| Author: | | Pentaxian Registered: November, 2011 Posts: 4,310
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 14, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $245.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Compact, light, well-built, renders nicely, useful field of view on APS-C | | Cons: | Some aberrations, somewhat less sharp at the edge of the APS-C field | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 9
Camera Used: K-x, K-01
| |
This lens was a contemporary of the M lenses (1977-84), sharing
their robust and compact build, and was usually listed together
with them in Pentax literature. Indeed, its 52mm filter
diameter, rather than the 49mm standard of the majority of the
M lenses, seems to be the only reason for any distinction
(although the M200/4 also has a 52mm filter diameter).
My copy of this lens came second-hand from KEH (rated EX+) in
early 2011, to be mounted on a K-x. After using a Summicron
35/2 for many years on film with a Leica, I was looking for a
lens around 24mm to give an equivalent field of view on APS-C.
Unfortunately, Pentax has not produced a K-mount prime in this
range since the FA 24/2, so the only options are third-party or
legacy. Although I have also acquired a Zeiss ZK 25/2.8
Distagon in the meantime, my K24/2.8 still sees plenty of use.
The Zeiss is sharper, but the K24/2.8 is lighter, cheaper, and
more compact, making it more convenient for casual use, more
discreet for street shooting, and more suitable for use in
situations where the lens might be at risk of damage or loss.
Looking at it another way, the K24/2.8 on the K-x (or
equivalent compact body) makes a cheaper and more versatile
substitute for cameras like the Leica X1 or Fuji X100.
The K24/2.8 has very good central sharpness, and acceptable
edges, stopped down to f/5.6 - f/8. Fully open, it makes nice
portraits, and the central sharpness is good enough for
moderately easy manual focusing, on occasions when you don't
just want to go hyperfocal on the distance scale. The color
rendering is very pleasing, better than most standard zooms,
and the lens is quite resistant to flare. There is some barrel
distortion, mild and simple enough to be corrected easily in
cases where it might be critical.
| | | | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2012 Location: France Posts: 9
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 27, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $145.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | sharpness in the center-contrast color balance-class build quality, light and pleasant | | Cons: | Short focus throw-edge sharpness | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-5
| |
 lens, perfect for use every day.
exellent build quality.
Focusing delicate between 2.2 m and infinity (requires a little practice).
the colors of my copies are excellent in natural light, and slightly yellow in tungsten light (I think it's better to shoot in RAW especially with older lenses).
the contrast is very good especially with a lens cap.
there are two sharpness.
the center is a good 2.8, excellent f4 to f11, diffraction has some f16 but usable.
the sharpness of the edges is very average for prime lens.
yet not wanting in overall sharpness.
The bokeh (when present) is silky and pleasant.
I have a lot of fun with this lens, it is always on my K-5 or in my bag if I need.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: September, 2010 Location: Lyon area, France Posts: 718 | | Review Date: January 19, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Nice FOV on digital | | Cons: | Short focus throw | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 5
Value: 7
Camera Used: K-5
| |
This is a nice lens on digital, with a moderate wide angle FOV equivalent to a 35mm.
I bought it to complement my M50 and M100 and I mostly like it, but I am a bit disappointed with IQ: images are a bit softer than I expected from a prime. This might be in part caused by misfocus, (EDIT: after using it a few more outings, the lens is SHARP! indeed but)since the throw is very short, the lens is quite difficult to focus accurately at middle distances (1-10m).
Still good value considering the relatively low price paid for an excellent condition copy.
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: October, 2010 Location: Richmond, Virginia Posts: 36
2 users found this helpful
| | | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: December, 2008 Posts: 2,361
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 29, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $180.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Build quality, image quality, focus action | | Cons: | Expensive | |
Ok firstly, the vast majority of my experience with this lens has been with m43 (GH2), on which is becomes a 'normal' 48mm equivalent. I've also used it on Pentax film (LX and MX) and digital SLRs (K20D, K-7), but not enough to form a solid opinion.
Bare in mind that on a GH2 you can shoot this in Aperture priority. No stop-down metering, just set the aperture, focus, fire  Very easy and intuitive...
Ok the short and fast...
Focussing: Terrific. The mechanism is wonderfully smooth and tactile, and the simple 10x magnificantion on the GH2 EVF makes it a breeze to be precise. No complaints, I love it.
Build: Once again, terrific. I have several early Pentax K-mount lenses and this has the best build quality of all of them.
Size/portability: On micro-fourthirds its obviously bigger than it needs to be - for instance, its significantly bigger than the similar length but faster Panasonic 20/f1.7. However, it is wonderfully balanced on the GH2 and is very comfortable to use (looks great mounted too)
IQ: Very good. Even out wide its fairly sharp - stopped down to f5.6 - f8 it is, at first glance, as sharp as the 20/f1.7. Very very good, even on the 16mp GH2. There is a tiny bit of glow noticeable at f2.8 but it cleans up instantly with a slight levels adjustment in post. I really like the bokeh and personally find it preferable to the 20/f1.7, but each to their own. It is very consistently shaped through the aperture range though, which is nice. There is slight CA, especially in the corners. Contrast and colours are beautiful.
Overall: I really really like this lens. The focus assist on m43 makes it very usable, despite being manual focus, and the IQ is steller, especially stopped down.
The only real con is that when used on m43, it is slow for a 'normal' prime. It is also reasonably expensive for an old manual lens (although my copy was mint).
f2.8
(Non working link removed)
f5.6
f5.6
f2.8
f3.5
| | | | |
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 11, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $165.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | contrast, colour, sharp, light, small | | Cons: | none | |
......this lens is sharper with better contrast and color rendition. You'd be hard pressed to find a lens as quick handling and smooth as this. Results for me have been faultless. A well deserved 10. Highly recommended.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: October, 2008 Location: Sweden Posts: 359
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 1, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Color, contrast, sharpness and build quality | | Cons: | short focus throw can be an issue | |
The K24/2.8 has a very nice rendering of colours and contrast. At F2.8 it's perfectly usable for indoor snapshots or "bokeh-shots".....in other words: pictures where border sharpness is not that important. At F4 it improves to a "very good" level and at F5.6 both centre and borders reach excellent sharpness.
I also own the K28/3.5 and K35/3.5. Both these lenses are sharper and more contrasty. However, the K24/2.8 is still a very very good lens. Keep mind that its focus throw is short which makes it more difficult to nail focus.
Kind regards
.lars
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: March, 2010 Posts: 72
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 4, 2010 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Excellent IQ, lightweight, robust | | Cons: | | |
To reach a nuanced assessment of K24/2.8, two types of comparison are useful. On the one hand, the lens may be compared to other 24mm's, specifically the Sigma 24/2.8 Super-wide II, which is widely regarded as one of the sharpest 24mm's on the (second-hand) market. On the other hand, it may be compared to other wide-angle K's; specifically, I will present a comparison with K20/4.0. (I am using a K7, so the evaluations hold for digital only.)
K24/2.8 and Sigma 24/2.8 Super-wide II
On the basis of existing tests and evaluations, the Sigma could be expected to easily outperform the K24/2.8, but with the copies I have tested, things turned out to be more nuanced. With infinity focus (note that both lenses reach infinity very soon), center resolution is comparable on both lenses. At the periphery of the infinity focus plane, Sigma has more resolution than K24/2.8, but in the foreground, K24/2.8 sweeps away the Sigma in no uncertain terms. With focus in the foreground, center sharpness is the same, but peripheral resolution is better on the Pentax.
The colors on K24/2.8 are warmer and more contrasty than the more clinical ones on the Sigma Super-wide, but it's very much a matter of taste (and willingness to spend time on post-processing) whether you want to consider that a distinctive criterion or not.
Overall, a comparison in terms of image quality seems to favour - by a small margin - the K24/2.8, but then of course, Sigma Super-wide has the advantage of automatic metering with the A-position. The Pentax A24/2.8 is optically identical to the K24/2.8, however, so the absence of automatic metering can be overcome if you opt for the A-version. Also, the Sigma has an outspoken tendency to overexpose, i.e. the automatic metering should not be trusted blindly. Both are solidly built and both function smoothly, so that's not where the difference lies either.
In conclusion, both lenses are excellent, and I'd be hard pressed to formulate a final preference for one of them. As 24mm achieves a very useful not-too-wide angle on digital, either of these lenses will give you a lot and a lot of photographic pleasure.
K24/2.8 and K20/4.0
Both lenses turn out to be highly reliable performers; as far as I have been able to judge, any differences in image quality do no justify a strong preference for one over the other. With infinity focus, the differences in sharpness and contrast are negligeable, both in the center of the image and in the periphery. With foreground focus, the results are again similar. Colors in both cases come out warm and lively, and both lenses obviously share the robust build and the smooth operation of all the K lenses. The K20/4.0 seems to be more susceptible to purple fringing than K24/2.8, and you need to be more careful for overexposure. In addition, K24/2.8 is lighter and faster (but in my personal shooting experience, the slower nature of K20/4.0 has never constituted a problem).
In sum, the main criterion for choosing between K24/2.8 and K20/4.0 is field of view rather than image quality, which is on a par in both lenses. If the width of the K20/4.0 is not an absolute must for your shooting purposes, K24/2.8 is the more convenient option. | | | | | Inactive Account Registered: November, 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 188 | | Review Date: June 29, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | contrast, colour, sharp, light, small | | Cons: | MF with short focus throw | |
I compared it at f4 with Pentax 12-24 and could not believe my eyes. This $150 lens couldn't be so much sharper than the best Pentax modern wide lens! There is a class of difference in colour, contrast and sharpness. Yes, I know - 12-24 is a zoom lens and this one is a prime, but still...
I give it 9 because of a short focus throw. I go around it by shooting mostly at f4 and f5.6 where DOF becomes deep enough for me to be able focus fast and reliably.
I love wide angle and will keep the 12-24 zoom for party photos with a flash, but this 24mm will be always with me when I take a group photos of my kids soccer teams.
Highly recommended (and not only because of the low price).
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: March, 2009 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 509
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 4, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $140.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Compact, well built, color rendering | | Cons: | none | |
A gorgeous lens. Can I say gorgeous?
Excellent throughout. Usable at f2.8. Fantastic if stop down one level. Excellent color rendition. Compact. Just a wonderful lens.
Tested with higher resolution at f2.8 than FA* 24mm at f2. The FA* does have higher contrast, but not by much.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: March, 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Posts: 7,183
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 10, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $165.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Built quality, rendering, flare control | | Cons: | short focus throw (read more) | |
Now this is a nice lens!
---
To elaborate bit more. The only reason I didn't give it 10 is that it is MF.
The built quality gives run for the money even to Ltds (both FA & DA). It's nice and small (not much bigger than fast 50). It has very good weight, and feels great on K10D + grip.
At f2.8 it's decently sharp and stopped down it's just great. By f5.6-8 it's as sharp as anything you throw at it.
I used to have Sigma 24/2.8 AF and after comparing these two lenses I have to say Pentax wins IMO. Sigma may have slight edge in sharpness, but overall tone, contrast and flare resistance are much better on this K lens.
Only shame is that the focus throw is bit short. It's around 1/3 of turn but the distance between 2.2m and infinity is only like 1/10th of turn. This makes focusing wide open on distances around 5m bit tricky.
There could be more aperture blades too (it only has 5) but the bokeh is good anyway
---
I do wish it was AF but then I'd probably be forced to pay around 3x as much as I did.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: October, 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,092
5 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 11, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $190.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Cost & sharpness. | | Cons: | Too light weight for my taste, I like the handling of the bigger K24/3.5 better. | | Camera Used: K Series film bodies (K1000, KM, KX, K2, K2DMD)
| |
The K24/2.8 was a direct replacement for the K24/3.5, which is a shame as it would have been nice if Pentax had both available at the same time. Both are great lenses and 24mm is a popular focal length on a film camera, so a couple choices would seem like a good idea. (The 28mm & 35mm FLs had multiple lenses available to choose from.)
Optically the K24/2.8 is a great lens, it’s sharp and fast for a lens of this focal length. The contrast is also very good, though I like the K24/3.5 a little more. The K24/2.8 is the fastest K series ultra wide angle lens, so it’s 2/3 stop better than the K24/3.5. The K24/2.8 has a dedicated lens hood, not shared with other K series lenses.
As the K24/2.8 was released in 1977, I suspect Pentax would have included it as part of the new M series lenses, if not for the fact that it had a 52mm filter thread. (The 52mm filter thread is associated with the K series lenses as one of the three standard sizes; 52mm, 58mm & 77mm) For me the K24/2.8 doesn’t feel or look like other “K” series lenses, it could have been a bit heftier.
It’s a tough call as to which K series 24mm lens is better, both are great lenses and excel in different areas. The K24/2.8 is sharper, easier to find and it will cost you less. The K24/3.5 handles better and produces stunning images. It’s a toss-up, if you can afford it buy both, then do your own comparison!
Sample shots taken with the K24/2.8. Photos are low resolution scans from original slides.
Camera: KX Film: Kodachrome 64 ISO: 64
Camera: LX Film: Fuji Provia 400X ISO: 360
 | | | | | Forum Member Registered: April, 2009 Location: Treviso (Italy) Posts: 87 | | Review Date: August 30, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Colors, filters diameter, dimension | | Cons: | none | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 9
| |
Excellent film wide angle for landscape and excellent street lens on dslr.
I love this lens.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: February, 2009 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 527 | | Review Date: March 4, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $180.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | A nice lens, very light | | Cons: | Replaced it with an A version | |
Lightweight, 52mm filter. It is sharp although not up to the 28mm f2 FA lens. Very pocketable. I replaced it with a 'A' version.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: August, 2007 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 233
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 3, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Good Construction, Compact Size, Excellent Center Sharpness, Great Color Saturation. | | Cons: | Border sharpness could be better. | |
I really like the 24mm focal length, for normal use, it is one of the best. I too, have used two Tamron 24mm (adaptall 2 early and late version, they are very different despite having the "same" optical formula) and this Pentax K 24mm.
I found this lens to be really compact (as compared to other 24mm lenses). Being a K lens, the construction is beautiful, focus ring is really smooth.
As others have mentioned, the colors from this lens are great. The saturation is much better than the Tamron 24mm adaptall 2's.
The center is pretty sharp, even wide open. My one qualm with this lens is that border sharpness is lacking until about f5.6. The Tamron 24mm actually is much better in this regard. However, most older Pentax lenses are like that, especially the old Takumars. Some people actually like that effect, but personally, I think you can always blur easier than you can sharpen in postprocessing.
In the end, if you are not a collector and what you care about most is image quality, then is this Pentax lens worth $150 compared to a $50 Tamron? (which is only slightly inferior, if you get the later version, my sample of the early version was terrible)  | | |
;)
;)
;)
