[Gian]

Hello All,

when I bought my first DSLR, an istD*, some 17 yrs ago, I used my old KA lenses (16-20-35-50M-85-135), which still have.

Then I added DA 12-24, 15, 21, 35M, and 70, very compact in size.

Now, shooting with a K3-ii, I must say I am really not happy of the IQ of the wide lenses (15, 21), whose focal length I love and use a lot.

I do plan to buy the new APS-C, just to be up-to-date, but I don't expect a new body will improve the optical IQ.

Also, I could sell the DAs, and buy them again in HD version, maybe they are better than the old ones, maybe not.

Should I rather save the money and buy a K1?

When I see examples of the K1 with 31/77, well, that's the IQ I want!

Would my old KA 16-20-35 perform like that on the K1? I don't care about AF.

Or is the 31/77 couple a world apart?

Please share your experience!

-G

[TL4]

Hello All,

when I bought my first DSLR, an istD*, some 17 yrs ago, I used my old KA lenses (16-20-35-50M-85-135), which still have.

Then I added DA 12-24, 15, 21, 35M, and 70, very compact in size.

Now, shooting with a K3-ii, I must say I am really not happy of the IQ of the wide lenses (15, 21), whose focal length I love and use a lot.

I do plan to buy the new APS-C, just to be up-to-date, but I don't expect a new body will improve the optical IQ.

Also, I could sell the DAs, and buy them again in HD version, maybe they are better than the old ones, maybe not.

Should I rather save the money and buy a K1?

When I see examples of the K1 with 31/77, well, that's the IQ I want!

Would my old KA 16-20-35 perform like that on the K1? I don't care about AF.

Or is the 31/77 couple a world apart?

Please share your experience!

-G

Don’t forget about the 43mm.

[jatrax]

Also, I could sell the DAs, and buy them again in HD version, maybe they are better than the old ones, maybe not.

Not. In most situations. A little better flare control at the expense of the nice starbursts. I would stay with the SMC versions.

When I see examples of the K1 with 31/77, well, that's the IQ I want!

Personally I think you will not see any significant difference. I shoot almost daily with K-3II and K-1II. K-1 files are larger but developed well it is very, very (if not impossible) to see any difference in IQ that can be attributed to the camera. 31/77 are great lenses, no question. But there are many other variables that go into making a great photograph.

Would my old KA 16-20-35 perform like that on the K1? I don't care about AF.

Like what, exactly? Yes they will work well. Will they magically become better lenses or make better pictures when used on a K-1? I don't think so.

[UncleVanya]

when I bought my first DSLR, an istD*, some 17 yrs ago, I used my old KA lenses (16-20-35-50M-85-135), which still have.

Then I added DA 12-24, 15, 21, 35M, and 70, very compact in size.

Now, shooting with a K3-ii, I must say I am really not happy of the IQ of the wide lenses (15, 21), whose focal length I love and use a lot.

I do plan to buy the new APS-C, just to be up-to-date, but I don't expect a new body will improve the optical IQ.

Also, I could sell the DAs, and buy them again in HD version, maybe they are better than the old ones, maybe not.

Should I rather save the money and buy a K1?

When I see examples of the K1 with 31/77, well, that's the IQ I want!

Would my old KA 16-20-35 perform like that on the K1? I don't care about AF.

Or is the 31/77 couple a world apart?

If you have a 16mm FF lens why not try it on the k3ii against the da15? Likewise the 20... that won’t be as wide as what you’ll get on FF but it will tell you more about those lenses.

[aslyfox]

Remember the FA limiiteds were designed for the full size rectangle which is what is on the K1 and K1 II

[climbmountainway]

Unless the entire imaging pathway is very much altered, meaning going to a computer capable of handling extremely high res files, and delivering them through the latest Mega Graphics cards and latest highest res monitors, you will not see much difference. And, that raises the bar only for those who can view output at the highest possible resolution. Those folks are generally into other camera systems, with higher inherent resolution captures, up to three times what the K1-II can do. For most, their present MP camera and lenses learned and trusted workflow gear works, along with an existing editing program or two, and does not warrant upgrading the entire imaging pathway editing and output system, perhaps with a minimum of $10,000 in purchases.

Do you do large prints? In house? With what grade of printer? The same pathway challenges present in that output pathway. Do you have your own screened distribution system for displaying your images to audiences or an audience?

So if you wish to look to see improvements using the gear or choices you describe you may be climbing the wrong tree in the forest of trees. You may wish to consider the new independently made AF PKFA full frame lens adapter to the ten or so full frame Sony mirrorless camera bodies, to get the most out of your existing full frame Pentax lenses. [See [https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/16-pentax-news-rumors/414474-worlds-firs...fer-ring.html].

[microlight]

Hi Gian. What about the IQ are you not satisfied with - for example resolution/sharpness, contrast, dynamic range, noise performance, colour accuracy? Also you don’t say whether you shoot raw or jpg, so that processing can play its part. Have you focus fine-tuned your lenses on the K-3II?

[GUB]

Hello All,

when I bought my first DSLR, an istD*, some 17 yrs ago, I used my old KA lenses (16-20-35-50M-85-135), which still have.

Then I added DA 12-24, 15, 21, 35M, and 70, very compact in size.

Now, shooting with a K3-ii, I must say I am really not happy of the IQ of the wide lenses (15, 21), whose focal length I love and use a lot.

I do plan to buy the new APS-C, just to be up-to-date, but I don't expect a new body will improve the optical IQ.

Also, I could sell the DAs, and buy them again in HD version, maybe they are better than the old ones, maybe not.

Should I rather save the money and buy a K1?

When I see examples of the K1 with 31/77, well, that's the IQ I want!

Would my old KA 16-20-35 perform like that on the K1? I don't care about AF.

Or is the 31/77 couple a world apart?

Please share your experience!

-G

Yes the old K - A primes ( and Takumars) will present better by far on full frame compared to apsc .
Dumb lens question - PentaxForums.com
But given that both cameras are capable of results beyond our skills and requirements most of the time then other factors like weight and cost can come into it.
I used to use a K01 (apsc) and was never happy with the performance of old lenses wider than 28mm. They are much better on the K-1 but I got into the habit of stitching panoramas from the 28s and 50s on the K01 and still tend to do so on the K-1.

[aaacb]

I've switched from K3ii (which I've used a lot with those HD limited primes, btw) to a K1ii. One of the reason for switching was to use the FA 43 and DFA 100 as intended. And yes, maybe there is some vague nuance in rendering that makes them different from the DA limited series, but in my eyes it's just the look of vintage-ish vs modern lenses. Other reasons were the tilting screen and high iso performance, but perhaps a KP would have been enough. Now after a year I'm happy with my kit and I'm not looking to change it further, just not entirely sure it was worth the expense, there are cost and bulk downsides to a full frame kit. I've been paying more and more attention to post processing, and I think it's made a far bigger difference.

[BarryE]

Where do you see the IQ improvement? For me the K3 v K1 comparison is, and has always been, an issue as I swap back and forth between them. They each seem to guide me towards different styles of photography. The K3 gives me more dynamic, creative, but sometimes flawed images, eg noise & DR, whereas the K1 is a more considered tool, that technically is more successful than the K3, but is sometimes less creative, in my hands, than the K3. I put this down to the size, weight, and importantly, the physical risks I'm prepared to take with it. Guess I love 'em both :-). They are quite different machines to me and therefore IQ differences are all but irrelevant. Bet that hasn't helped ;-)

[Gian]

Thank all of you for your comments.

I shoot for my pleasure, started as a teen, and now almost retired.
Have attended at shooting stages in Arles since I was at college, and recently in Venice and Milan.
I like to see what others do, and try to improve my technique: I am very well aware of my limits, and tend not to blame the gear for my bad results.
Shoot a lot of trees and garden, but love portraits.

I do shoot RAW, develop with Darktable on a dedicated Linux box, calibrated monitor, and print A3 with Canon PixmaPro 10s, calibrated with Turboprint.

I did try to calibrate focus on my K3-ii, with the help of this forum, but still, the AF accuracy is poor.
I realize that when the camera is on tripod: I trigger the focus with the dedicated button, check with LV, and it's a *tad* out of focus! Darn! Makes me crazy!

But you can't use LV focusing when holding the camera!
With old wide lenses, I would just set the focusing barrel on hyperfocal, and was sure focus was ok.
Maybe digital system are so detailed that I am more aware of image defects.

The 21 specifically lacks contrast and sharpness, pity because 35mm is a very usable focal length.
The complaints start when I see the file on screen, of course I could add sharpening, but it's not the same.
And if the image doesn't satisfy me at this stage, I usually do not go on to printing.

I enclose a sample I shot today.
It's a central 100% crop of DA21, 1/60 f/8, hand held, exported without manipulation, beside a slight correction in exposure, from DNG to JPEG.
The image has not the punch I would get from the DA35 Macro, or DA70.
Overall I am very disappointed from this image, although it comes not as a surprise: I never get a *good* one from the DA21.
In this case I'd say that the badge "Limited" refers to IQ...

Again, I really appreciate your advice.

-G

[aaacb]

I'd have to look for a sample image of my own of the DA 21, but at f8 and in the center that looks soft. It was one of my favorite lenses too, until I got the GR III Looks out of focus to me, perhaps the flat light doesn't help with the impression of sharpness either. If the lens is old, perhaps its focusing mechanism is becoming inaccurate, though it sounds like you have the same issue with focusing in live view so maybe the lens has an issue if this is the only one that looks like this?

---------- Post added 12-06-20 at 04:20 PM ----------

Found one, handheld at a distance with no particular care for focusing or sharpness; these birds on the mountain top were used to people (k3ii, da 21, f5.6, 1/1500s)


and a 100% crop

[pschlute]

It's a central 100% crop of DA21, 1/60 f/8, hand held, exported without manipulation, beside a slight correction in exposure, from DNG to JPEG.

It is a poor image. Either incorrect focus, or perhaps your lens is defective.

However you should be adding output sharpening to the raw conversion, although it is unlikely to save this one.

[DeadJohn]

...I enclose a sample I shot today.It's a central 100% crop of DA21, 1/60 f/8, hand held, exported without manipulation, beside a slight correction in exposure, from DNG to JPEG...

I agree something is very wrong with that photo. The fact that you mentioned live view gives better results suggests missed focus caused the problem (rather than camera shake or optical issues).

[C_Jones]

If it was my decision, I would weigh whether I would want distance for super telephoto, and in that case I would resort to APS-C. Otherwise, if I wanted to shoot more of a landscape or people oriented type subject I would resort to the K-1 II and use whatever lenses would apply to my type shooting (FF).

I have the K-1 II and use it with my Pentax 70-200 which is capable of amazing shots, and the crop factor is very nice due to the image detail quality. The K-3 III (new model) is something that would most likely give you the aps-c reach and quality if you needed the distance for super telephoto. If super telephoto is not what you shoot you may want to get the K-1 II for full frame landscape and people subjects for example.

Which decision is made for the camera type will determine what gear you may need or not need.