Recommendations for 20mm or so

**mattt** · 12-24-2018, 11:16 AM

Anyone use the Voigtlander Colour Skopar 21mm on K-1? There are a few k mount kicking around...

**clackers** · 12-24-2018, 11:22 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by mattt

Anyone use the Voigtlander Colour Skopar 21mm on K-1? There are a few k mount kicking around...

I've got one. I've used APS-C lenses in preference to it because it's not sharp.

It is a pancake, though, so if you weren't at all serious about your ultra-wide photography, it takes up little room in your bag, like the DA15.

**jlstrawman** · 12-24-2018, 12:42 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by mattt

M20/4 is hardly disappointing.

My thoughts, also. I was patient and found my excellent copy for around 200 USD.
I use mine on both FF and APS-C.

Wild Mark · 12-24-2018, 12:51 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by DSLRnovice

How would you compare the FA20 with the FA20-35?

I can check for you. I am fortunate to have both as I have been collecting for many years.

In refernece to your question re: edge sharpness, I have to say that the FA20 is most definitely the best of the bunch discussed thus far - without doubt.

**david94903** · 12-24-2018, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by DSLRnovice

I was wondering if the DA16-45 might come out similar or better than the M20. While the color and contrast is really terrific, the edge and corners can go soft in FF probably due to field curvature. The real disadvantage in FF is the size for using only the 20-24mm FL. (My DFA 28-105 performs well at 28MM) There is something very appealing to the size of the M20 that would make it worth the trade offs.

I'm thinking you're right about the corner issue. I'm betting the DA16-45 are similar (DA being sharper) at the center but the DA goes softer at the corners than the M20/4. I have a D-FA24-70 and the M20/4, though not quite as sharp, holds it's own for a forty year old lens (see attached comparison)

And yes, the size of the M20/4 is fantastic. Easy to carry in a pocket. Though compared to the D-FA15-30, the A20 and FA20 are also a comfortable size too.

DSLRnovice · 12-25-2018, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by david94903

I'm thinking you're right about the corner issue. I'm betting the DA16-45 are similar (DA being sharper) at the center but the DA goes softer at the corners than the M20/4. I have a D-FA24-70 and the M20/4, though not quite as sharp, holds it's own for a forty year old lens (see attached comparison)

And yes, the size of the M20/4 is fantastic. Easy to carry in a pocket. Though compared to the D-FA15-30, the A20 and FA20 are also a comfortable size too.

The cropped images do look close. Are they center frame?

northcoastgreg · 12-25-2018, 10:27 AM - **4 Likes**

Originally posted by DSLRnovice

But I am not sure if the M20 will offer better IQ than the DA16-45.

I've owned both lenses, but I've only shot the DA 16-45 on APS-C. On APS-C, I much preferred the M 20/4. Not that there's much difference in measurable qualities between the lenses. They both exhibit comparable sharpness (at least on APS-C). But I found that, while I was initially impressed with the DA 16-45 (it's sharp all the way to the corners on APS-C), the images I got from the lens didn't wear well over time. Something indefinable and immeasurable but very real in the color contrast and rendering was missing. Whereas I had the opposite reaction with the M 20/4. It doesn't bowl you over at first either with sharpness, contrast, or saturation, but there is something subtle and life-like in the rendering and colors that you begin to appreciate more and more over time. Whoever designed the M 20/4 had a finely developed aesthetic taste; whereas the DA 16-45 was the first lens Masakazu Saori designed to production, and (I suspect) suffered from his lack of experience (he was barely out of college at the time). Saori would later go on to become one of the pre-eminent lens designers in the world, but he was hardly that in 2003 when he was working on the DA 16-45.

A couple of images from the M 20/4, shot with the K-1:

**david94903** · 12-26-2018, 12:24 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by DSLRnovice

The cropped images do look close. Are they center frame?

Yes, they are close to center frame.

**Ash** · 12-26-2018, 03:01 AM - **1 Like**

Greg, those images exude 3D rendering and colour contrast. Thanks for sharing those. It will provide a good comparison for me when I test out the FA 20.

DSLRnovice · 12-26-2018, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by northcoastgreg

I've owned both lenses, but I've only shot the DA 16-45 on APS-C. On APS-C, I much preferred the M 20/4. Not that there's much difference in measurable qualities between the lenses. They both exhibit comparable sharpness (at least on APS-C). But I found that, while I was initially impressed with the DA 16-45 (it's sharp all the way to the corners on APS-C), the images I got from the lens didn't wear well over time. Something indefinable and immeasurable but very real in the color contrast and rendering was missing. Whereas I had the opposite reaction with the M 20/4. It doesn't bowl you over at first either with sharpness, contrast, or saturation, but there is something subtle and life-like in the rendering and colors that you begin to appreciate more and more over time. Whoever designed the M 20/4 had a finely developed aesthetic taste; whereas the DA 16-45 was the first lens Masakazu Saori designed to production, and (I suspect) suffered from his lack of experience (he was barely out of college at the time). Saori would later go on to become one of the pre-eminent lens designers in the world, but he was hardly that in 2003 when he was working on the DA 16-45.

A couple of images from the M 20/4, shot with the K-1:

Those images from the M20/4 look very nice. I do not normally take the 16-45/4 with me since getting the K-1. It takes up so much space. But I have been thinking that I need to use it at 20-24mm just to see how that FL works for me. Then I can decide whether or not to look for the FA20. The M20 would be great if I could be found at a more reasonable price.

The DA16-45 in FF does vignette at 20mm at most apertures, but the color and flair resistance has always been good.

Wild Mark · 12-31-2018, 09:41 PM - **1 Like**

My method is basic and systematic to avoid bias.

I have taken photos of a single scene from a tripod platform. Photos taken wide open and at f8 (with one exception - three shots were taken with the FA 20mm these being f2.8, f4 and f8). All in camera settings were kept the same. Shooting was in manual mode at infinity focus. Metering was across the whole frame.

Lens tested are:

Tokina 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 version II
Pentax M 20mm f4
Pentax K 20mm f4
Pentax FA 20-35mm f4
Pentax FA 20mm f2.8
SMC Takumar 20mm f4.5

Here goes - lots of shots with centre and corner crops too

Wild Mark · 12-31-2018, 09:51 PM - **1 Like**

Full scene followed by crops of the centre and corner at f3.5 and f8

Wild Mark · 12-31-2018, 10:01 PM - **1 Like**

Full scene followed by crops of the centre and corner at f4 and f8

Wild Mark · 12-31-2018, 10:14 PM - **1 Like**

Full scene followed by crops of the centre and corner at f4 and f8

Wild Mark · 12-31-2018, 10:24 PM - **2 Likes**

Full scene followed by crops of the centre and corner at f4 and f8

12-31-2018, 09:41 PM - 1 Like	#26
Wild Mark Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Newcastle Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,954	Comparisons of multiple 20mm lenses all at full frame on the k-1 My method is basic and systematic to avoid bias. I have taken photos of a single scene from a tripod platform. Photos taken wide open and at f8 (with one exception - three shots were taken with the FA 20mm these being f2.8, f4 and f8). All in camera settings were kept the same. Shooting was in manual mode at infinity focus. Metering was across the whole frame. Lens tested are: Tokina 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 version II Pentax M 20mm f4 Pentax K 20mm f4 Pentax FA 20-35mm f4 Pentax FA 20mm f2.8 SMC Takumar 20mm f4.5 Here goes - lots of shots with centre and corner crops too

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
So many 50mm and so little money (and experience)	gump	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	09-23-2018 10:04 PM
Do you own a sharp (& cheap, so manual ok!) wide lens? Need recommendations!	mishmatta	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	34	10-23-2011 07:30 PM
Nature So so tall, small, so beautiful	newmikey	Post Your Photos!	3	06-03-2011 03:11 AM
Wanted - Acquired: Pentax FA 20mm or Pentax A 20mm	loveisageless	Sold Items	2	01-13-2011 12:00 PM
New to DSLR so I bought a K-X, any recommendations?	buffalobrian	Welcomes and Introductions	20	03-12-2010 06:57 PM

12-24-2018, 11:16 AM	#16
mattt Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Niagara Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,907	Anyone use the Voigtlander Colour Skopar 21mm on K-1? There are a few k mount kicking around...

12-24-2018, 11:22 AM - 1 Like	#17
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by mattt Anyone use the Voigtlander Colour Skopar 21mm on K-1? There are a few k mount kicking around... I've got one. I've used APS-C lenses in preference to it because it's not sharp. It is a pancake, though, so if you weren't at all serious about your ultra-wide photography, it takes up little room in your bag, like the DA15.

12-24-2018, 12:42 PM - 1 Like	#18
jlstrawman Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Midwest US Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,058	Originally posted by mattt M20/4 is hardly disappointing. My thoughts, also. I was patient and found my excellent copy for around 200 USD. I use mine on both FF and APS-C.

12-24-2018, 12:51 PM - 1 Like	#19
Wild Mark Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Newcastle Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,954	Originally posted by DSLRnovice How would you compare the FA20 with the FA20-35? I can check for you. I am fortunate to have both as I have been collecting for many years. In refernece to your question re: edge sharpness, I have to say that the FA20 is most definitely the best of the bunch discussed thus far - without doubt.

12-25-2018, 10:02 AM	#21
DSLRnovice Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 192 Original Poster	Originally posted by david94903 I'm thinking you're right about the corner issue. I'm betting the DA16-45 are similar (DA being sharper) at the center but the DA goes softer at the corners than the M20/4. I have a D-FA24-70 and the M20/4, though not quite as sharp, holds it's own for a forty year old lens (see attached comparison) And yes, the size of the M20/4 is fantastic. Easy to carry in a pocket. Though compared to the D-FA15-30, the A20 and FA20 are also a comfortable size too. The cropped images do look close. Are they center frame?

12-25-2018, 10:27 AM - 4 Likes	#22
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	Originally posted by DSLRnovice But I am not sure if the M20 will offer better IQ than the DA16-45. I've owned both lenses, but I've only shot the DA 16-45 on APS-C. On APS-C, I much preferred the M 20/4. Not that there's much difference in measurable qualities between the lenses. They both exhibit comparable sharpness (at least on APS-C). But I found that, while I was initially impressed with the DA 16-45 (it's sharp all the way to the corners on APS-C), the images I got from the lens didn't wear well over time. Something indefinable and immeasurable but very real in the color contrast and rendering was missing. Whereas I had the opposite reaction with the M 20/4. It doesn't bowl you over at first either with sharpness, contrast, or saturation, but there is something subtle and life-like in the rendering and colors that you begin to appreciate more and more over time. Whoever designed the M 20/4 had a finely developed aesthetic taste; whereas the DA 16-45 was the first lens Masakazu Saori designed to production, and (I suspect) suffered from his lack of experience (he was barely out of college at the time). Saori would later go on to become one of the pre-eminent lens designers in the world, but he was hardly that in 2003 when he was working on the DA 16-45. A couple of images from the M 20/4, shot with the K-1:

12-26-2018, 12:24 AM - 1 Like	#23
david94903 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: San Rafael, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 806	Originally posted by DSLRnovice The cropped images do look close. Are they center frame? Yes, they are close to center frame.

12-26-2018, 03:01 AM - 1 Like	#24
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Greg, those images exude 3D rendering and colour contrast. Thanks for sharing those. It will provide a good comparison for me when I test out the FA 20.

12-26-2018, 01:25 PM	#25
DSLRnovice Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 192 Original Poster	Originally posted by northcoastgreg I've owned both lenses, but I've only shot the DA 16-45 on APS-C. On APS-C, I much preferred the M 20/4. Not that there's much difference in measurable qualities between the lenses. They both exhibit comparable sharpness (at least on APS-C). But I found that, while I was initially impressed with the DA 16-45 (it's sharp all the way to the corners on APS-C), the images I got from the lens didn't wear well over time. Something indefinable and immeasurable but very real in the color contrast and rendering was missing. Whereas I had the opposite reaction with the M 20/4. It doesn't bowl you over at first either with sharpness, contrast, or saturation, but there is something subtle and life-like in the rendering and colors that you begin to appreciate more and more over time. Whoever designed the M 20/4 had a finely developed aesthetic taste; whereas the DA 16-45 was the first lens Masakazu Saori designed to production, and (I suspect) suffered from his lack of experience (he was barely out of college at the time). Saori would later go on to become one of the pre-eminent lens designers in the world, but he was hardly that in 2003 when he was working on the DA 16-45. A couple of images from the M 20/4, shot with the K-1: Those images from the M20/4 look very nice. I do not normally take the 16-45/4 with me since getting the K-1. It takes up so much space. But I have been thinking that I need to use it at 20-24mm just to see how that FL works for me. Then I can decide whether or not to look for the FA20. The M20 would be great if I could be found at a more reasonable price. The DA16-45 in FF does vignette at 20mm at most apertures, but the color and flair resistance has always been good.