Originally posted by c-meier It would be nice if the summary on the first page linked to one or more of the sources (in this thread or otherwise):
If you can tidy up / format / beautify your post a bit, I'll be glad to copy it over to the OP.
However, I am hesitating to include links to dslr-forum. I can read them, but users w/o an account there (the majority of users here, I guess), wouldn't be able to see images, making the links pointless.
Wrt to 12-24 and similiar lenses on FF: Such wide zooms are highly optimized for the image circle and usually don't make much sense for a wider image circle. E.g., look at the stunning Nikon 14-24/2.8 (FF) to get an idea how much more complex and expensive this gets in order to cover FF. But 14mm/2.8 would require a 9mm/1.8 lens for APS-C for equal results, so the complexity is for a reason.
OTOH, a dedicated FF lens equivalent to the DA 12-24/4 (like the brand-new Nikon 18-35/3.5-4.5G) is more light-weight than the DA 12-24, faster (as of being faster than F/5.6), cheaper and, according to first reports, has at least the same stunning image quality (or better at the F/4 equivalent full aperture of F/5.6).
Wrt general discussion within this thread: I'd like this thread to stay clean and be dedicated to results and test shots regarding K mount APS-C lenses when used full frame. No exchange of opinions, please (I know, I broke my own rule with the above 2 paragraphs myself
). I am sure however, there are other threads within this forum serving this better.