OK, wide angles. I remember back almost 20 years ago when I first bought a FA*24/2.0 and took it out for a test drive. First look through the viewfinder and I was blown away. At some point I bought an A-20/2.8 and wow.
Once I got into the wonderful world of 1.5x digital, my early lenses were 16-45, 50-135. So, 24-70ish, 70-200ish.I went out for a day’s shooting with my brother, borrowed his DA12-24 [18-35ish] and liked that. Eventually got one of my own, and the DA14, and the DA15 though not all at the same time. (Some of these were still on my shelf when I was planning Alaska, but I didn’t chart them as I never had any intention of taking my wider APS-C lenses as they gave me little if any advantage over the 24-70 I knew I would take for the K-1. The 20-40 for the K-3 was a compromise, smaller and lighter than a 16-50 and thus more likely to be used by my wife.) In sum, my prior experience on film cameras went no wider than 20mm and with APS-C had been no wider than a 14mm (21mm FOV equivalence). So, moving to a 15mm lens on the full frame is quite a move for me. On my Alaska trip I could have taken advantage of a wider lens a few times (widest I took was the D FA24-70) but I got by with 2-3 shot panos, some handheld, some from a tripod. Actually I did have the A-20mm in my bag but seldom used it. Easier to do the panos and work on them later than it would have been to switch lenses. One of the things that my FOV chart made apparent to me was how much I could extend my range on the wide end by adding the D FA15-30 or something in that class. And I am thinking ahead to time in the narrow alleys and canals of Venice later this year... In general I much prefer to stick with Pentax items. particularly modern lenses with good autofocus and weather sealing. I was tempted by the new IRIX lenses, their 15mm is out there, their 11mm is out or will be very soon. Weather sealed, check, but not AF. When I saw a good deal on a LNIB D FA15-30 from KEH, on the day they were doing a 10% price reduction on all stock, I made the plunge. I have now had the D FA15-30 for a while. I am quite liking that lens and appreciate the wide end. If Pentax sold a wider (rectilinear) lens, I probably would not be interested. To your points, if I went off-brand and gave up weather sealing and AF yes I could find something equivalent for an APS-C body. So many tradeoffs in all of this, and at the end of the day I have only minor regrets in choosing the K-1 over APS-C. And that regret is that my favorite shoulder bag is no longer adequate. stan > On Mar 27, 2017, at 2:17 PM, P. J. Alling <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Part of the lack of real wide angle with APS-C is a matter of the lenses you > had. Judging from spreadsheet the widest was the DA 20-40. > > Now I'd prefer all Pentax lenses, but there are ultra wide angle lenses for > APS-C from other manufactures. The Samyang 10mm f2.8 is ultrawide by any > standard, sure it's manual focus but at 10mm DOF pretty much takes care of > focusing even wide open, and there's the Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 or the older > version that's f4.0~5.6. All three have the reputation of being fine lenses. > Then there's the venerable Pentax 12-24. Which isn't really ultrawide. > It's not a huge selection, but there are pretty good options. > > Now there are lots of reasons to prefer a K-1 the larger viewfinder is reason > in itself, but I don't think there there's lens wider than 14mm for K mount > that covers FF, and I'm pretty sure that the selection is just about as > limited as for APS-C. You've got the Pentax branded Tamron design 15-30, a > Sigma or two in that range, the old A 15mm f3.5, the Samyang 14mm there may > be others but I can't think of them off the top of my head. They're not all > that thick on the ground. > > > On 3/27/2017 10:35 AM, Stanley Halpin wrote: >> Looking for something totally else, I came across this spreadsheet on my >> hard drive: a spreadsheet comparing the field of view of various lenses on >> each of these 3 Pentax systems: K-1, APS-C, and 645Z. No new information, >> nothing that most of us don’t already know about how various lenses behave >> in combination with various sensors, but I found it useful to lay it out >> this way to be able to visually compare. >> >> Dropbox link here to a pdf of the single page spreadsheet: >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/qn2tzf43nh77n1q/Lens%20FOV%20Comparison.pdf?dl=0 >> >> Background: Last summer I spent a lot of time and effort in preparation for >> a trip to Alaska. I have traveled to many places, I travel often, but the >> Alaska trip was still a big big thing for me. I knew I would be putting >> myself in position to capture some memorable photos. No guarantees that the >> weather would cooperate, that luggage wouldn’t get lost, that travel >> wouldn’t be disrupted, etc. But I wanted to do what I could ahead of time to >> make be sure that I had the best possible photo gear to be able to take >> advantage of whatever photo opportunities might present themselves. So part >> of my planning and preparation was to think through the sort of scenes I >> might have, and to previsualize THE shots I would take. >> >> At the time, summer of 2016, I had three camera systems: K-3 APS-C, K-1 full >> frame, and 645Z. Plus a variety of lenses for each system. There was no way >> I was going to travel with everything, (and there was no way that everything >> I did take to Alaska would be with me on every field trip I might take) and >> so I spent quite a bit of time thinking about which camera body/lens >> combination would work best for various expected situations. As part of that >> process I found some resources on the web which calculated the effective >> field of view for lenses of a given focal length paired with various sensor >> sizes. From those resources I pulled information about lenses I had or might >> conceivably acquire and created the linked spreadsheet. Note that the Field >> of View in degrees (FOV°) as often used will typically refer to the diagonal >> dimension of the sensor - I chose instead to look at the horizontal FOV° >> because that was more meaningful for me as I tried to visualize various >> scenes. >> >> In the end I took all three systems with a subset of the lenses. I convinced >> my wife to use the K-3 as her primary camera in lieu of her Leica P&S she >> usually uses. So, one less for me to carry, but available as a backup if >> needed. I used the K-1 as my primary, with the 645Z along mostly for a few >> selected landscape shots. >> I have since sold all of my APS-C gear and most of the 645Z system (still >> have one lens to sell). I think the linked spreadsheet nicely illustrates >> the major advantage of the full frame vs the other two systems: availability >> of lenses. Neither 645 nor APS-C provides the option of significant wide >> angle. Yes, I will grant that the 1.5x crop-factor on the APS-C is nice when >> trying to capture wildlife a few hundred yards away, but the DA*400/5.6 on >> my K-1, with images cropped in post processing, helped to full that niche. >> And I will grant that the size and weight of the K-1 vs. K-3 and other APS-C >> options can weigh heavily (pun intended) in favor of the smaller lighter >> system. But for me I will put up with the weight and bulk in order to be >> able to obtain a better selection of lenses within the FOV range that I >> prefer to shoot. >> >> stan >> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
