[grispie]

Now that I have the K-1, I don't have a whole lot of money left in my budget for lenses. I'd love to get the 15-30 but just can't afford anything near that expensive.

I'd bite the bullet & save up for it if possible. to me, this lens is one of the reasons i'd want the FF.

[lurker56]

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

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Now that I have the K-1, I don't have a whole lot of money left in my budget for lenses. I'd love to get the 15-30 but just can't afford anything near that expensive. I've read and seen good things about the D FA 28-105 and will probably get that as my walkaround lens. But I've got obvious holes in my FF collection between 100-300mm.

So can anyone recommend bargain zooms or primes that have really good IQ? I'm especially interested in firsthand experiences of people who have tried these lenses on the K-1.

Thanks!

There are a lot of bargain options. How about the FAJ 18-35mm for an inexpensive alternative to the DFA 15-30mm? It used to surprice people on film. I know the difference between 15 and 18mm is wide, but the lens you can afford is the lens that will give you the best pic's.

For normal-zooms there is the FA 28-70mm constant f4. Great optics. One of the hidden gems. There is a tiny vignetting at f2.8 and 28mm, but it dissapears as zoon as you close down a step. That vignetting is much smaller than it is on the FA28/2.8 prime at f2.8.

The powerzoom FA 28-105mm is already mentioned. Heavy, but balance well on the K-1. Very good optics.

The FA 24-90mm does well too.

For bargain tele-zooms it is more difficult as Pentax own F and FA aren't much to brag about (not counting the FA*80-200/2.8, but that is hardly a budget lens). Best Pentax bargains here are actually manual focus M 80-200/4.5 and A 70-210/4. Perhaps one of the Tamron tele-zooms? I've seen people do good work with them on aps-c, but have no own experience and haven't yet seen anyone post pics with it on the K-1. Perhaps primaries could be your bargain option? A pair of good 135mm and 200mm wont cost you much.

If you don't have one already, get yourself a good manual normal prime. Any of Pentax 50 or 55mm could do wonders on the K-1. If you require autofocus, as Adam says, the DA50/1.8 covers FF. My copy show no vignetting even wide open, though softer corners than the FA50/1.4. The DA35/2.4 probably covers FF as well...it's based on the FA35/2 which is a FF lens. But I have no copy of my ownn...and haven't yet seen any one posting pics with the DA35/2.4 on the K-1.

FA 28-70mm f4 at 70mm:

[snpsht]

Tamron 90mm Di 2.8 is FF and is not too shabby at all on the K-1 - cheap as chips too.

[aurele]

There are a lot of bargain options. How about the FAJ 18-35mm for an inexpensive alternative to the DFA 15-30mm? It used to surprice people on film. I know the difference between 15 and 18mm is wide, but the lens you can afford is the lens that will give you the best pic's.

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

[loco]

Wow, woke up to some fabulous info here! Thanks so much to everyone for your opinions!

My lens collection is in my signature - and I feel like I'm pretty well covered with FF-capable primes in the wide to normal range. Plus I have the DA*300 at the long end. As I mentioned, a wide zoom would be nice to have and perhaps I'll look into the FA-J 18-35 as an alternative to the 15-30.

I think the D FA 28-105 will take care of me up to 105. So, perhaps the Tamron 70-200 would be an option for me. Or go with the Samyang 135 and maybe a 200, as Douglas suggested.

I really appreciate all your post and hope to see more.

jatrax, please let me know how your testing goes with the older zooms. Thanks!!

[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 !

If it is used for landscape, speed doesn't really matter as you will close it down anyway for a large DOF.

---------- Post added 05-11-16 at 02:10 PM ----------

Wow, woke up to some fabulous info here! Thanks so much to everyone for your opinions!

My lens collection is in my signature - and I feel like I'm pretty well covered with FF-capable primes in the wide to normal range. Plus I have the DA*300 at the long end. As I mentioned, a wide zoom would be nice to have and perhaps I'll look into the FA-J 18-35 as an alternative to the 15-30.

I think the D FA 28-105 will take care of me up to 105. So, perhaps the Tamron 70-200 would be an option for me. Or go with the Samyang 135 and maybe a 200, as Douglas suggested.

I really appreciate all your post and hope to see more.

jatrax, please let me know how your testing goes with the older zooms. Thanks!!

You can see my lenses listed here: through the viewfinder: My Lenses . If there is anyone you want me to try on the K-1, give me a hint and I will give it priority. Eventually I will get through them all, but it will take some time.

[aurele]

If it is used for landscape, speed doesn't really matter as you will close it down anyway for a large DOF.

Indeed

[loco]

You can see my lenses listed here: through the viewfinder: My Lenses . If there is anyone you want me to try on the K-1, give me a hint and I will give it priority. Eventually I will get through them all, but it will take some time.

Thanks for your kind offer! It looks like your ratings on the ones I have interest in are not very high. Specifically, the F 70-210 and FA 70-200. But perhaps you may feel differently after seeing them on the K-1, so if you do get an opportunity, I'd love to know your thoughts.

[HoustonBob]

Maybe I'm just a bit biased after shooting with the 150-450, but this is some hardcore vignetting IMO I'll admit it's forgivable given the price of the lens.

On full frame ALL lenses vignette to some degree or another. The question is what level is acceptable in your photos. In any case vignetting is correctable to a large degree with software. If it is a problem in a shot - it can probably be fixed. As I said before the 80-320 would make a decent long portrait lens - where its softness and vignetting can actually be a bonus.

[ChristianRock]

Don't forget the Tamron and Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 lenses, now discontinued, but still available in the used market. The Sigma being more common and the Tamron being possibly just a bit better, but both are pretty decent. Stop them down for landscape use and while not in the same class as the 15-30mm, people still get very nice results from them. You can find lots of pictures on flickr taken with full frame Canon/Nikon/Sony cameras.

[loco]

Don't forget the Tamron and Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4 lenses, now discontinued, but still available in the used market. The Sigma being more common and the Tamron being possibly just a bit better, but both are pretty decent. Stop them down for landscape use and while not in the same class as the 15-30mm, people still get very nice results from them. You can find lots of pictures on flickr taken with full frame Canon/Nikon/Sony cameras.

Thank you, I will look into them.

[todd]

Maybe I'm just a bit biased after shooting with the 150-450, but this is some hardcore vignetting IMO I'll admit it's forgivable given the price of the lens.

I would be biased! That's gotta be one of the most amazing long zooms ever.

Here was the closet thing I got to a clear blue sky on Saturday, but both below are straight jpeg extracts at 320mm f5.6, same as your example. Doesn't seem so bad... I do have lens correction on though.. I wonder if FA80-320 is covered...

[UncleVanya]

Does anyone know if the 55-300 is full frame?

[loco]

Does anyone know if the 55-300 is full frame?

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