[Rondec]

The Fuji lenses are exactly what Pentax need in their line-up - modern, sized for APS-C, with fast apertures at equivalent traditional focal lengths. The only one at present is the DA* 55 and it's reputedly slow-focusing and has the dreaded SDM.

I think if you want speedy apertures then the K-1 is the way to go -- at least from a Pentax stand point. You aren't going to find anything as wide and fast as the 15-30 f2.8 zoom in a Fuji mount. The FA limiteds and DA *55 on the K-1 are a treat to use and are more than fast enough for my purposes and actually relatively small in size. The whole equivalency thing means that a 16mm f1.4 on APS-C only ends up being a 24mm f2.2 lens on full frame, which isn't actually that hard a lens to create and have sharp wide open --- I would be surprised if Pentax doesn't have one of these by early next year.

Anyway, I am not trying to disparage Fuji. Seems like some folks love them, others find the interface difficult to use and don't enjoy them as much. Either way, it is nice that there are more than two or three camera brands out there, as it hopefully increases the chance of interesting, innovative cameras coming onto the market.

[Mountain Vision]

The size of the K-1 is, unfortunately for me, prohibitive. Not that it's a large camera, but it's going in the wrong direction. I'm not an EVF guy, so I under a the constraints of a mirror box. But I also value compact and light weight. No K-1 for me

[Jonathan Mac]

Agreed. We also have the 14mm 2.8 which is fairly fast. But beyond that, not many fast primes from the digital era.

Sigma, fortunately has sort of filled that gap, but many of those lenses are discontinued or were not incredible performers in the first place. Not to mention they aren't sealed, which isn't necessarily horrible in the first place, but I wouldn't mind a 23mm fast sealed prime, that was equivalent to my old 35mm f/2. That's definitely a lens I could leave on the camera.

I think the DA 14mm was discontinued some time ago.

[UncleVanya]

I think the DA 14mm was discontinued some time ago.

Source? I can never really be sure since Pentax doesn't keep the website fully in line with their production. For example the DA 14 is listed - but so is the K-50.

[osv]

And the viewfinder, the big and beautiful EVF which so many have praised, and it's a technological wonder -- right up until I needed to use it outdoors in bright sunlight. Then I was cussing, "I can't see a @#$% thing!" I dug into the menus and dialed up the EVF brightness to the maximum, then it was usable -- though still somewhat dim and ugly.

it's bleeding sunlight in past the eyecup, there are some alternative fixes for that... turning up evf brightness creates problems with wysiwyg usability.

sony mirrorless eyecups are probably worse than fuji, complete junk, i can't imagine what these camera companies are thinking? it's just plain stupid.

i'm guessing that you'll probably have to step up to that 24mp x-pro2, in order to really appreciate what the native fuji lenses are capable of.

thx for the report.

---------- Post added 06-18-16 at 12:57 PM ----------

I think the DA 14mm was discontinued some time ago.

looks like it's still in stock at b&h? Pentax Super Wide Angle SMCP-DA 14mm f/2.8 Autofocus Lens 21510

[Mountain Vision]

The DA I don't think was officially discontinued. Meanwhile, the FA 35mm f2 is listed as current on the June 2016 road map and I don't think it's been officially made in years. Certainly not in Japan as they all seem to be.

[Alfisti]

Incidentally. . . Fuji seem to be going for a change in lens strategy. I've already mentioned how big and heavy the 16mm and 90mm lenses are. It seemed sort of perverse. They're much bigger than the corresponding Pentax-M and Pentax-A series lenses I had for my 35mm SLR. I thought mirrorless cameras were supposed to save us from DSLR system bloat, not make it worse.

One of the first lenses Fuji released for the X system was a 35mm F1.4. Recently they revisited that focal length and introduced a 35mm F2 which is considerably more compact, less expensive, weather sealed, and has faster and quieter autofocus. The somewhat smaller aperture and reliance on software correction made it possible, apparently. Then they were caught completely off guard by the huge demand for this lens, to the point that it's sold-out everywhere now (except for some silver ones!), and nobody knows when more will be available.

Gosh, who would have thought that a compact and lightweight prime lens with exquisite build quality and optics, albeit somewhat smaller aperture, would be popular? That's just crazy! *cough*Limited*cough*

So, the rumor mill says they are now reworking their lens roadmap to accommodate more compact, less expensive primes and fewer of the super-fast, super-pricey behemoths.

This was my issue with Fuji, I had the very compact X-A1 but the lenses were MASSIVE.

Still, nothing but nothing comes close to fuji for caucasian skin colour, they just nail it. Even the baseline colours in RAW are rendered beautifully, cannot speak highly enough.

[Tony Belding]

Yesterday my long back-ordered Fuji 35mm F2 lens finally arrived. I already had the optional vented (rangefinder-style) hood waiting for it, too. This lens is small, very well constructed. . . optically good, though a bit soft in the extreme corners, which is something I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere. . . This is the first lens that, to me, makes the X-T1 handle like a mirrorless camera ought to. At last I have the native three-lens kit that I'd planned on, and I feel like I can start to evaluate the system more seriously.

However, this contest is far from over. I took my K-S2 out for an early morning photographic sojourn, and it performed like a champ. In my bag I had the 20-40mm Limited, 10-17mm Fisheye, and the Pentax-A 100mm F2.8, and the results from all of these were very pleasing. Even though the Fuji lenses are exquisite (and priced accordingly), the Pentax lenses are also quite good, and they are more quirky and "charismatic", if that makes any sense. Fuji doesn't have anything quite like the 20-40mm Limited, and nobody else has anything like the 10-17mm.

I also took a few shots -- handheld -- using A-HDR. It's a novelty effect that could get old in a hurry, I'm sure, but it can produce striking results when used judiciously.

The K-S2 with 20-40mm Ltd is much bigger and heavier than the X-T1 plus 35mm F2. I could definitely get used to walking about with the Fuji and this lens. However... Proportionally and ergonomically, the 20-40 is a very good match for the K-S2. Although it doesn't have a lot of zoom range, that range falls in exactly the most useful territory, on either side of the 28mm "true normal" focal length of APS-C.

I can fit either of these kits into my ONA Bowery bag, but it's pretty stuffed. It's more awkward with the Fuji. All three Pentax lenses are roughly the same size, which means I have more freedom to shuffle things around, and put the camera into the bag without regard for which lens is mounted on it. Those 16mm and 90mm Fuji lenses are great, but they are just... a bit... too... clunky.

[UncleVanya]

Tony - thanks for the continued dialog about this. It is interesting to learn how different systems fit or don't fit.

[Mountain Vision]

I'm definitely interested in this as well. It's also interesting how once similar lenses were compared the IQ gap was bridged.

Still seems like the X-T1 and fuji glass, while excellent, is an expensive system change for a Pentax shooter for what really isn't all that much size and weight difference when the entire system is looked at.

[talkskiwon]

Recently I went through an obsessive round of shopping for my next "serious" system camera (after a fling with Olympus), and it boiled down to Pentax or Fujifilm. This ultimately led to buying a brand new Pentax K-S2 and a used (and slightly scuffed, with a few things missing) Fuji X-T1.

It took me a while to wrap my head around the X-T1 lens catalog, which is structured very differently from the Pentax line-up, and also to get over the sticker shock. The used X-T1 cost more than the brand new K-S2, and it's pretty much the same story when it comes to lenses. Thus, I started with an adapter, a "Lens Turbo" focal reducer, so I could use my older K-mount lenses on the Fuji. That worked, but the optics in the adapter weren't great, and I found out I'm not the hot-shot manual focuser I thought I was, and I soon realized I needed some native lenses to properly evaluate the X-T1. First I ordered a 35mm F2, which should be the everyday workhorse lens for this system, but it's out of stock everywhere. I'm still waiting on that.

So, I gritted my teeth and ordered the very pricey 16mm F1.4 and the 90mm F2. Incidentally, I went for a zoom set on the Pentax and a prime set on the Fuji. I didn't plan it that way originally, but a few factors pushed me in that direction. Fuji have super high quality primes that many have bragged on, so that attracted me. At the same time, the Pentax 20-40mm Limited seemed like a must-have for the K-S2, and then the 10-17mm Fisheye seemed like a must-have, and then the telephoto Limiteds didn't seem telephoto enough, whereas a 50-200mm zoom would fit into my bag easily. . .

When I finally got the Fujinon 16mm and 90mm, I got a surprise. I'd looked at the specs online, but holding them in my hands was another thing, and I suddenly realized just how big and heavy these lenses are. I mean, they're not giants, but they are considerably bigger than my old film SLR lenses, and fitting this kit into my little ONA Bowery bag suddenly seemed a lot less plausible.

Amusingly, the small and lightweight X-T1 with the porky 90mm lens mounted is almost exactly the same size and weight as the porky K-S2 with the small and lightweight 50-200mm lens. And either of them easily outweighs my entire Q7 Premium Kit bag with the body and five lenses inside!

From a distance the X-T1 looks perfect. When I started using it, I quickly found the annoying little quirks. The SD card door on the Fuji is flimsy and opens too easily. The buttons are flush and often difficult to push. The aperture ring on the 16mm lens turns too easily. I shot several photos yesterday that I thought were good, only to find that they were all at F16 -- in dim light! -- because the ring had been bumped off its A setting. Today I had a few moments of not understanding why the camera wouldn't work, until I saw I'd bumped the drive mode into multiple exposure. And then there's the exposure compensation dial. . . yeah.

And the viewfinder, the big and beautiful EVF which so many have praised, and it's a technological wonder -- right up until I needed to use it outdoors in bright sunlight. Then I was cussing, "I can't see a @#$% thing!" I dug into the menus and dialed up the EVF brightness to the maximum, then it was usable -- though still somewhat dim and ugly.

So, now I'm thinking this was a costly mistake. The Pentax is so much less troublesome, so robust and easy to operate than this contraption. Then I got home and loaded the photos into Lightroom. And I looked. . . And when it comes to image quality, the Fuji slays. It murdered the K-S2. Colors were natural, contrast was good, and the sharpness and clarity were like looking through a window.

Just to be sure, I went out and shot some test images with both cameras, with the Fuji 90mm and the Pentax 50-200mm, and the Fuji again walked all over the Pentax. However, I looked closely and concluded that the Pentax just might be flubbing the focus. I thought I'd fine-tuned that lens successfully, but I may not have dialed in enough compensation. So, I went back and shot another series of test photos, this time using live view on the Pentax. Using contrast-detection autofocus on the sensor should be the most accurate, right? And indeed, these photos were much improved. The difference between the Fuji and Pentax was much reduced -- but the Fuji still won.

And some of you will say, "Duh! You're comparing a cheap-and-slow zoom against a high-priced, fast prime." It's true. This is a battle of lenses, not camera bodies, and the big, heavy, costly prime lens won the battle. Thank you, Captain Obvious. But Pentax doesn't make a lens like this! It's not an option for the K-S2.

A much more fair, and more interesting, comparison will be when I get the Fuji 35mm and can test it against the 20-40mm Limited. Those lenses are closer in price and closer to filling the same role, albeit with different strategies. What's really nagging me now about the K-S2, though, isn't my selection of lenses. What's really nagging me is the difficulty getting autofocus through the viewfinder tuned up correctly. As we've moved to higher and higher megapixel counts, and expectations (and demands!) for sharpness have gone up and up, it seems like accurate focus has become more of a problem for DSLRs, and it's one that just doesn't arise with mirrorless cameras.

BIG BIG HELP for me Thx

[zoolander]

DFA can be slow to focus due to the long focus throw. It is noisy as well. DA* 50-135 is probably the best option to compare against the 90 - but the 50-135 can be slow to focus but the image quality is pretty amazing.

Yeah thats what I was thinking, i regularly get moire @ 2.8 on the 50-135mm, its a fantastic lens - my favorite. I've got some Fuji gear its pretty good, I've got the bottom of the line X-A1 with the really great high ISO. Comparing it next to the K-3, I think the K-3 is a better all rounder. I've tried out the X-Pro2 and the auto focus wasn't too great on the 100-400mm, plus the OIS kept failing regularly giving blurry shots, but the lens is real sharp. That was in a store with good lighting. Fuji uses film "simulations", whereas Pentax is "what you see is what you get". Though good, I think my Fuji is kinda like takes a facsimile rather than, the Pentax which takes an accurate representation of a scene.

I had a Sony SLT and it kicked butt over my old Nikon, and then I bought a K-5 and shot them side by side for a year, and thought the K-5 had 8 million fewer pixels, I came around to Pentax for the texture and the accurate representation of a scene (I'm talking Prime over Bionzx). The K-5 had slower AF just the images were real while the Sony's though beautiful felt contrived.

Similarly I've had this Fuji next to my K-3 and while the images are real good off the Fuji, Prime just does a better job over EXRii. I might get the X-T2 and put it head to head against my K-3, but the K-3 is over two years old now, but I do like the look of the XT2 with the faster shooting rates.

[Tony Belding]

Incidentally, I got the Pentax DFA 100mm F2.8 Macro lens, and I also picked up the LensAlign tool.

The DFA 100mm is smaller and lighter weight than the Fuji 90mm. The Pentax was around half the price, and is a stop slower, and is screw drive instead of linear motor, and most definitely not internal focusing, and also not as finely finished. However, the Fuji isn't a macro. I've always wanted a "real" macro lens, and this is it. And too, I get image stabilization on the Pentax side.

Focusing with the DFA 100 is fast, except when it isn't. It's really hopeless in live view, especially in dim light. Through the viewfinder, most of the time it seems able to keep up with the Fuji, at least in single focus mode. I haven't even tried continuous or tracking at all yet. And learning to use it for macro will be a whole new skill for me, I think.

I test my three main lenses against the LensAlign today and ended with these settings:

• 10-17mm Fisheye = +6
• 20-40mm Limited = +10 (!)
• 100mm Macro = +4

[noelpolar]

I probably waste too much time playing with all of DXO's camera and film profiles, but it's so fun!

I use DXO film profiles for a lot of my shots..... mostly 5 or 6 favourites I have set up..... easey as.... amazing hw certain images respond to different ones.

[zoolander]

Incidentally, I got the Pentax DFA 100mm F2.8 Macro lens, and I also picked up the LensAlign tool.

The DFA 100mm is smaller and lighter weight than the Fuji 90mm. The Pentax was around half the price, and is a stop slower, and is screw drive instead of linear motor, and most definitely not internal focusing, and also not as finely finished. However, the Fuji isn't a macro. I've always wanted a "real" macro lens, and this is it. And too, I get image stabilization on the Pentax side.

Focusing with the DFA 100 is fast, except when it isn't. It's really hopeless in live view, especially in dim light. Through the viewfinder, most of the time it seems able to keep up with the Fuji, at least in single focus mode. I haven't even tried continuous or tracking at all yet. And learning to use it for macro will be a whole new skill for me, I think.

I test my three main lenses against the LensAlign today and ended with these settings:

Nice ! The 100mm macro is something I'm interested in getting also, but I'm also interested in the new XT2 but its listed at some ridiculous price like the X-Pro2. Its not too far off the cost of the K-1 and if you want the boosted battery grip, I'm sure it will come to around the same price.

One of my other gripes with Fujifilm, is that the lenses have linear motors - thats not a bad thing - its that as a consequence, they don't have focus scales. Zeiss has an LCD distance scale on a couple of their lenses for mirrorless cameras (or whatever they fit), and Pentax too is going to linear motors. The HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE does not appear to have a distance scale. Linear motors in single or multiple configuration might be a very good setup where they just move the focusing elements back and forth, so there is no traditional mechanism that rotates to display the focus scale. Perhaps they could make a focus scale thats longitudinal - that would be better than nothing, or an LCD distance scale which Zeiss now probably hold the rights over.

Though I don't often use a distance scale, they are an integral part of photography. Though some say how cool Fujifilm is for being retro and traditional - where's the stinkin distance scale ? It can't be done ! Maybe it can (mechanically).

I don't quite know about the pricing of the XT2, a 7Dii is cheaper, and you don't have to buy the grip for turbo boost. Fuji is just pricing itself out of the market. Or a lot of the Fuji hype online gives Fuji a huge pair of b*lls to charge what they are charging - Its not what its worth, its what people are prepared to pay for it - Canikony marketing !!!!! Every dingaling has a youtube video heaping praise all over Fuji - they're like teenage girls at a boy band concert !

Its all about life after Canikon. They shoot Canikon, the IQ in apsc has been ordinary, they see Fuji IQ and go woooooooow ! Buts what happened when I left Nikon, I went Sony and the IQ was so much better than Canikon IQ. It was so much more punchier, vibrant, organic just better. Now with Fuji, its almost like my old Sony except it can actual white-balance properly. Yes the Portraits are very nice, yes smaller scenes are very nice, but outdoors for landscapes I give it a 4 out of 10 - where my K-3 just excels. These film simulations are in effect interpretations of a given scene - albeit the interpretation of computer programmers who built the X-Trans or EXR firmware. This is where My K-3 beats my Fuji, because Prime is not pretending to be a film simulation, its just what-you-see-is-what-you-get, no gimmicks juts accuracy. As soon as the firmware goes off a tangent to boost this or simulate that, like with my old Sony it looks like a contrived image and I also look back at the images and go - well thats not quite how I remembered it. With Fuji, the Firmware pushes one or two areas real well, but landscapes really suffer in the simulations.

Anyway, I hope you're enjoying both cameras !