[awscreo]

I personally really enjoy the images I get from my K-1 kit - K-1, DFA 15-30, DFA 28-105 (for longer reach when I need it), Nisi S5 filter system (CPL, 10 stop ND), and Marumi CPL for the 28-105. Plus a good sturdy Vanguard tripod.
Not the lightest kit out there for sure (wish there was an F4 UWA option personally). But the results are pretty good imo.

[GregL564]

I’m looking into doing that… but you mentioned not being completely happy with the results of the 60-250 on the k1. What was the issue?

Edge and corner sharpness at 250mm fell off, noticeably. But that happens I think to nearly every zoom lens at its long end. I think up to 200mm, per the test results on this site, it performs admirably. That's primarily the reason I throw the KP in my bag: to get those long telephoto shots (out to 375mm equivalent!) with corner to corner sharpness, albeit with an APS sensor.

---------- Post added 07-19-21 at 02:21 PM ----------

I personally really enjoy the images I get from my K-1 kit - K-1, DFA 15-30, DFA 28-105 (for longer reach when I need it), Nisi S5 filter system (CPL, 10 stop ND), and Marumi CPL for the 28-105. Plus a good sturdy Vanguard tripod.
Not the lightest kit out there for sure (wish there was an F4 UWA option personally). But the results are pretty good imo.

Stunning images, thank you for sharing! I agree that this is not the lightest kit... I wish there was an f4 version of the 15-30 also! I'm hoping the new 21mm can fulfill that role, even if I give up a little on the short end, and have to "zoom with my feet". ;-)

[UncleVanya]

Edge and corner sharpness at 250mm fell off, noticeably. But that happens I think to nearly every zoom lens at its long end. I think up to 200mm, per the test results on this site, it performs admirably. That's primarily the reason I throw the KP in my bag: to get those long telephoto shots (out to 375mm equivalent!) with corner to corner sharpness, albeit with an APS sensor.

Yes given the results the dfa 70-210 f4 gave in comparison I don’t think that’s the answer either. The da 60-250 plus a good 1.4x full frame converter might help but I think using the KP to get more pixels on the center area of the frame makes sense as a strategy.

[SelrahCharleS]

I know I’m an outlier here, but I still dream of shooting a landscape project only with the 77mm Limited and my K-1. I did some work with a rental lens pre-pandemic and loved it.

I haven't used the 77mm (yet), but I find I'm with you in that I mostly "see" in short telephoto. On APS-C I was using 50mm quite a bit for landscapes, and would otherwise use 28 or 35mm. Now with the K1 I'm liking 50-70mm. With wider lenses I struggle with making too busy of compositions.

[awscreo]

Edge and corner sharpness at 250mm fell off, noticeably. But that happens I think to nearly every zoom lens at its long end. I think up to 200mm, per the test results on this site, it performs admirably. That's primarily the reason I throw the KP in my bag: to get those long telephoto shots (out to 375mm equivalent!) with corner to corner sharpness, albeit with an APS sensor.

---------- Post added 07-19-21 at 02:21 PM ----------


Stunning images, thank you for sharing! I agree that this is not the lightest kit... I wish there was an f4 version of the 15-30 also! I'm hoping the new 21mm can fulfill that role, even if I give up a little on the short end, and have to "zoom with my feet". ;-)

Thank you! Yes, 21mm is a good compromise. I took my griii with the wide angle extension on hikes, and images came out really nice too (it's a 21mm lens equivalent).

[UncleVanya]

I haven't used the 77mm (yet), but I find I'm with you in that I mostly "see" in short telephoto. On APS-C I was using 50mm quite a bit for landscapes, and would otherwise use 28 or 35mm. Now with the K1 I'm liking 50-70mm. With wider lenses I struggle with making too busy of compositions.

There was a time when I only did landscapes in telephoto focal lengths. Then I did a single in month with a da 15! No that’s not quite true nor entirely wrong. The truth is I took a long time to learn to enjoy wide angle shooting. And the month with my da 15 did increase my love of this perspective.

The point is I have found that forcing myself to use a lens or a range of focal lengths helps me learn to love the perspective that I might otherwise have avoided. .

[kanyck]

Let me get in with a question. I wander if FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro is good for landscapes? I prioritize a natural and 3D look, one that is, let's say, recognizable. Are there owners of this lens here? What would be your suggestions?

[UncleVanya]

ah...yeah... really dopey of me not to know even the lenses I own! I meant the 15-30. I edited my original post to reflect the change. Thanks!

I can't recall if I said this or not - not dopey - easy mistake to make depending on what system you came from. The difference between 16-35 and 15-30 is not much practically - I just wanted to make sure.

[kanyck]

The difference between 16-35 and 15-30 is not much practically

The difference between 30 and 35 is not significant, indeed. But 15 and 16 makes a big difference: on wide end every mm matters.

[UncleVanya]

The difference between 30 and 35 is not significant, indeed. But 15 and 16 makes a big difference: on wide end every mm matters.

I’ll agree that the difference is larger at the wide end as the angle of view coverage indicates (see below). But to be fair, in actual use I would expect the practical impact on most shots to be small. A photographer moving from one system to another wouldn’t be hugely impacted by the difference enough to carry a different lens in nearly all circumstances. Putting this another way, a Sony full frame user wouldn’t be as likely to use the 12-24 to frame the same shots as a Pentax full frame user who was using the 15-30, they’d be more likely to be using the 16-35 in all but the most restrictive scenarios where that extra 3 degrees of coverage allowed the framing of a subject from a fixed vantage point.

Pentax 15-30 full frame angle of view, diagonal/horizontal: 111-72 ° / 100-62 °

Sony 16-35 angle of view full frame: 107-63 (I presume diagonally?)

[awscreo]

Would be nice to have 14-28, for even wider FOV

[northcoastgreg]

I acquired the K-1 almost solely for landscapes, although I still do some landscapes (mostly on bike rides) with the KP. My K-1 kit has turned out as follows:

DFA 15-30
DFA 28-105
FA 80-320

When I go on longer trips, I'll usually take the KP as a back-up, and it also becomes my camera for telephoto landscapes when paired the DA 55-300 PLM. That PLM telephoto has probably had a bigger impact on my photography than any other single lens, and that's largely because it opened up the world of telephoto landscape photography in the way no other lens I have used ever has. It provides (at least at the wide end) superb optics in a small package. And it's really the small size that makes it a joy to use.

Now as far as the K-1 kit, I purchased the FA 80-320 for when I didn't want to drag along the K-P + DA 55-300 PLM. That lens does have some limitations, of course. I find it mostly useless for my purposes in the 200 to 320 range. But stopped down in the 80 to 135 range, I find it quite good. It's sharp edge to edge and renders detail like a prime lens. It weighs a lot less than modern telephoto glass and it's much less expensive.

With the DFA 15-30:



With the DFA 28-105:



With the FA 80-320:



With the DA 55-300 PLM:

[normhead]

Awesome as usual.

[GregL564]

I acquired the K-1 almost solely for landscapes, although I still do some landscapes (mostly on bike rides) with the KP. My K-1 kit has turned out as follows:

DFA 15-30
DFA 28-105
FA 80-320

When I go on longer trips, I'll usually take the KP as a back-up, and it also becomes my camera for telephoto landscapes when paired the DA 55-300 PLM. That PLM telephoto has probably had a bigger impact on my photography than any other single lens, and that's largely because it opened up the world of telephoto landscape photography in the way no other lens I have used ever has. It provides (at least at the wide end) superb optics in a small package. And it's really the small size that makes it a joy to use.

Now as far as the K-1 kit, I purchased the FA 80-320 for when I didn't want to drag along the K-P + DA 55-300 PLM. That lens does have some limitations, of course. I find it mostly useless for my purposes in the 200 to 320 range. But stopped down in the 80 to 135 range, I find it quite good. It's sharp edge to edge and renders detail like a prime lens. It weighs a lot less than modern telephoto glass and it's much less expensive.

With the DFA 15-30:



With the DFA 28-105:



With the FA 80-320:



With the DA 55-300 PLM:

Thanks for sharing, as always, Greg. I think I've converged on pretty much the same kit you have, and someday hope to achieve similar results. :-)

[normhead]

Thanks for sharing, as always, Greg. I think I've converged on pretty much the same kit you have, and someday hope to achieve similar results. :-)

Being in the right spot at the right time, is often more important than the lenses used. In this day and age of computer design, it's hard to find truly bad new lenses.
In 2019, flickr's best picture of the year as voted on by Flickr users, was taken with a K-x and a DA 18-55. It's important to have kit that supports the way you shoot, but optically, modern glass is all impressive.

You will never again see glass like my screw mount Vivitar 50-150, my first zoom. It was truely awful, and barely better than enlarging images from my 55 1.7.