[clackers]

Thanks for pointing out that the 560 is FF capable. I didn’t know that. There’s no doubt that they have the range covered by those zooms, and that they could certainly make up the main kit of a pro. But I said that they had limited modern lenses, and that’s true when compared to their competitors. Granted, they are new to the digital FF game, but the fact remains. They’ve got 6, counting the dfa50/1.4, right? That being said, for his stated purpose, buying the K1 with the 24-70 or 28-105 would be be great. But if he’s looking to build a kit with more modern primes he may want to look elsewhere.

Yeah, I think he just needs the K-1 and 28-105 and may never need to buy another lens in his life, Neokind, after all, we are photographers, not collectors, right?

If it was collection, native K-mount lenses probably number in the hundreds and go back to 1975 it will be next to impossible to buy them all - who has the cash, for starters?

Even professionals need no more than an UW, normal and tele f2.8 lens, that's why they're called The Holy Trinity.

There are arbitrary standards and lists all over the internet, but just to show that it can be done, PetaPixel found Pentax the clear winner here versus the other brands. And we've all been told if you go mirrorless it'll be cheaper, but it's not so, either:

How Much a Full Pro Camera and Lens Set Costs for Each Brand

---

Last edited by clackers; 08-25-2019 at 04:35 PM.

[SSGGeezer]

No doubt that those all work, and work well on the K1. For my FF $$ I’d want more modern lenses than the 6 I mentioned. The FA lenses are very nice, especially the 31 & 77, however I wish there were updated versions optimized for modern cameras. By that I mean that they have updated coatings, optimization for digital sensors, and modern AF motors (not screw driven).

Well, nine of those appear to be pretty modern with good coatings and silent focusing, and that is ignoring the FA 31, 43, and 77 which still hold up very well on full frame. Heck, I have been acquiring FA* lenses and when I started, I didn’t even have a K-1!😀
I can definitely say that my FA*80-200 holds up well for a 15+ year old lens on my K-1. If the OP has more than a few lenses that work well on FF like the DA 40 and even the 55-300 PLM, a low shutter count K-1 of either mark at the right price is a no brainer! PENTAX colors and similarities between bodies does make a difference. (At least it does to me.)

[biz-engineer]

Given that B&H currently has the A7II in kit with 28-70 for $988, the dreams is not too far out of reality. Most of my current lenses are FF and adaptable to Sony. I might be seriously interested if I had mad money.

Oh yeah, I know that Sony makes FF kits under 1K with their old camera models, that's the hook. And then how much is that for that 85 1.4 prime and that 16-25 and that 70-200? What's the point of getting a full frame camera if you can only afford the kit lens and then you are stuck because you don't have the budget for buying the other lenses. Better stay with apsc in that case.

---------- Post added 25-08-19 at 08:22 ----------

A pro could do any job with the DFA15-30, DFA 24-70, DFA 70-200, DFA 150-450 and DA560

Yep, we can always complain, but let's be honest with ourselves: kudo to small Pentax brand to have pulled, few, nevertheless all the modern lenses from 15mm to 450. I look at some other brands like Panasonic and Sony, that rely (or mostly relied) on third party glass for their full frame system. Yes, the DFA 15-30 and 24-70 but Ricoh modified those designs to include coatings, and in camera lens corrections. That's not bad at all for a small brand like Pentax.

[Rondec]

Mirrorless folks in a sense do have a lot of options when it comes to glass, due to the short registration distance. If, for instance, you have a bunch of full frame K mount lenses, you could buy an older A7 model and an adapter and mount them for cheap.

If however, they don't have aperture rings, the adapter options become fewer and if you want auto focus with your k mount lenses (all of mine auto focus on a K-1) that is not going to happen (there is a tech art adapter that provides some auto focus, but it requires rough manual focusing first). Certainly using K mount lenses on a K mount camera is a more seamless experience.

As far as the lack of modern lenses comment, Pentax has "enough" lenses between current ones and used ones, to cover most photographer's needs. And while Sony has a line up of G Master lenses that are recent designs, I wouldn't be able to afford such a line up, whereas I could afford the DFA 24-70/15-30/70-200 along with the FA limiteds (not bought all at once and not all bought new) and those do seem to cover my needs with a price I could handle.

[TaoMaas]

Mirrorless folks in a sense do have a lot of options when it comes to glass, due to the short registration distance. If, for instance, you have a bunch of full frame K mount lenses, you could buy an older A7 model and an adapter and mount them for cheap.

This is exactly why I'm having the "K1 vs Sony A7rii" debate with myself, too. For me, it's boiling down to more megapixels and better video vs a FF camera that works better with my lenses. I'm leaning towards the Sony, but can't quite bring myself to pull the trigger.

[Winder]

This is exactly why I'm having the "K1 vs Sony A7rii" debate with myself, too. For me, it's boiling down to more megapixels and better video vs a FF camera that works better with my lenses. I'm leaning towards the Sony, but can't quite bring myself to pull the trigger.

If you have older manual focus glass with an aperture ring, then the A7rII is a joy to use. There are some really great lenses from Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, & Contax and they all work great. If you have a lot of Pentax FF AF glass then the K-1 is the way to go. The megapixel difference and image quality is not going to make a difference. Sony video is definitely a big step up if you need it, but ergonomics and build quality of the K-1 is definitely better. You can buy the A7rii and use adapters and eventually pick up native Sony glass or some of the new Tamron or Sigma glass. Stay with Pentax and get the new D-FA* glass as it comes out.

[neokind]

Yeah, I think he just needs the K-1 and 28-105 and may never need to buy another lens in his life, Neokind, after all, we are photographers, not collectors, right?

For basic stuff, definitely. As to not being collectors...maybe you aren't. ;-)

If it was collection, native K-mount lenses probably number in the hundreds and go back to 1975 it will be next to impossible to buy them all - who has the cash, for starters?

Plenty do. You've seen the gear lists people have here and elsewhere, as have I.

Even professionals need no more than an UW, normal and tele f2.8 lens, that's why they're called The Holy Trinity.

Yep. For the most part, I'd agree with you. But primes exist for a reason. And the point I have been attempting to make (and seems to either have been poorly made, or just ignored) is that despite our affection for the Pentax brand, that their list of modern lenses is quite short. That is objectively true. Many want to include their favorite legacy lenses, or DA lenses that offer full frame coverage at most focal lengths. But I'm talking about modern lenses designed for FF cameras. I'm not trying to run down the brand, or be negatively critical where it's not warranted, only to state a fact.

There are arbitrary standards and lists all over the internet, but just to show that it can be done, PetaPixel found Pentax the clear winner here versus the other brands. And we've all been told if you go mirrorless it'll be cheaper, but it's not so, either:

How Much a Full Pro Camera and Lens Set Costs for Each Brand

That list gives an unfair advantage to Pentax. It subs two third party lenses that are far less expensive than the equivalent native lenses might be if they existed. Additionally, it includes the DFA 100 macro, which is screw driven, so of course it's cheaper than its rivals, as well as the 77/1.8 which is a fabulous lens, but designed for film and screw driven. Each of the other brand lists is filled out with native lenses, designed for modern digital sensors. If we filled out the other lists with vintage and third party lenses where this list did for Pentax the numbers would be closer. Pentax would certainly end up lower priced, as it usually does because it does indeed offer a solid value proposition, but comparing apples to oranges as this list did is hardly helpful to those who value a like-for-like comparison.

---------- Post added 08-26-19 at 05:29 PM ----------

As far as the lack of modern lenses comment, Pentax has "enough" lenses between current ones and used ones, to cover most photographer's needs. And while Sony has a line up of G Master lenses that are recent designs, I wouldn't be able to afford such a line up, whereas I could afford the DFA 24-70/15-30/70-200 along with the FA limiteds (not bought all at once and not all bought new) and those do seem to cover my needs with a price I could handle.

For sure. However, Sony's got the Sony/Zeiss lenses, standard Sony lenses, G, and G Master--all of which are quite recent. They've just had more time to develop, and have poured a ton of R&D and Marketing $$ into the project. I'm not as familiar with the depreciation of the Pentax lenses you mentioned these days, but I know that Sony's hold value fairly well. Pentax's FA limiteds always held good value, right? Is the same true for the other DFAs? I know the reviews are pretty solid, so I'd imagine used ones get snapped up pretty quickly and not that far off retail values, if they're in good shape.

---

Last edited by neokind; 08-26-2019 at 05:30 PM.

[luftfluss]

The FA lenses are very nice, especially the 31 & 77, however I wish there were updated versions optimized for modern cameras. By that I mean that they have updated coatings, optimization for digital sensors, and modern AF motors (not screw driven).

FWIW, the SMC coatings on older Pentax DA Ltd's are at least as good as the modern Fuji and Olympus lenses I've used.

The noise from the screwdrive usually only lasts for a fraction of a second on small primes (except the 35 Macro) so is that really that big of a deal?

"Updating" the FA Ltd's optical formulas would change the nature of their rendering... they would no longer be The Princesses. Pentax connects to their past more than any other mainstream camera mfr - yes, sometimes it's out of necessity - so I think their plan of the DFA 50 and the (eventually) upcoming 85 and 35 is the proper way to go.

[neokind]

FWIW, the SMC coatings on older Pentax DA Ltd's are at least as good as the modern Fuji and Olympus lenses I've used.

That may be the case, but I have no experience to compare. Pentax did presumably update to the HD coatings for a reason, though.

The noise from the screwdrive usually only lasts for a fraction of a second on small primes (except the 35 Macro) so is that really that big of a deal?

Noise is part of it, especially affecting video, through Pentax isn’t really focused on that market. And the screw drive does offer a smaller, lighter lens. But it’s considerably slower than DC and other newer AF motors. I don’t know how the accuracy compares because the body plays a role there too.

"Updating" the FA Ltd's optical formulas would change the nature of their rendering... they would no longer be The Princesses. Pentax connects to their past more than any other mainstream camera mfr - yes, sometimes it's out of necessity - so I think their plan of the DFA 50 and the (eventually) upcoming 85 and 35 is the proper way to go.

I totally agree on the plan. It would put them in similar focal lengths as their competitors, making the purchasing decision’s points more easy to compare and therefore to conclude. But at the moment it’s a plan, not a reality. If someone appreciates the value proposition of Pentax, has the patience to wait and/or is okay using older designs, Pentax is a fine system. However, if one needs to shoot soon and wants a wider selection of modern lenses it’s probably not the best fit. One decision isn’t objectively better than the other. It just depends what you want, what you want to spend, and when you want it.

[clackers]

For basic stuff, definitely. As to not being collectors...maybe you aren't. ;-)

I think you've lost sympathy of ordinary shooters at this point, Neokind.

Go Leica if you really want to spend lots of money others don't have.

From that Petapixel list Pentax offers the best value for any full frame shooters, it's stronger in its APS-C offerings than anyone bar Fuji, has the professional Holy Trinity of modern f2.8 zooms, the glorious FA Limited primes that you already know about, and the DFA* series of primes starting with the 50 and then 85 then 35 or similar, and even has the 645Z for people who want to splash the cash in medium format.

I shot with an A7R III and the 70-200 f2.8 G Master lens the other weekend (I already own an A7), went 'meh' after an hour, gave it back and resumed shooting with my K-1.

[neokind]

I think you've lost sympathy of ordinary shooters at this point, Neokind.

Go Leica if you really want to spend lots of money others don't have.

I should have paired that response with the second one. There are many here who are in fact collectors. I don't have a ton of lenses.

For the money, a FF Pentax system can't be had for less. If one is interested in modern options, Sony offers more, for more money. To the original question, between a K1 w/ 28-105 or A7ii and 24-105, both sourced new if available, the difference is only a few hundred dollars, right? But for ~$1k it would be hard to do in Pentax, where Sony offers the A7ii/24-70 package in that range, even if that kit lens isn't as high performance as either the Pentax or Sony mid-range zooms.

Why stop at Leica? Let's go to the 645z, Phase One, or Hasselblad.

[clackers]

To the original question, between a K1 w/ 28-105 or A7ii and 24-105, both sourced new if available, the difference is only a few hundred dollars, right?

You're only getting 24Mp with the A7 II, Neokind, Alvin already has a K-3 for that, for the outlay let's actually do an upgrade in image quality.

[Rondec]

I should have paired that response with the second one. There are many here who are in fact collectors. I don't have a ton of lenses.

For the money, a FF Pentax system can't be had for less. If one is interested in modern options, Sony offers more, for more money. To the original question, between a K1 w/ 28-105 or A7ii and 24-105, both sourced new if available, the difference is only a few hundred dollars, right? But for ~$1k it would be hard to do in Pentax, where Sony offers the A7ii/24-70 package in that range, even if that kit lens isn't as high performance as either the Pentax or Sony mid-range zooms.

Why stop at Leica? Let's go to the 645z, Phase One, or Hasselblad.

If we are talking about the A7 II, it only has 24 megapixels, no image stabilization and is a pretty ancient camera by today's standards. I thought the OP was talking about the A7r II which has a better sensor, better video and IBIS. But of course it is 1800 dollars for the body alone.

[Winder]

You're only getting 24Mp with the A7 II, Neokind, Alvin already has a K-3 for that, for the outlay let's actually do an upgrade in image quality.

As the owner of both a K-3 and the A7II - The A7II is an upgrade in image quality. Maybe not in resolution, but the colors, transitions and tones are definitely better. They both have some issues in terms of colors, but the A7II is definitely an upgrade. The new Fuji XT-3 is probably better than the A7II overall, but even the XT-3 has some issues with reds and shifting towards magenta.

[biz-engineer]

As the owner of both a K-3 and the A7II - The A7II is an upgrade in image quality. Maybe not in resolution, but the colors, transitions and tones are definitely better. They both have some issues in terms of colors, but the A7II is definitely an upgrade. The new Fuji XT-3 is probably better than the A7II overall, but even the XT-3 has some issues with reds and shifting towards magenta.

For me, all this is minor details that play no role in image results. The photos we get depends 99.99% on our subjects and lighting, the minimum condition to get a good image with any camera. I can't believe I have wasted so many years paying attention to camera gear, while I could have moved forward by investing my attention to other things that make or break a photograph. A lot of attention given to camera gear is a bad sign for a photographer.