>>2884889>Any good lens recomendations for puntax full frame?If I remember right, it's listed as "stopped-down only" because the borders/corners are just plain soft on FF at wide apertures, though the image circle covers them. (this is why the DA 35 is an f/2.4 lens. It's a full-frame FA 35/2.0 with an aperture limiter, because what was considered acceptable on film looks poor on modern sensors)
Anyway define cheap. If you can afford an $1800 body you ought to have a loose definition of it. FA 50/1.4s are available new, but are over $300 for some reason, used ones are around $200. Sigma doesn't make the 50/1.4 Art in K mount, so that's out. If manual focus is okay (you get center-point focus confirmation with manual lenses) there's the Samyang 50/1.4 (~$400), or you could get an SMC-A 50/1.4 for a little over a hundred bucks - the optics are the same as the FA, a straight vanilla double gauss nifty fifty. It just lacks AF.
For the long end of that range there's the FA 77/1.8 limited (which is quite nice but isn't cheap), the old Sigma EX 85mm (which is cheaper, not as nice, but certainly decent from what I've heard), and of course a Samyang, which is cheap, nice, and again lacks AF. The FA* 85/1.4 is a collectors item and isn't nearly cheap. At the long end Tamron makes a 90/2.8 macro, if that sounds fast enough. There's also a DFA 100/2.8 macro.
The Tamron 70-200/2.8 is your cheapest option for a lens with those specifications. There's a native Pentax one, it's brand new and expensive. The Tamrom 70-300, well, seems like you get what you pay for. The Pentaxforums reviews mention a bunch of CA problem and call it just plain soft beyond 200mm.
but really what your problem is that you're looking for cheap lenses for a FF body that, though cheaper than other FF cameras, is still not at all cheap. That's pretty stupid. Open your wallet wider or stay on APS-C.
