.... all carrying K-1 parcels from Amazon!

For reference, this was the full image from which the corner above was taken:

I can see a dealer in Germany selling one. More or less the same price as SRS.

There's nothing wrong with drones if flown responsibly. If that one was flown out over the sea and had suffered a propeller or motor failure then it would have been bye bye drone.

The only way to see if a lens is full frame compatible is not to rely on someone's untested data but to try the lens and see. Take the DA70mm f2.4 limited for example which isn't on that list. This proves to be perfectly fit for full frame use, The only non full frame aspect regarding the 70mm is that it sets the camera to crop mode!
I've just taken an image of a newspaper (full double page spread) in room light, hand held at 1/80sec, full aperture (f2.4), ISO 1600 and cropped off all but the bottom left hand corner 982 pixels from the 7360 present in it's width (showing what Photoshop calls Actual Pixels.) This is quite a test for any lens in not ideal conditions and this is the result.


Stopping down, putting the camera on a tripod and using a lower ISO would presumably make it much sharper but for normal shooting it's probably no worse than using the FA77mm Limited. I certainly wouldn't feel the need to rush out to swap it over for that FA equivalent.

The first rule of The Dronecode is to make sure you can see your drone at all times and don't fly higher than 400 feet. Presume he failed in that?

Any reason the exif shows them all to be taken at 1/15th @ f2.8 and is it actually a 24mm lens?

Camera Maker: PENTAX
Camera Model: PENTAX K20D
Image Date: 2016-04-29 16:40:10 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 24mm (35mm equivalent: 36mm)
Aperture: ƒ/2.8
Exposure Time: 0.067 s (1/15)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: +0.50 EV
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Manual
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Software: K20D Ver 1.03

If they had been taken at different apertures the depth of field would have changed, whereas these all look the same!

First off, another look at the DA 35mm f2.8.

A shot as taken - DA35mm f2.8 @ f8



Same shot with a +30 vignette correction in Photoshop Elements
(it's in Filters>Correct Camera Distortion]


That lens certainly performs above expectations.

By comparison, similar shots taken with the FA limiteds
FA43mm f1.9 @ f8



FA31mm f1.8 @ f8



I'm sure no one would dispute you'd be better off with the FA limiteds, but given the price difference....

After leaving the rubber lens hood on yesterday on the the Pentax-A 28mm f2.8 I had another go today without it on.
Pentax-A 28mm f2.8 @ f8 without lens hood


Well that cured the potential vignette.

How about my old film favourites, the Pentax-M 40mm f2.8 and Pentax-M 20mm f4 ?
Pentax-M 40mm f2.8 @ f8


Still seems good.

Pentax-M 20mm f4 @ f8


In this case I think the newer FAJ 18-35 is better. I never did feel this 20mm performed as well as a K version I had previously which was unfortunately stolen at Bath Youth Hostel many moons ago. I'd like that one back if the culprit is reading this please, you can keep the ME with the dented pentaprism!!

Lastly a truly budget 28mm manual lens, the Hoya 28mm f2.8 (Hoya's equivalent to the Pentax-M version which had a habit of getting the sticky aperture syndrome, which mine has so cannot be tested.)
Hoya 28mm f2.8 @ f8



As others have added to the thread, the K-1 performs really well with normal DA lenses in crop mode; certainly no worse than on dedicated K-5, K-3's etc. possibly better. I wonder how well the new DFA lenses perform by comparison? For me they'll have to wait!

One thing I think worth mentioning is that images from the K-1 are 7360 pixels wide. I think reducing them to 1000 pixels for the forum has a far more significant effect on their apparent quality compared to images from previous APS-C cameras. You really can't squeeze a gallon into a pint bottle. (That's the nearest equivalent I could think of!)

While it is no doubt best to use the DA lenses on the crop setting as intended, if you wished the lens was just that bit wider, a quick flick of the switch gives you just that, You loose nothing, you just add the extra pixels for the wider field of view. The effect as to whether the lens will give that extra field of view is clearly visible in the viewfinder. However in live view, the image is shown cropped as if on a K-5 or K-3.

Regarding distortions, given the 18-35 is a Pentax lens I would expect the lens data for it to be in the camera's database and correct for those. Apparently this correction feature is turned off for most DA lenses in FF mode except for (according to the manual) the DA200*, DA300* and DA560 f5.6 ED AW (which may answer Alan's [Blythman's] query the other day meaning those are the only DA lenses recognised officially by Pentax as being FF compatible.

Most lenses come with distortions and raw files from some compact cameras that do not officially offer raw files can show horrendous distortions when the raw data is viewed (by means of hacked firmware.) However these are straightened out in the jpegs (I'm not referring to a Pentax camera here.)
I've just taken a few more images for further comparison so will post those later.

There's a review of the FA-J 18-35 here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/pentax/18-35mm-f4-5.6-al-smc-p-fa-j/revie...
It scored quite well.