>>4216051definitely not for full frame
modern pentax HD D FA whatever lenses are shit
>15-30 f2.8cope focal length, is rebranded tamron, poor optical performance, lol cant into filters. the tamron version which has VC costs $300 LESS.
>16-35 f4MISSING
>24-70 f2.8its also a fucking tamron really god awful optical performance for what pentax charges ($1150!). the tamron version has optical stabilization and is $900 for nikon. not like you'd want it anyways when a good used nikkor 24-70 is $500!
>24-70 f4MISSING
>pentax 28-105 f3.5-f5.6it's actually a pentax lens! it's also the kit lens. typical kit lens performance, kind of pricey at $500 considering literally EVERY OTHER DSLR KIT LENS HAS OPTICAL STABILIZATION. The D810's kit lens is a 24-120 f4 with VR! what the fuck, more worthless pentax "optics" that are better on nikon.
>70-200 f2.8soft as shit, fat as a pig. no VR either. POOPtax wants $1600 for this. a canon EF L or nikon AF-S lens will run you half as much used, even compared to a used POOPtax. and it will have VR. sure, the K1 has IBIS, but did you know IBIS reduces corner sharpness, and is less effective at stabilizing the longer the focal length is? Lens VR >>>>>> IBIS. IBIS is a cost cutting measure meant to make lenses cheaper to manufacture.
>70-200 f4It's a rebranded tamron... that is somehow worse than its tamron version. Never touch this. Nikons version is much sharper and has VR.
>150-450 F4.5-5.6Oh wow, a good lens, too bad it doesn't have VR, like nikon and canon do.
Primes?
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DFA-Lenses-c33.html1: Overpriced slow and soft as fuck. Consider, the cheaper and better AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED.
2: Why is this 50mm with loads of CA the size of a 24-70?
3: 1980s lens, soft, sold for new lens prices
4: Why is this soft-ish 85mm the size of a 70-200?
5: Literally an 80s lens for new lens prices, revised 3 times.
>but the FA/F...Nikon has ancient shit lenses too buddy.
Buy a NIKON.
