Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-30-2016, 04:00 PM   #16
Veteran Member
robjmitchell's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 1,148
Do you plan on using your wide angle lens for inside/low light or primarily for outside landscapes? Are you planning on keeping your existing Aps-c camera and 18-135 lens for travel/versatility?
If you are only going to have the K1 then I would get the 28-105 and get some second hand lenses on the forum with the rest of the money. If your keeping you APS-c then get what ever takes your fancy!

04-30-2016, 04:40 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 844
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
As for weight you could go 28-105 (half the weight roughly at less than half the price). That's not fast so then you could add an FA 35 f/2 and maybe a 24mm 2.8 and a DA or FA or F 50mm f/1.7 (DA 1.8).
Fast isn't too much of a concern with the k-1 I find. Just keep cranking up the ISO until you get the shot.

---------- Post added 05-01-16 at 12:43 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
How about a FA 43 plus the DFA 100 macro?
+1

Those two lenses (and the FA77) are all magical on the K-1. The FA31 isn't bad, but it doesn't excite me as much on FF as I'd have imagined.
04-30-2016, 05:12 PM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,443
With $1000 you can get a complete bag of manual fast primes and/or zooms that will fill every need - if you don't mind manually focusing.
05-01-2016, 04:44 AM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,843
QuoteOriginally posted by robthebloke Quote
Fast isn't too much of a concern with the k-1 I find. Just keep cranking up the ISO until you get the shot.

---------- Post added 05-01-16 at 12:43 AM ----------



+1

Those two lenses (and the FA77) are all magical on the K-1. The FA31 isn't bad, but it doesn't excite me as much on FF as I'd have imagined.
It is going from normal to moderately wide while the 43 went from long normal to short normal. What about the 31 left you underwhelmed?

05-01-2016, 09:23 AM   #20
New Member
mir156's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 15
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
Yes, field of view-wise.

The 28-105 is reported to be very good, likely as good as the DA 16-85, a notch or so up from the 18-135.

The 24-70 is very good, I'm using it on my K-3II while waiting for the K-1 to arrive.

The FA 31mm is amazing, but it will be a single focal length. If you are OK with that then fine, but for me if you can only get one, get the 24-70 or the 28-105. Based on reviews (limited so far) that I've seen you will not be dissappointed in the 28-105 except that it is slow. If you need f/2.8 then get the 24-70.

Another thought is weight. The 24-70 is a beast. Compared to the 18-135 or 16-85 it is huge and heavy. Do you want to carry that around? If yes, go with the 24-70 if no go with the 28-105. I consider the FA 31mm to be a specialist lens, nice to have but not essential in my bag. YMMV.
I am deciding between the 24-70 and 28-105, as my walk around lens. Is there any side by side comparison that you know of? Thanks.
05-01-2016, 04:55 PM   #21
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,771
QuoteOriginally posted by mir156 Quote
I am deciding between the 24-70 and 28-105, as my walk around lens. Is there any side by side comparison that you know of? Thanks.
You can look here: Pentax D FA Zoom Lenses - Reviews and Specifications - SLR and Interchangeable Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

However there is no side by side testing as yet. I would think that this will be done, but it will be a while yet as the camera is just getting into hands now. I assume that Pentax Forum will be doing a thorough review of the camera and the lenses.

Personally I think the image quality will be similar. THe decision factor will be do you need f/2.8, if so then the answer is obvious.
05-02-2016, 02:33 AM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 844
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
It is going from normal to moderately wide while the 43 went from long normal to short normal. What about the 31 left you underwhelmed?
Pretty much. I'd gotten used to how the 31 performs on the k-3, so when I'd gone out with it on the k-1, i just kept thinking that I wish I'd had the 43 or 77 on (so could just be my familiarity with that field of view)

The 31 does seem to suffer more flaring and blown highlights when mounted on the k-1, so I've generally been using it at -0.7ev (I think I'd consider a dfa31 if they update it with newer HD coatings). I think it's just a question of getting used to how it performs really. It might also be related to the FA43 and FA77 being such superb performers on the k-1. They are just unbelievably easy lenses to use, but I think the FA31 requires a little bit more work to get the most out of it. There is a slight lack of focus points at the edges of the frame on the K-1. With the 31, to maximise the bokeh, if you're like me you'll like focussing on subjects near the edge and corners of the frame. I found myself using manual focus frequently as a result.

It half reminds me of when I first got the DA21. I found that to be a strange lens to get used to. I suppose now I generally err towards f8 on that lens, with occasional forays towards f3.2. I think the FA31 will need a similar pattern, but it's just mentally harder to do that, because you know it's good wide open, but the kind of shots you're likely to take will be needing f8.

Looking back over the shots I've taken with it, it does produce some nice images, so it seems to do the job quite nicely. I just find the 43 and 77 to be much more fun to play with!
05-02-2016, 03:06 AM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 482
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
It is going from normal to moderately wide while the 43 went from long normal to short normal.
In fact, the FA43 on a Full-frame body gives "true normal" focal length.

The diagonal of the Full-frame sensor rectangle (or a frame of film), ie. 36mm x 24mm, in fact measures 43mm, and the FA43 was intentionally designed as such.


Last edited by KDAFA; 05-02-2016 at 03:20 AM.
05-02-2016, 03:12 AM   #24
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,729
@robthebloke

That's reassuring. I *love* the DA21 on crop, so I reckon the FA31 will be right in the pocket for me on the K-1
On the other hand, I love the FA77 on crop, so I reckon it might feel too short as a portrait lens on FF. I hope I'm wrong though....
Can't wait to get the FA43 happening. Although I like the rendering, I was never comfortable with the FoV on crop.

I guess we're all different.
05-02-2016, 03:17 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 482
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Can't wait to get the FA43 happening. Although I like the rendering, I never liked the FoV on crop.

I guess we're all different.
You're not kidding!

I love the FA43 rendering, and I also love the FOV on crop!

But I think I would love its FOV on FF as well - will be great to view the world through the "true normal" focal-length FA Limited lens as Jun Hirakawa intended.

Also, I'm eager to see the FA31's output for street-photography, a la the classic 35mm news reporter's focal-length.

Last edited by KDAFA; 05-02-2016 at 04:26 AM.
05-02-2016, 04:34 AM   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 844
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
On the other hand, I love the FA77 on crop, so I reckon it might feel too short as a portrait lens on FF. I hope I'm wrong though....
Oh, you'll absolutely hate the FA77 on the K-1, positively hate it!!





05-02-2016, 11:46 AM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,843
QuoteOriginally posted by KDAFA Quote
In fact, the FA43 on a Full-frame body gives "true normal" focal length.

The diagonal of the Full-frame sensor rectangle (or a frame of film), ie. 36mm x 24mm, in fact measures 43mm, and the FA43 was intentionally designed as such.
I'm aware but despite this the "normal" lens of most of the 20th century on 35mm film wasn't what was shipped or used as normal. The 50's, 55's and 58's really ruled the roost with the trend being from 55-58 towards 50 and stabilizing there for a long time. I personally think about anything from 40-60 can be called normal with the 40mm being short normal and the 60 mm being long normal.
05-02-2016, 04:19 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 482
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
...I personally think about anything from 40-60 can be called normal with the 40mm being short normal and the 60 mm being long normal.
That's an interesting point of view. I personally do find an appreciable difference in the "feel" and way of working, between 40-60mm. But yeah, like Sandy said, were all different.

Last edited by KDAFA; 05-02-2016 at 04:27 PM.
05-02-2016, 04:49 PM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,843
QuoteOriginally posted by KDAFA Quote
That's an interesting point of view. I personally do find an appreciable difference in the "feel" and way of working, between 40-60mm. But yeah, like Sandy said, were all different.
I completely agree that they do - but the fact is that the 50-58 was the standard for far far longer than I care to think about. The 43 is an odd duck and while it is theoretically more aligned with what "should" be normal, it is just not what people typically used except in Pentax land. A few 45mm's and an odd 40mm made hay as semi-normal lenses (short normal I guess). I'm really more likely to think 50-60 is normal than 40-60 if pressed.
05-02-2016, 05:44 PM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,921
The 24-70 covers most of the focal lengths used and has WR.
All good so long as you don't need a smaller package.

Otherwise consider
Samyang 14/2.8
M20/4
Any of the FA50, FA43 Ltd, FA35/2
DFA100 macro
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
50mm, aps-c, art, bit, da, dslr, fa, fa43, full frame, full-frame, half, k-1, k-1 lens, k-5ii, k1, land, lens, master, options, pentax k-1, tak, takumars, vision, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 50mm manual focus lens recommendations Lochlyn Deckard Pentax K-5 17 01-16-2012 07:28 AM
Inexpensive 70-300mm lens for Pentax K-r recommendations? coach54 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 17 01-04-2012 10:40 AM
Pentax K-R recommendations for kit and lens maybeitsjustme Pentax K-r 8 05-27-2011 10:54 AM
Recommendations for lens end cap for K mount lens? geekette Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 04-29-2011 05:48 AM
Buying Pentax k-x, lens recommendations? catastrophe Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 09-16-2010 08:29 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:50 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top