lens compatability with full frame

I got to thinking about which lenses are compatible. Seems to be a lot of differing information out there so hoping for some clarification.
I understand pentax are producing new lenses but a more interested in the lenses I own already as given the cost of the full frame it's unlikely I'll be able to afford more than the cheapest of the new lenses for a long period.
I realise the older FA lenses are full frame what about the F series lenses? I have 3 or 4 of these as well as the 2 DA primes and a lot of old manual A lenses apart from that I think none of my glass is full frame.
I was hoping (given the price) that the 16-85 lens would be but haven't seen it mentioned anywhere as full frame.
My DA zooms clearly aren't (16-45;18-135;55-300) and neither are my Sigma (10-20;18-250).
Not sure if my DA 100 mm f2.8 macro (the metal good one)is or isnt.
I realise that the full frame is reported to have the option to shoot in APS-C format but not sure if the investment is viable over the K3 & KS2 I already own.
So are F series full frame?
Is the 16-85 full frame?
What's your thoughts/situation regarding the full frame?

---

Cheers,

Bruce

Your macro is (D-FA) FF. A lot of DA zooms aren't. Especially if they start under then 24 mm, then you're entering ultra-wide area when working with full frame. This also applies for the DA primes, 35 mm and above are fine except the 35mm macro. The 14, 15 and 21mm also don't cover the full FF circle.

But there are lists out there. Above is off the top of my head so I probably over generalised.

---

Pentax K-1| Pentax K-01 | D-FA 28-105mm | FA 28mm F2.8 | FA 35mm F2.0 | FA 43mm F1.9 Ltd | FA 50mm F1.4 | FA 50mm F2.8 Macro | FA* 85mm F1.4 | FA 100mm F2.8 Macro | DA* 200mm F2.8 | Pentax AF 540FGZ

F series lenses were FF. Then came FA, also FF. D-FA are digital lenses that are also FF. FA-J are FF, without aperture rings.

Only DA lenses are APS-C format, although some of these may extend to FF. It will be interesting to see how the K-1 sees them, as FF or switching itself to crop mode.

---

Best regards, John

The DA55-300 seems OK, looking through the viewfinder of an old 35mm film Pentax body. The question is whether lenses with a large enough image circle will be any good in the corners, especially with digital pixel-peeping. I suspect that there will be a lot of disappointed punters ...

---

Flickr Stream

There isn't a DA 100 macro lens - the non-WR and WR 100 mm f2.8 variants are D-FA - fully compatible I am sure with 35mm

---

AKA Welshwizard/PWynneJ
Assorted Pentax/Nikon/Mamiya stuff

Good news...
What abut the 16-85 is that a definite no?

---

Cheers,

Bruce

Yes, the 16–85mm is not FF compatible. There are FF zooms that start at 16mm but they never go further than somewhere around 35mm. And this is for all brands, not only Pentax.

However the new Pentax FF camera will give you the option to shoot in crop mode, that is use the 16–85mm as you do know by utilising only the centre of the sensor. It is a stop gap measure but it might be more than sufficient for a lot of situations expect maybe the most demanding.

---

Pentax K-1| Pentax K-01 | D-FA 28-105mm | FA 28mm F2.8 | FA 35mm F2.0 | FA 43mm F1.9 Ltd | FA 50mm F1.4 | FA 50mm F2.8 Macro | FA* 85mm F1.4 | FA 100mm F2.8 Macro | DA* 200mm F2.8 | Pentax AF 540FGZ

I wonder how the 16-85mm would be with the rear light baffle removed.

I'm sure I've seen a similar light baffle on an FA lens.
Dont think I'll try and tamper with it will wait and see if someone else tries it and reports...

---

Cheers,

Bruce

Also realised I have an FA 50mm 1.4 lens as well.
Have an FA 28-80 on its way.
Gearing up but still not sure when I'll buy unlikely to be in the initial rush unless there is a ridiculous offer.

---

Cheers,

Bruce

The light baffle is there as a sort of rear element lens hood, preventing reflections degrading the image. I wouldn't pay hundreds of pounds for a lens and then start pulling it apart.

---

Best regards, John

My thoughts exactly John.

---

Cheers,

Bruce

It would be OK, it is a friends lens that I borrowed. He won't mind.
In seriousness I would not mess about with a lens either. Just wondering if it would make a difference to the sensor area covered by the lens. I'm sure some brave/foolish person will give it a go sooner or later.

I can't believe they released such an expensive lens when full frame was coming and didn't make it forward compatible. ...Maybe was their final insult....like a cheeky wee kick in the ba's when you were off guard...
Now thinking maybe Steve was right. ..would be better off buying OMD than pentax FF then selling other stuff to more than pay for it...Maybe Sony Ff...
Pretty sure the price of the 16'85 will tumble once ff comes out.
Also noticed that when I bought my K3 price was over 800 quid omd 5 was 600...I can now sell my K3 for 300 but to by an 0md 5 will cost me 400..so olympus kit keeps its value far more...

---

Cheers,

Bruce

Woah there Bruce. Love the kit you're with.

I think releasing a good quality lens dedicated to APS-C shows commitment to that format which many will see as a good sign, far from a kick in the teeth.

All camera makes offer great cameras that are capable of producing stunning images.

I have also been interested in the Sony Alpha 7 series, lovely and compact for full frame and light but to get the best out of the sensor and camera I started looking at the lenses, it all added up to a lot more than my lovely Pentax gear and for what? Not a great deal of difference for the amount of money required that's what.

Love the kit you're with, it's great and will do the job well.