[pcarfan]

I know we are not even sure whether Pentax will ever release a FF camera at all. My guess is, if Pentax is in business for long, it will eventually one day release a FF.

Most of my lenses are FF compatible, except the wideangle lenses. I was considering the FA20, but they are hard to find and cost a bunch when they come for sale.

One of the advantages of FF is the ability to get wideangle shots. Is it posssible for pentax to release a FF and only have the FA31 as the widest lens?...I will certainly get the 31 if they release a FF.

I know many say not to worry about having FF compatible lenses, and I agree. However, this is a 'what if' though process, that's all.

I think it is absolutley incomprehensible for Pentax release a FF without releasing some wideangle lenses wider than the 31...what say you'all.

[areidjr]

I guess your need for something wider than 31 is dependent on what you like to shoot. Back in the film days my widest lens was 28mm and I never found myself wanting anything wider.

OTOH, my longest lens with film was 200mm and now it's 500mm and I want more.

I would think it's likely that if Pentax does go FF there will need to be a lot of thought given to the lens line-up. I know that on FF my Bigma would be too short.

[deadwolfbones]

well, they've got that 17-28 fisheye design tucked away somewhere...

[ryan s]

They will have to make every lens that everyone wants and they will have to cost 50% of what the "other brands" offer

In all seriousness...in the film days, 28mm was "wide angle" and anything more was "super wide." "Ultra wide" was 20mm down to...well, any length that wouldn't offer a 180 degree field of view...then those were the "fish eyes."

FA* 24/2 redux, anyone?

Edit for irony: It was funny how back when your "smallest" choice was 35mm film, people weren't very excited with wide angles. When I told my dad I had gotten a 16mm lens, he said "I really don't like the look of those"

And as a "bottom feeder" for used lenses, the lenses wider than 28mm fetch a premium, still, just like when they were produced. I guess wide field of view isn't free with FF after all...

Edit 2: Sorry for all the "quotes." I don't know why I "put them all there" :ugh:

[Gooshin]

i havent seen one of these threads in the gen section in a long time

why did you have to drag this in..

your question has been beaten to death.. years ago

[pcarfan]

@Ryan: I already have the FA24/2 and that is my widest FF compatible lens I own. But, the sigma 10-20 at 10 is sweet, so I was hoping there would be something wider. Either 15,18 or at least 20. Fisheye's don't count.

I love the perspective of the 10 like this



Gooshin. If it's been a while, then at least this thread rectifies the advantage you hold against the new comers

[ryan s]

I wonder how easy it would be to "open up" one of the wides to cover the sensor that are already on the market like the DA14, Ltd 15, 10-17, etc.

From all I've seen, the Tokina 11-16 is pretty much only usable at 16mm on FF...12-24 variants above 18mm. It's not a problem only Pentax faces.

Or just get a Zenitar

[deadwolfbones]

Isn't the Sigma 12-24 full-frame as well?

[pcarfan]

I checked and it is a FF lens. Decent performance even in FF at slrgear. Good to know.

[ombreus]

what about sigma 20-40/2,8? will it be usable on FF as wideangle, or its useless lens?

[ozlizard]

I would definately want something as wide as the Sigma 10-20, When Penatx release thier FF next year () I will hate to get rid of that lens. For the landscape work I do it is indespensible. I don't care if its a zoom or a prime just give the equivilant of 10mm (which in FF terms is 15mm?)