on the way, so it will be very interesting to see how it stacks up against my FA20-35/4 on the K-1, and on APS-C against the the DA21/3.2 My testing on film has convinced me the DA10-17 covers full frame from about 15mm, so I reckon my wide needs should be covered for now, until I can no longer resist the siren call of the DFA15-30/2.8

03-11-2016, 11:18 AM	#119
Hattifnatt Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Bucharest Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,625	Originally posted by clackers I would expect it to trounce the FA20 despite that being a prime, Hattifnat. Possibly the best wide angle zoom in the world. Originally posted by todd Trounce as well because it weighs 27.7 ounces more than the FA20. Solution: You need both. What I'm afraid of is that I will get the 15-30 because I expect it to be the best option, then I'll get the FA20 because it's cheap and I like primes and I have to get both, then in 2017 Pentax will release a new FF wide angle prime which I will just MUST have also. Not to mention that after I've seen Sandy's pics I also want the FA*24. Originally posted by clackers I'd love to see what a photographer as capable as you would do with it! I think you're giving me too much credit but thanks!

03-11-2016, 12:04 PM	#120
todd Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,794	Originally posted by Hattifnatt then in 2017 Pentax will release a new FF wide angle prime which I will just MUST have also. This is why I got the FA20, which I love and am so glad I happened upon a good deal for. And if you don't get an FA20, I promise to try my very hardest to make you regret it. I'm sure our 15-30 shooters are going to be on the same mission to make me wish I had it, but I really don't want a lens that big/heavy. The FA20 is perfect imho to tide over until our next new UWA FF prime arrives.