FA 20-35 f/4 in preparation of my K-1

dcpropilot · 03-01-2016, 10:36 PM

I just picked up an FA 20-35 f/4. Hopefully a good match for the K-1.

LennyBloke · 03-02-2016, 01:13 AM

A good move....

....It's a super lens on APS-C, so let's hope the corners are good on the K-1 !

I've got an FA 20-35 and an FA 24-90 ready for when I can afford/justify the K-1, I'm expecting both to be great performers

Kennod · 03-02-2016, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by LennyBloke

A good move....

....It's a super lens on APS-C, so let's hope the corners are good on the K-1 !

I've got an FA 20-35 and an FA 24-90 ready for when I can afford/justify the K-1, I'm expecting both to be great performers

Me too, but more hoping than expecting. Lens design and coatings have come a long way in the digital era. I expect these film era lenses will show their age. However, they will have to do for now.

pakhead · 03-02-2016, 02:08 AM

It's a lovely little lens - I have owned one since 1999, and it was a great performer on film, and brilliant on my istDS and K10. But it struggles on the K5ii, and I would expect it to be horribly overstretched on a full-frame 36mp sensor.

elho_cid · 03-02-2016, 04:06 AM

I decided to take the risk and purchase a FAJ18-35 lens. I hope it will be acceptable wide zoom for my new K1.

dcpropilot · 03-02-2016, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by pakhead

It's a lovely little lens - I have owned one since 1999, and it was a great performer on film, and brilliant on my istDS and K10. But it struggles on the K5ii, and I would expect it to be horribly overstretched on a full-frame 36mp sensor.

Why would it be overstretched?

**WPRESTO** · 03-02-2016, 05:03 AM

Had one way back, soon after it was introduced, but let it go with most of my film-era equipment, for a song*. It was/is a good lens, but as I recall had quite a bit of barrel distortion at 20mm, more than a modern APS-C WA zoom with equivalent coverage. One small annoyance: the little door on the lens hood that gives finger-access to rotate a polarizer became loose after being popped on/off a few times, and dropped off somewhere unnoticed. At least back them, I could not locate a source for a replacement (problem only for some verticals).

* FF lenses kept: 90mm "Bokina;" 200mm SMCA ED Macro; 400mm f4 Tamron beast; 24~105 and 70~300 Tamron zooms (because I was offered something like
$75 for both - the 70~300 is pretty decent); also 1.4XL and 2XL converters, which work well with both the 200 macro and 400 Tamron.

pinholecam · 03-02-2016, 05:31 AM

Don't worry too much.
Should be good most of the way stopped down.
At the worst it will only be softer edges, which are often :
1. Not a big deal as its not where the area of interest is in a pict
2. Cropped off with an 5x7 aspect ratio
3. Cropped off with a distortion correction
4. not matter at all since its not noticeable in A4 prints.

Distortion, can be corrected in PP.
In fact, many modern (often mirrorless ) wides are worse and rely on such software corrections totally.

Coatings not good is a myth.
Here's 'proof'

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/247282-pentax-lenses-ff-club.html

Kayaker-J · 03-02-2016, 09:53 AM

Folks thinking ahead to a K-1 should not overlook the Tokina AF (235) 20-35mm f.3.5-4.5 Version II. When you look this up in the lens database, take note that there are two separate listings for this same lens with user reviews, in addition to a third entry for Version I. Ken Rockwell has one of his more thorough reviews up on this one (just ignor the simplistic and typical Rockwell-isms), which includes an interesting, if somewhat dubious, application of Aristotelian logic. The AT-X Pro f.2.8 version with this FL range is heavier and considerably more bulky (I have seen the word "beast" used to describe it), and I could not find compelling reason online to believe it offered any overall IQ advantage worth the weight over the more user friendly version (K.R. has his particular biases and thinks it's not as sharp as the smaller option, FWIW; I went through all the Dyxum reviews, et.al., as well); but the f.2.8 does have better inherent correction for distortion, if architectural photography is a big thing for you. I ended up concluding that this slower zoom and the Tamron SP 20-40mm 2.8-3.5 represented the best *practical* options among vintage *third party* zooms in this range; the Tamron -- the best of the whole bunch, my own provisional conclusion -- was unfortunately never manufactured in Pentax mount. I also need to qualify my remarks to say that my priority at the time was finding a solution on crop sensor that might fill the FL gap between a DA 15mm and the FA 31mm, especially for landscapes and such (stopped down). When I am back on my feet, I will be doing some comparisons. I have two of each, the Tokina and the Tamron, purchased at opportune moments over the past few years: testing a single copy of a consumer level zoom, or any wide-mid zoom, for that matter, can only yield a doubtful conclusion... though anyone might get lucky. In any case, re: a Pentax FF, I had faith!

BTW, one of my favorite photos ever among database reviews, a pretty spectacular looking execution of a cityscape, is posted among reviews for the big AT-X Pro. Check it out.

tapiolan · 03-02-2016, 10:59 AM

I found a new one (FA 20-35) last year. The other option was FA20mm. I went with the zoom, after some research here and there.
The colors it produces are really nice. and the construction wise I like it. polymer but light and feels good in hand. also at -10 or so it feel like metal!
FF or not the zoom range is great, for video in particular.

krazykat · 03-02-2016, 03:51 PM

I have an FA 20-35/4 and it rocks on my K-01. Corners might be a bit of an issue though.

It features the ghostless coating, same as the Limiteds and some * lenses, so I don't think it will be too much of an issue.

**Ash** · 03-02-2016, 04:08 PM

I will want to be comparing notes with those who have an FA 20-35 on the FF as I went for the FA 20 instead. I have a feeling both will find it hard to perform well at the wide end, especially at the larger apertures.
I would suppose that's where the new DFA lenses come in, like the 15-30...

**clackers** · 03-02-2016, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by elho_cid

I decided to take the risk and purchase a FAJ18-35 lens. I hope it will be acceptable wide zoom for my new K1.

I've got a 20-35 on the way, but I did try a couple of shots yesterday on my A7 at a shopping centre with the old FAJ18-35.

It's not a well-known or loved one by the Pentax community, but you know what? "Acceptable" may be the right word for it!

Slight cropping:

Sandy Hancock · 03-02-2016, 06:17 PM

I have also bought a FA20-35 recently (it arrived on 1st March), and I'm in the process of using it as my "Single In Challenge" lens for March, with occasional comparative shots when appropriate with either DA21, FA*24, F28, FA31 or HD35, and maybe the DA*16-50.

For those interested, the album is HERE. If you want anything in particular investigated and compared against a quality prime or modern zoom, let me know

**jatrax** · 03-02-2016, 08:12 PM

Seems like the FA 20-35 has a resurgence in interest. I got one about a month ago. Hoping it will serve as my FF ultra wide.

03-01-2016, 10:36 PM	#1
dcpropilot Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Vermont Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 941	FA 20-35 f/4 in preparation of my K-1 I just picked up an FA 20-35 f/4. Hopefully a good match for the K-1.

03-02-2016, 02:08 AM	#4
pakhead New Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Bangkok Posts: 24	FA 20-35 on K1 It's a lovely little lens - I have owned one since 1999, and it was a great performer on film, and brilliant on my istDS and K10. But it struggles on the K5ii, and I would expect it to be horribly overstretched on a full-frame 36mp sensor.

03-02-2016, 09:53 AM	#9
Kayaker-J Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: N.E. Ohio Posts: 535	Folks thinking ahead to a K-1 should not overlook the Tokina AF (235) 20-35mm f.3.5-4.5 Version II. When you look this up in the lens database, take note that there are two separate listings for this same lens with user reviews, in addition to a third entry for Version I. Ken Rockwell has one of his more thorough reviews up on this one (just ignor the simplistic and typical Rockwell-isms), which includes an interesting, if somewhat dubious, application of Aristotelian logic. The AT-X Pro f.2.8 version with this FL range is heavier and considerably more bulky (I have seen the word "beast" used to describe it), and I could not find compelling reason online to believe it offered any overall IQ advantage worth the weight over the more user friendly version (K.R. has his particular biases and thinks it's not as sharp as the smaller option, FWIW; I went through all the Dyxum reviews, et.al., as well); but the f.2.8 does have better inherent correction for distortion, if architectural photography is a big thing for you. I ended up concluding that this slower zoom and the Tamron SP 20-40mm 2.8-3.5 represented the best practical options among vintage third party zooms in this range; the Tamron -- the best of the whole bunch, my own provisional conclusion -- was unfortunately never manufactured in Pentax mount. I also need to qualify my remarks to say that my priority at the time was finding a solution on crop sensor that might fill the FL gap between a DA 15mm and the FA 31mm, especially for landscapes and such (stopped down). When I am back on my feet, I will be doing some comparisons. I have two of each, the Tokina and the Tamron, purchased at opportune moments over the past few years: testing a single copy of a consumer level zoom, or any wide-mid zoom, for that matter, can only yield a doubtful conclusion... though anyone might get lucky. In any case, re: a Pentax FF, I had faith! BTW, one of my favorite photos ever among database reviews, a pretty spectacular looking execution of a cityscape, is posted among reviews for the big AT-X Pro. Check it out. Last edited by Kayaker-J; 03-03-2016 at 11:21 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Travel Dinning room preparation	Weevil	Post Your Photos!	5	08-01-2018 05:05 AM
Trouble dialing in 1/180 directly on my K-3	RodBoy	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	18	02-25-2015 01:39 PM
My first impressions of my new K-50	Dewman	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	11-01-2014 05:22 AM
Some of my first batch of shots from my K-3	scotjames	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	3	11-09-2013 10:07 PM
Grit in the focus ring of my 31/1.8	Finn	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	01-10-2013 01:28 PM

03-02-2016, 01:13 AM	#2
LennyBloke Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Worcestershire, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 677	A good move.... ....It's a super lens on APS-C, so let's hope the corners are good on the K-1 ! I've got an FA 20-35 and an FA 24-90 ready for when I can afford/justify the K-1, I'm expecting both to be great performers

03-02-2016, 01:45 AM	#3
Kennod Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Melbourne Posts: 126	Originally posted by LennyBloke A good move.... ....It's a super lens on APS-C, so let's hope the corners are good on the K-1 ! I've got an FA 20-35 and an FA 24-90 ready for when I can afford/justify the K-1, I'm expecting both to be great performers Me too, but more hoping than expecting. Lens design and coatings have come a long way in the digital era. I expect these film era lenses will show their age. However, they will have to do for now.

03-02-2016, 04:06 AM	#5
elho_cid Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Prague Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	I decided to take the risk and purchase a FAJ18-35 lens. I hope it will be acceptable wide zoom for my new K1.

03-02-2016, 04:25 AM	#6
dcpropilot Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Vermont Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 941 Original Poster	Originally posted by pakhead It's a lovely little lens - I have owned one since 1999, and it was a great performer on film, and brilliant on my istDS and K10. But it struggles on the K5ii, and I would expect it to be horribly overstretched on a full-frame 36mp sensor. Why would it be overstretched?

03-02-2016, 05:03 AM	#7
WPRESTO Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 59,103	Had one way back, soon after it was introduced, but let it go with most of my film-era equipment, for a song. It was/is a good lens, but as I recall had quite a bit of barrel distortion at 20mm, more than a modern APS-C WA zoom with equivalent coverage. One small annoyance: the little door on the lens hood that gives finger-access to rotate a polarizer became loose after being popped on/off a few times, and dropped off somewhere unnoticed. At least back them, I could not locate a source for a replacement (problem only for some verticals). FF lenses kept: 90mm "Bokina;" 200mm SMCA ED Macro; 400mm f4 Tamron beast; 24~105 and 70~300 Tamron zooms (because I was offered something like $75 for both - the 70~300 is pretty decent); also 1.4XL and 2XL converters, which work well with both the 200 macro and 400 Tamron.

03-02-2016, 05:31 AM	#8
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	Don't worry too much. Should be good most of the way stopped down. At the worst it will only be softer edges, which are often : 1. Not a big deal as its not where the area of interest is in a pict 2. Cropped off with an 5x7 aspect ratio 3. Cropped off with a distortion correction 4. not matter at all since its not noticeable in A4 prints. Distortion, can be corrected in PP. In fact, many modern (often mirrorless ) wides are worse and rely on such software corrections totally. Coatings not good is a myth. Here's 'proof' https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/247282-pentax-lenses-ff-club.html

03-02-2016, 10:59 AM	#10
tapiolan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Helsinki Photos: Gallery Posts: 34	I found a new one (FA 20-35) last year. The other option was FA20mm. I went with the zoom, after some research here and there. The colors it produces are really nice. and the construction wise I like it. polymer but light and feels good in hand. also at -10 or so it feel like metal! FF or not the zoom range is great, for video in particular.

03-02-2016, 03:51 PM	#11
krazykat Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 546	I have an FA 20-35/4 and it rocks on my K-01. Corners might be a bit of an issue though. It features the ghostless coating, same as the Limiteds and some * lenses, so I don't think it will be too much of an issue.

03-02-2016, 04:08 PM	#12
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	I will want to be comparing notes with those who have an FA 20-35 on the FF as I went for the FA 20 instead. I have a feeling both will find it hard to perform well at the wide end, especially at the larger apertures. I would suppose that's where the new DFA lenses come in, like the 15-30...

03-02-2016, 05:54 PM	#13
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by elho_cid I decided to take the risk and purchase a FAJ18-35 lens. I hope it will be acceptable wide zoom for my new K1. I've got a 20-35 on the way, but I did try a couple of shots yesterday on my A7 at a shopping centre with the old FAJ18-35. It's not a well-known or loved one by the Pentax community, but you know what? "Acceptable" may be the right word for it! Slight cropping:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-02-2016, 06:17 PM	#14
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	I have also bought a FA20-35 recently (it arrived on 1st March), and I'm in the process of using it as my "Single In Challenge" lens for March, with occasional comparative shots when appropriate with either DA21, FA24, F28, FA31 or HD35, and maybe the DA16-50. For those interested, the album is HERE. If you want anything in particular investigated and compared against a quality prime or modern zoom, let me know

03-02-2016, 08:12 PM	#15
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Seems like the FA 20-35 has a resurgence in interest. I got one about a month ago. Hoping it will serve as my FF ultra wide.