| Author: | | New Member Registered: February, 2016 Location: lake constance Posts: 1
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 17, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | average performance, extremely high mechanical quality | | Cons: | out of production | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax MX, ME super, Sony A7
| |
This lens is not as sharp as I hoped and I expected a bit more optical quality from a K lens. The crispy sharpness can be reached by stopping down to 16 or 22, but not former on my copy. In the most cases I will do this, because in landscape photography it is useful for the intention of showing wide and open spaces. The infinity stop is very tricky. I think, the former SMC 3.5 24mm made a better performance in this point - however it wasn´t such a compact lens.
But this is only in comparison with really top lenses of the K System. There isn´t any significant difference between my Nikkor 2.8 24mm AIS and this lens here.
But the focus and aperture ring of the SMC is a class of its own. Silky and smooth moving of the mechanical components. I bought the Nikkor new in 1988. No 25 years later it had a dry focus ring inside. I bought the SMC used, when it was already 40 years old and it is a joy to work with it. The Super Multi Coating is a dream for digital shooting too.
The focal length of a 24mm lens is a joy for landscape photography. In comparison with my M 4 20mm and my M 3.5 28mm it is golden in the most cases! | | | | | | |
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: 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.
| | | | | New Member Registered: April, 2019 Posts: 5 | | Review Date: March 6, 2023 | Recommended | Price: $222.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | great color, build | | Cons: | hard to focus | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Camera Used: k100d, k200d, k-2
| |
i got some terrible results on the k100d and k200d, focus confirmation is impossible. better luck on the k-r because of live view. the best results i got on mirrorless cameras such as a5100 and z50. there the 24/2.8 shines!
| | | | | | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: June, 2013 Location: Utrecht Posts: 255
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 18, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $75.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Compact, well build, very sharp stopped down, almost no CA | | Cons: | Despite looking new mine suffered balsam separation | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 10
Value: 9
Camera Used: K2 to K1ii
| |
This is a bit strange review because mine has a serious fault. It badly suffers balsam separation. So I score it for IQ like my A24 that I also own (and reviewed) wich has the same optics but a different housing and A-setting.
I bought this lens six years ago looking unused and brand new in the original box but later discovered it was a bad bargain. In bright light it flares like hell, in fact it's now a special effect lens for me and a "presse papier". I tried to separate the faulty two lens elements apart and repair it but I didn't manage that. Several solvants, putting it in hot oil, nothing worked, the two elements remained Siamese twins  .
For build quality, estethics and color of the coatings I find the K-version more attractive than the A-version. It's a beautiful looking lens that was sold as a K-lens but in fact is a 100% M-era-lens. The K3.5/24 is the real K24 to mine opinion. If you can find a prestine K2.8/24 I can recommend it.
 | | | | | Senior Member Registered: May, 2014 Posts: 138
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 23, 2015 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | little to no flare, size, manual focusing feel | | Cons: | f/2.8 not that sharp, soft in corners | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-50
| |
I have used this lens for about 1 year now - it was time to contribute with a review. I use this lens as a landscape lens only. It would work well for street shooting as well given that it's relatively fast but probably an A 24 would do better on street because of its automation.
- Sharpness is not that great at f2.8 - the max aperture is usable but it's probably the weak point of this lens. On top of that the sharpness in the corners is problematic on 35mm format. Given that I use this for landscape where the aperture stays between f5.6-f16, the sharpness is really not an issue for me. As a matter of fact, I have printed some of my best shots at 30x45cm and I feel I could print 60x90cm without reaching the sharpness limit of the lens. If I had to rate sharpness starting from f5.6 it would get a 10 but otherwise just an 8 from me.
- Bokeh is nice and rather smooth than nervous
- Color rendition seems very natural to me - something very good for landscape
- Flare is amazingly well controlled. I was very surprised seeing how well it controls flare for its age. Either you don't see any or if you see it just looks good - well at least it looks good to me. There is a photo below showing a flare that I produced on purpose.
- Purple fringing level on digital is low
- Built is typical SMC K therefore very good and focusing feel is again, typical and very good
Here are some of my best landscapes, done with this lens:
Links removed
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2013 Location: Florida Posts: 426
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 23, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $140.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Wide on FF | | Cons: | Slight vignette depending on filter used | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: LX, K-01
| |
Overall my favorite wide angle lens that I have used. 95% used on film. Never use it on digital for pictures, it is a good focal length for video however in aps-c. No A ring means you do a bit more work on digital.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: October, 2009 Location: North Posts: 4,709
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 21, 2014 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | small; f2.8; center sharp wide open; overall sharp enough stopped down | | Cons: | corners can be a bit sharper stopped down on FF | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Camera Used: K5; K30; Sony A7 (FF)
| |
This is a review of the lens on FF (Sony A7)
I have left full sized samples on flickr.
DSC0080120140110ILCE-7-11-1 by jenkwang, on Flickr
@f8
DSC0124020140113ILCE-7 by jenkwang, on Flickr
@f2.8
DSC0122420140113ILCE-7 by jenkwang, on Flickr
@f5.6
Not much to complain about this lens for me, one of the smaller slr 24/2.8 out there typical of Pentax, flare resistant smc coating, wide enough for quite a bit of things on FF.
Sharp (very) in the center wide open and overall sharp stopped down to f5.6 and above.
I gave the sharpness score as 8, but its more like a '9' where it matters (usually in the center at f2.8) and '8' in the corners stopped down at f8 on FF.
So on average more 8.5 if there was a selection for this score.
Very portable as its so small, it is not something every camera brand can offer nowadays for a FF 24mm at f2.8 on FF.
I can't emphasize it enough.
Bokeh is generally ok too, which is already very good compared to may wide angles of the 24-28mm focal length.
This was a favourite for me on aps-c, on FF, I do think its even better.
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: November, 2012 Posts: 1
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 13, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $160.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | build, color | | Cons: | sharpness at corner | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Camera Used: K-5
| |
Got this lens half a year ago on ebay, surprised by nice color and the excellent build, sharpness at the center is fine but you can't expect that for the whole range. overall, considering the money, this is a nice wide-angle lens to keep.
| | | | | 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.
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: October, 2010 Location: Richmond, Virginia Posts: 36
2 users found this helpful
| | | | | 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, 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.
| | |
;)
;)
;)
