[Lowell Goudge]

's

I am not looking for wide angle in both bodies, but I am looking for not duplicate solution fx (47mm on APS-C, 50mm with crop factor on FF). It is not problem for me get 70mm on the end in zoom if I can
get wide angle on beggining range. In reality I am looking more for FF lens to use with APS-C and FF bodies and get longer lens throught crop factor 1,5x on APS-C. I am open to another solution.

It is simple thing. If it is nightmare weather in mountain and temperature above 10 Celcius degree I has two bodies on me. If I see nice weather I swich on one body to 77 limited or 100 to get macro or portrait feature. If I see more interesting landscape than macro I switch to wide angle. At the end if I find more interesting distance subject - teleconverter with 100 macro or if I plan short hiking / walking below 10 kilometers in not demanding terraing telephoto len. On APS-C ~16mm or 28 on FF from crop factor is optimal choice. The best choice for angle is about 15mm, but when I think in perspective weight of 15-30 mm FF angle I can live with 28mm FF as optimal choice.

I do not want changing lens when I am in terrain. It would be nice get another angle to more creative stuff by simple changing them on bodies before I start to go.

Perhaps this was a mis understanding on my part, because i agree with you, you simply want to switch bodies between one or the other, with a lens for each body that makes the best overall use of that camera's feature, this lends to wide on full frame and normal to tele on crop sensor

[niblue]

Since buying a K1 I can't see myself ever using my APS-C DSLR's again so not sure I'd care about how wide a lens was on APS-C. So for me the most useful lens to add to your set-up for FF would be a 24-70 F2.8 zoom. I use the Sigma version as my main lens for the K1 and it's very good and very cheap compared to the Pentax (I paid £199 for mine 2nd hand). I'm sure the Pentax is better but not enough to make me want it, especially as I've no need for WR either (I've used lots of lenses in the rain over the years and the only problem I've ever had was raindrops on the front element - so not something WR would help with).

After that I'd consider looking at one of the wide angle primes. I have the Sigma 14mm F2.8 (and there are better primes than that available) but it's not a lens I use a lot.

If you wanted to dedicate your APS-C to wide then the Sigma 10-20 is a good lens and cheap. It was one of my most used lenses before I got the K1.

[pxt]

Perhaps this was a mis understanding on my part, because i agree with you, you simply want to switch bodies between one or the other, with a lens for each body that makes the best overall use of that camera's feature, this lends to wide on full frame and normal to tele on crop sensor

It is what exactly I am going to do!

I am looking for the best lens matching my needs. After 14 hours in mountains any gram weight tone, but I have to go to compromise. Pentax 15-30 is too large and filters and cumbersome.For size is it too limited. I all pack in Retrospective Thinktank bag to go it with me in car. I start with universal len in my mind, but now I'm thinking what can I get from FF wide angle the same lens vs crop wide angle lens on the same degree of view in real life?

[pres589]

Two lenses maybe worth considering;
Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX Aspherical (only available used and probably not that easy to find in the wild)
Pentax 12-24 (treat like an 18-24 unless you want to shoot in a crop mode or on your APS-C camera)

I've not used either lens and cannot comment on anything like "are they good".

[Lowell Goudge]

It is what exactly I am going to do!

I am looking for the best lens matching my needs. After 14 hours in mountains any gram weight tone, but I have to go to compromise. Pentax 15-30 is too large and filters and cumbersome.For size is it too limited. I all pack in Retrospective Thinktank bag to go it with me in car. I start with universal len in my mind, but now I'm thinking what can I get from FF wide angle the same lens vs crop wide angle lens on the same degree of view in real life?

given the weight, i would take a Q, but i also appreciate you want better resolution and image quality, dynamic range etc...

[Sandy Hancock]

Every time I pack for a trip, I find it impossible to leave out the DFA15-30. The versatility is well worth the the weight.

Sometimes I throw in the DA15 and/or DA21 with a couple of 49mm filters, just in case. They rarely get used.

[Paul the Sunman]

Every time I pack for a trip, I find it impossible to leave out the DFA15-30. The versatility is well worth the the weight.

I agree. I usually travel internationally with the K1 + DFA 15-30, DA 40 Limited, and DFA 28-105. Of course, I would prefer the 15-30 were smaller and lighter, but it is what it is. If I really needed to save weight, I could replace it with the DA 15 Limited and shoot in crop mode, which still gives me ~K5 resolution.

[UncleVanya]

On APS-C ~16mm or 28 on FF from crop factor is optimal choice. The best choice for angle is about 15mm, but when I think in perspective weight of 15-30 mm FF angle I can live with 28mm FF as optimal choice.

I do not want changing lens when I am in terrain. It would be nice get another angle to more creative stuff by simple changing them on bodies before I start to go.

16mm Pentax/Nikon apsc ~ 24mm, 18mm ~ 28mm crop factor is 1.5x not 1.6x like Canon.

[mikesbike]

The FAJ 18-35mm lens was made for film bodies, has extra-wide angle FOV, so would work with both FF and APS-C. Both would have plenty of wide angle capability. There's also a very well-built Tokina ATX AF20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 II which has a 77mm filter size. A less expensive version is the Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5, which is still well-made but with a plastic body, and also has a 77mm filter size. Both tested at 19mm at the short end. Tokina also made a well-regarded ATX 20-35mm f/2.8 pro lens in Pentax mount.

24mm does provide wide angle for APS-C, but not as wide as some would prefer. Like having a 35mm lens on a FF body, which was a very popular focal length for versatility with 35mm film use. If wishing for a zoom lens capable of both wide angle and tele, on both FF and APS-C, 24-60 or 70mm is just about it for this kind of versatility in a fast lens. Other than those fast lenses, Pentax did make an FA 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5 AL IF that some thought highly of.

[normhead]

My typical canoe trip kit would be the K-1 with the 28-105 in one Pelican Case, the K-3 with the DFA 100 macro and DA 55-300 PLM in the other. I may start bringing my DA*55 which can be used on both bodies. If I expect to need UWA I take the FAJ 18-35 for the K-1. The FAJ 18-35 really isn't good enough to handle the extra pixel density on the K-3, it's barely adequate on the K-1. That kit will do pretty much anything I'm likely to encounter at a good carry weight.

Honestly, Ultra wide angle is a novelty item...the DA 55-300 PLM is an absolutely marvellous hiking/portable lens on APS-c. And the DFA 100 macro is lightweight, super and super sharp. All those lenses are WR for outdoor use, and if you need wider than 28 mm for landscape, pan and stitch. You'll want it so rarely panos are viable option.

[pxt]

if you need wider than 28 mm for landscape, pan and stitch

It is a good idea. I have to tested in the field K1 to get information how really is heavy when hiking and walking for longer time. It will be importand to make final decision, but for now 24-70 WR looks like a good compromise. 55-300 is too dark for me. I want extra light, because a lot of times it was crucial for my shots, because of depth of field I use as peudomacro.

Thank you guys for your suggestions and answers!

[Mikesul]

You may also find the weight with any lens easier to handle if you have a good strap like the Peak Design and some others. That way you only feel the weight of the camera when you pick it up to shoot. Even the really big lenses like the 70-200 and even the 150-450 are not too bad to carry with an appropriate strap.

[normhead]

You may also find the weight with any lens easier to handle if you have a good strap like the Peak Design and some others. That way you only feel the weight of the camera when you pick it up to shoot. Even the really big lenses like the 70-200 and even the 150-450 are not too bad to carry with an appropriate strap.

For my use, the weight of the gear is more than that. I'm usually carrying 50 pounds of other equipment and 10 pounds of camera gear sometimes for a mile or more. Or if you are a back packer your whole world is on your back. There are many situations for out doors types where those lenses are too heavy and will end up causing a lot of pain physically were you to take them. After a few kms hiking, the weight does get to you, even though I have good 3rd party straps. At some points it's not about the comfort of carrying them, its about the weight. I rarely take even my DA*60-250 these days. I prefer lighter.

And on a 15 km hike, (10 miles approx.) even a DA*60-250 will cause considerable discomfort with lots of shifting the bag from shoulder to shoulder etc. Sometimes it's a matter of comfort. Sometimes it's honestly a matter of too much weight. Especially with larger lenses, too much weight is a real thing.

[pxt]

For me weight is not all, because I can not spend every day for hiking and mountaineering. I am limited by mi kids, work etc. For reality I will be spend few times a year on this. I know how look hiking with light K200D, 50/1.7, 28/2.8 and 135/2.8 lenses when it was very light at all in comparasion to FF lenses and body. On the top of hill I think about something throw away and after finish climbing only what I will skip on the next time. Dear Pentaxian, the best choice in the term of weight is compact camera or waterproof telephone, but it is not option.

Yes, I know that larger compact camera called this days mirroless is trendy, but I like old school feel when you look throught DSLR periskope and you will see world via your lens. It is very nice feeling when you press button and at the finale you has outstanding nature picture without city noise as reward for your exhaustion. Physicall condition is key for traveling, because Pentax is heavy ligue of bodies. When I was in archeological museum I spend half a day taking shots of BC stuff and I can feel a litle weight of body when I am climbing on view tower.

At the summary I think that larger angle than 15mm APSC it is not make sense, because panoramas are very limitated photography. Without them on the front you it is very hard use them on daily life. So choice is very limited. I need analyse APS-C for landscapes (=less weight) or better dynamic of FF.

[reh321]

If you wanted to dedicate your APS-C to wide then the Sigma 10-20 is a good lens and cheap. It was one of my most used lenses before I got the K1.

3-1/2 years ago, when my Canon Rebel died, and I purchased a Pentax K-30, the Sigma 10-20 was the one EF-mount lens I really missed .... and I was so glad I could get one in K-mount also. These past fews months, when I was thinking about what camera would replace the K-30, counter-intuitively the issue of UWA was one influence pushing me towards getting a KP instead of a K-1.