[robjmitchell]

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!

[robthebloke]

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 ----------

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.

[monochrome]

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.

[UncleVanya]

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?

[mir156]

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.

[jatrax]

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.

[robthebloke]

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!

[KDAFA]

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.

[Sandy Hancock]

@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.

[KDAFA]

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.

[robthebloke]

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!!

[UncleVanya]

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.

[KDAFA]

...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.

[UncleVanya]

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.

[pinholecam]

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