Pentax DSLR Lenses

DA (L) 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (WR)

The main “kit lens” for most of Pentax’s DSLR history. Made in four versions: original (no longer available), improved “II” with sharper optics, a sealed “WR”, and a cheapened “DA L” version. The latter two use the same optics as the “II”, which is still available in non-WR form, for use on an unsealed body. Considered above average in its class for its time, but still definitely a budget lens and now outdated. Don’t expect the corners to be sharp or evenly lit unless you stop down to about f/8. Hopefully Pentax will clean out old stock of these so as to reduce confusion in their lineup. New customers on budgets can consider the new 18-50 collapsible instead... but maybe not, as the old model may be a lot more reliable.

DA (L) 50-200mm f/4-5.6 (WR)

The original version has been upgraded with “WR” weather seals, and downgraded to a “DA L” version sold only with a body in a two-lens kit. I used to have the original pre-WR one until I upgraded to the DA 55-300, and was far more pleased with it than you’d expect from its tiny size and price. When it was new, it was called possibly the best optics in its budget class... but I doubt if that’s still true today, as other makers have upped their game in this category, but this is still considered good for the money.

DA 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3

Made by Tamron with a Pentax label stuck on. Considered very impressive relative to its difficult mandate — the most successful of the superzooms at retaining performance across the whole range. This is not actually a budget priced lens, but I put it in the budget category because I’d guess it’s probably going to be mainly sold as a money-saver relative to separate lenses, and I wouldn’t expect it to be competitive in image quality with the midpriced models. This is discontinued; there is now an 18-270mm to replace it. You could get the same lens... well, to be honest, not exactly the same, as the Pentax version has Quick-Shift manual focus — with the Tamron name on it, and get a longer warranty. I’ve heard that with lenses of this super-wide-range type, including the Sigma competitors, often the poorest quality is in the middle of the zoom range, like around 100mm.

(HD) DA (L) 18-50mm f/4-5.6 DC WR RE

This appeared as a replacement for the elderly 18-55 kit zoom, intended mainly for use with the very compact K-S1. What distinguishes this one is that it’s a collapsible — or as some makers put it, “folding” — design. This means that when not in use it scrunches down so as to protrude from the camera by as short a distance as possible. This approach is common on point&shoot compacts but was unheard of in SLRs until mirrorless systems started making lenses this way. But there’s a big problem: many users complain that the retraction mechanism is prone to getting stuck. Sold in kits as a “DA L” version, which is the only new lens to use the old SMC coatings instead of HD. If you buy it separately you get the HD non-L version. The sticky retraction issue apparently applies to both versions. Either way, what I’m hearing about the optics is not good, though I’ve also heard that it’s sharper than the old 18-55. Of all the choices for standard-size zoom, this appears to be the poorest — it’s certainly the most widely vilified by users.

HD D FA 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 DC WR

This is the reasonably priced standard zoom for a full-frame K-1. While the 24-70/2.8 costs not much less than the camera body does, this is only about $500. Pentax sold various 28-105 lenses back in the film era, but this is apparently not based on any of them. As a result, I know very little about it. I have only one user report to go on, but that one is very enthusiastic, saying it’s sharp in the corners, versatile, light, contrasty, and has tons of rendering character. The bokeh transitions do indeed look very pleasing from the examples I’ve seen.

DA 35mm f/2.4

Pentax has finally added a budget APS prime lens — something the other camera companies had and Pentax lacked. But said competitors are mostly f/2.0 or faster, so Pentax’s heart still doesn’t seem to really be in it. This is similar to the “DA L” line in that it has a plastic mount and no Quick-Shift manual focus. But it may not be quite as egregiously cheap as the other DA L lenses, and does not have a non-“L” version, so it isn’t actually labeled as one of them. The optics appear to be more or less based on the classic FA 35mm f/2.0 — a prime that was exceptionally sharp when wide open — with the diameters and thicknesses of the major elements reduced to make it cheaper. Because of that ancestry, this lens reportedly works pretty well for full frame. I’ve heard that it has a bit of focal field curvature at infinity, so accurate focus comes down to a slight compromise between the center and the edges being sharp. This lens can be found for considerable discounts over its already budget-friendly list price.

DA 40mm f/2.8 XS

The first (and so far only) “XS” lens appears to be a simple redo of the DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited, into a cheaper body design. But not quite: the XS may be a retread of an existing formula, but it apparently uses cheaper kinds of glass; it’s reported that the Limited has significantly less chromatic aberration. On the other hand, while the Limited was already the thinnest little SLR lens known to man, this one is even thinner and lighter than that. The damn thing weighs less than two ounces! (It is also, reportedly, pretty flimsy and can break easily if dropped.) It is made specifically for the K-01 mirrorless body, as a way of mitigating its enormous (for a mirrorless camera) slablike bulk. (In the K-01’s defense, its controversial design does have some advantages, such as the ability to stand it on either end to take portrait oriented self-timer shots with no tripod.) The optics are still solid, though the focal length is an odd one for APS use. It uses a dinky little 27mm filter screw... which, it turns out, is a size commonly used by camcorders.

DA 50mm f/1.8

Another budget prime: the return of the affordable fast fifty. 50mm is a surprisingly useful length with an APS-C sized sensor — it resembles an 80mm portrait lens in full frame terms. Like the 35mm f/2.4, this uses a plastic lens mount, but does not use the “DA L” label. It weighs a bit over four ounces, and does have rounded diaphragm blades. This lens has been available for scarcely more than $100, and it has noticeably superior performance in several areas over the film-era 50mm designs. And it has a better damped focus ring. That may make this the best prime for the money you can get for Pentax... the other competitor being the similarly constructed DA 35/2.4 described above. I got one as a free add-on and ended up selling the FA 50 I already had. This should work fine with full frame, like any fifty.

DA 16-45mm f/4

One of their oldest digital lenses. They long ago stopped making these, but it’s still officially part of the lineup and still available to buy... maybe they just can’t get rid of the old stock. Has one notable eccentricity: its barrel extends longer at the wide end of the zoom range instead of at the tele end, and can end up casting a shadow if you use the built-in flash. Considered good within its limited ambitions of speed and range, especially at the short end, where it goes wider with less distortion than any direct competitor — a feature that makes it popular for architectural shooting, though you have to watch out for field curvature which can throw the corners out of focus if you’re not careful. But it does want some significant CA correction, and the physical construction is not the sturdiest you’ll find in the class. On the other hand, its out-of-date-ness has now made it pretty affordable.

DA 17-70mm f/4 SDM

A replacement for the 16-45 with a more competitive zoom range. The first Pentax lens to use only SDM autofocus and have no support for legacy autofocus driven by a motor in the body. Has been described as disappointing by some, especially in how well it performs at the long end, but test results do not bear out any major criticisms... it may be that there was a run of bad copies in early production. Others say it’s better than the 16-45, and at least some praise this as an excellent general-purpose zoom. When I’ve heard specific complaints, they mostly concern the long end, where I’ve heard it can struggle with focus. The wide angle range is more well regarded; one report said it was actually sharper than the 15mm Limited. It focuses pretty close, too, with up to 1:3 reproduction ratio. It is said to be quite difficult to focus manually. Bear in mind that if one thing fails on this lens, it will almost certainly be the SDM focus motor — quite a few people experienced such failures in the early production run. Supposedly, the SDM system was redesigned in 2012 to stop these failures... but then, we heard the same story in 2010. Also, some report that even when the motor is working perfectly, the lens is prone to focus hunting. This lens has now become very affordable, underpricing some third party competitors, and (as of this writing) significantly underpricing the newer 16-85. The latter lens offers weather resistance and a better focus motor, as well as more reach, but this one has the faster aperture on average despite its smaller size, as well as being cheaper. Which is sharper? The consensus I’m hearing so far is leaning toward the 16-85, and generally toward it being the superior lens overall. But there’s a caveat on that: the 16-85 may be relying on in-camera digital corrections to hide its flaws. But the question may be moot soon, as it looks like they just discontinued the 17-70.

HD DA 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 DC WR

The initial price was quite high for a consumer zoom, just as was the case when the 18-135 first came out, but it’s dropping. But this lens may be intended in the longer term to be the new kit lens for higher model crop bodies, superceding the old 18-55mm and the dodgy 18-135mm, neither of which was a good choice for bodies with high megapixel counts. If so, it looks like a tremendous improvement, as by early reports it’s a far better performer than either, and is apparently a strong competitor against the 17-70mm f/4 as well, at least equalling it in sharpness, and gaining in reach what it loses in speed. It’s said to be a match in sharpness for the DA Limited lenses (15 and 21) at the short end, and nearly a match in the middle against the 35 Macro, though at the long end it can’t compare to the 70 Limited. But on the other hand, people say it feels cheap and plasticky and not at all like it should cost as much as it originally did... but others say it feels better built than the DA 17-70. One worry about the construction is that the barrel sticks out quite far at the long end, and uses double cams; it might develop a wobble over time, as has sometimes happened with the 18-135, which doesn’t even extend as far out (or for that matter, weigh as much). I suspect the price will continue to drop. I’ve heard that the camera will sometimes have trouble confirming a focus lock at the wide end of this lens. But on the other hand, the wide end of this is said to be sharper in the corners than a 15mm Limited “at every reasonable f-stop.”

The complaint was raised not too long ago that Pentax has too many lens choices in the same standard range; maybe this will allow them to retire some of the overly similar midsize zooms from their catalog. Given the poor showing of the 18-135 in edge performance, the 16-85 is probably the zoom that new middle-budget Pentax purchasers should default to from now on, while more price-conscious shoppers would get the 18-50 collapsible or the old 18-55. It would certainly help clarify matters if they stopped advertising old lenses like the 18-55 (and until recently the 16-45)... but when there’s old stock that isn’t selling, what are you going to do?

(HD) DA (L) 55-300mm f/4-5.8 (WR)

Available in three versions: the original, a cheapened “DA L” with a plastic mount (sold only in two-lens kits with bodies, I believe), and in 2013, a WR version with HD coatings, which probably means the original is discontinued. I have the original and I like it very much, after being constantly disappointed by several other tele zooms. Considered good overall, but personally I give it more praise than that. It can have better bokeh than some primes at the long end. Toward the short end, the bokeh is not very nice. But this is truly a lens for those who want long reach on a budget: by one lab’s measurements, the image actually gets sharper the more you zoom in, with peak performance at 300mm! Others (including me) find it peaks more around the 200mm area, but at 300 it’s still pretty darn good. Definitely superior to third-party competitors, at least those available around the same time. One weakness: autofocus tends to be a bit iffy and slow at the long end. On my old K10D it was terribly prone to focus hunting. The “DA L” version could go in the budget category, but the parent non-L lens and its WR replacement are solidly midrange models. This is a Jun Hirakawa design, and though it’s obviously built down to a price, he managed to fit a significant amount of excellence into it.

HD DA 55-300mm f/4.5-6.3 PLM WR RE

This new alternative 55-300 is slower in aperture and lighter in weight than the previous models, but focuses far faster thanks to its PLM motor, and is more compact thanks to the “folding” design. Plus, it can focus closer, and is said to be significantly sharper and have less chromatic aberration. Oddly, the focusing speedup is far more extreme at the wide angle end than at the telephoto end, which is unfortunate because you need it more on the long end. Besides being the first lens with the PLM motor (and only the second collapsible K-mount lens), this is also the first K lens to have an electronic diaphragm. When paired with a suitable body (the earliest to support this out of the box being the K-70), this allows far smoother automatic control of aperture while shooting video. Unfortunately, the savings in weight are well under an ounce, and the savings in length are well under an inch, so I really don’t see the value of the “RE” design, especially given the trouble reports I’ve heard for the first RE lens, the 18-50. But hopefully the electronic diaphragm will come into common use in other new lenses. The K-mount has been saddled for too long with an all-mechanical diaphragm control — I think it’s the last SLR mount left to still use one. This has the effect of discouraging third parties from releasing lenses in K-mount compatible form, which is bad for us, though it isn’t a bad thing from Pentax’s point of view.

DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 DC WR

Pentax has added a long-range zoom option not made by a third party, for those who want more reach without changing lenses. And it’s WR, which is important because bad weather is exactly when you most want to avoid doing a lens change. This pretty much corresponds to the 28-200 I used to use in the film era, though one hopes that it ought to be sharper. It can be bought as a kit lens, for those who want a semi-premium upgrade from the basic kit lens options. On the K-3, for instance, this was the only kit lens option, as nobody buying one of those wanted an 18-55. This uses the new “DC” style of internal focusing motor, some say is making a dramatic difference in how fast it focuses. Pentax claims that despite its specs resembling those of a budget compromise lens, this is actually a fairly high end choice... and the original price was high enough to drive home that point. When it was new, the main objection that people made to this lens was that they felt it was priced too high... but that’s coming down now, and it’s being described as a “premium kit lens”. Compared to the old 18-250, it’s said to have much solider build quality, and also to be much more compact than other superzooms: nearly as small as the 18-55.

But as for the optics... early rumors were mixed, but now that some solid test results are available, the results are definitely disappointing — you could almost say shocking. This may be the first time in the digital era that Pentax has made a genuinely inferior lens. This thing has the sharpness to match modern sensors of 16 megapixels and up... but only in the center. At some focal lengths, the corners are soft as diarrhea! The DA 17-70mm is apparently a far better lens. In fact, one professional lens tester is saying that even the cheapo 18-55mm may be a better lens, within the shared range, though others say the 18-135 is slightly better. A head-to-head comparison against the old 18-250 showed them about equally bad at 135mm... the point where the longer lens is at its weakest. And at 18mm the older lens was better. (On the other hand, I’ve seen someone compare this to a Sony 18-135, and they concluded that the two were equal in sharpness and the Pentax is much better in flare resistance — a funny outcome given that the Sony gets far better reviews.) Apparently there were serious compromises involved in making this lens so compact. It is rumored that the legendary lens designer Jun Hirakawa was driven out of the company by bad management during the phase when Pentax was owned by Hoya... I hope this isn’t a sample of the kind of lenses Pentax will come up with in the post-Hirakawa era, but only an example of how the Hoya period was a nadir for the brand, from which we should now be recovering. We won’t know for sure until several brand new lenses come out from the new Ricoh ownership.

DA 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 SDM

A new superzoom, unfortunately with no weather seals. Not much word yet on its optical performance. One blogger reports that it looks “uncannily like” the Tamron 18-270, and focuses quickly even in low light. As yet I have no definite information on whether this is or isn’t a rebadged Tamron, but it sure looks like that’s the case; it appears that it probably has the same optics, but the exterior design has some differences, including a different filter size. Meanwhile, Tamron under its own brand has moved on to a 16-300.

DA 12-24mm f/4

Designed by Tokina. A Tokina version (same glass, different body) is available for other cameras. Considered very good, and a very solid competitor in the ultrawide class, with the one weakness being a need for CA correction. (Tokina also makes an 11-16mm f/2.8 which is considered even better, but is not currently available for Pentax.) This may seem a bit dated, as other makers push their wide angles down to 10mm or even 8mm, but this remains highly regarded. One lens that Pentax users often wish for is a good fast 24mm prime; this zoom is not fast, but I’ve heard more than one person say that the best 24mm lens you can put on a Pentax is the long end of this ultrawide. Has pretty decent contra-light performance; if the sun’s in the shot you’ll get an eight-armed starburst and one or two little spots of ghosting. But that’s an area where Sigma’s 10-20mm may be a bit better. But not the Tokina 11-16 — flare, apparently, is its kryptonite.

Pentax had announced that in 2015 a new zoom lens is coming in the superwide focal length range — actually, two superwides — one for crop and one for full frame. I would love it if this new lens drove down the price of the older 12-24, because I always wanted one, but it was never cheap and over the years the price kept getting even higher. The specs of the new crop lens weren’t announced for real until 2018 and didn’t reach the market until 2019: the HD DA* 11-18mm f/2.8, which is more costly than the old 12-24, being sold as a professional lens.

Apparently this lens can be used in a pinch on a full frame body from about 17mm up, with the corners being surprisingly sharp, though dim.

When new this lens cost about $700. In time the price went up, but as it became outdated again, the price went back down to where it started.

HD D FA 15-30mm f/2.8 SDM WR

This is, by all reports, just a rebadging of Tamron’s full frame ultrawide. At $1500 it is quite a pricey option. (The Tamron costs about $1200 for other mounts, and is optically stabilized — a surprising inclusion on such a wide lens.) Judging by the reviews of the Tamron, this is considered very good. But it is very heavy and very large, for a wide angle: nearly 15 cm long and over a kilogram in weight. It has a protruding front element and cannot accept filters. My hopes that this would help replace the 12-24mm, and thereby reduce the price of used copies of that lens, appears to have been in vain.

HD D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 SDM WR

By all reports this is another Tamron zoom with a Pentaxified exterior — but that’s cool, because the designer is reportedly Jun Hirakawa, formerly the king of Pentax lens designers. Pentax needed full-frame zooms in a hurry and this is how they got them. This lens would be the step up if you want something faster than the 28-105, which for full frame counts as the kit lens (though I don’t actually see it being sold in any kits at this time), since it costs only $500. This f/2.8 bad boy, on the other hand, is priced at an eye-watering $1300. Going by reviews of the Tamron-branded model (which is optically stabilized on other mounts), it seems to be considered very decent, though maybe not quite the equal of the Canon L equivalent. One point in its favor is that to me, its bokeh looks quite nice.

HD D FA 70-210mm f/4 SDM WR

New in early 2020 is a cheaper alternative to the professional-level 70-200mm f/2.8 DC AW. It appears to be a rebadged Tamron. The “SDM” focus motor is ring-type. It still costs over a thousand bucks despite being the cheap option in its category.

DA 14mm f/2.8

Another early digital design — this dates back to 2003, the year the very first Pentax DSLR (the *ist D) came out. They haven’t made any new ones for a long time, but there was a supply still available until recently. It is now officially discontinued, and we don’t know what if anything is going to replace it. Considered okay but not spectacular. It has some barrel distortion, though not very much for its width. What’s worse is that the distortion has a “moustache” recurve in the corners which makes it more or less impossible to correct, unless you have software specifically tailored to the lens. And some complain it has field curvature — that is, the plane of focus is not planar, so you have to backfocus the center to get the edges sharp. Now considered by manu to be obsoleted by the DA 15mm f/4 Limited, which is superior in all areas except speed, and costs no more than the older lens does. Or if you want the speed, then the replacement would be the 11-18/2.8 But the flip side of this is that a used one of these 14mm guys can now be rather affordable, if you watch out for the pirates. For a while the Pentax lens market was full of sellers demanding exhorbitant prices and apparently willing to wait months and months for someone to be dumb enough to pay them. Another alternative to consider is the Samyang 14mm, which is more modern and less expensive, but has no autofocus.

FA 50mm f/1.4

Of all the leftover designs from the affordable side of Pentax’s old film-era lineup, this one lasted the longest: a classic “fast fifty”. One of the smallest and cheapest in its class. There was talk it would be discontinued in the shadow of the DA★ 55mm f/1.4, which is anything but cheap or compact, but apparently its popularity wouldn’t go away... they couldn’t stop making it until they also came up with the budget DA 50mm f/1.8, which is sharper wide open, probably due to its less ambitious aperture. Then they ended up bringing it back anyway, to support the full-frame K-1. Has a manual aperture ring. Considered adequate — you’d better stop it down if you want it sharp. I had one and I felt no need to upgrade it. Some say this lens is a step down from the earlier F 50mm f/1.4 model, but I doubt the difference is significant. So this is fine if you get it inexpensively, but I would probably recommend the lightweight DA 50mm f/1.8 over this as a new purchase, since besides being a bit sharper, it also has better bokeh to my eye, and far less flare. Unless, that is, you want to buy the full frame Pentax body, but I suspect that even then you’re probably not losing much optically with the DA version, and a new full frame standard lens is supposed to be in the pipeline.

(HD) FA 35mm f/2

This was discontinued on paper, but somehow it still managed to be available new, if you looked around, and with the K-1 now being sold, it’s now officially restored to the lineup. In 2019 they added an HD coating, while leaving the rest of the construction still as it was back in the nineties. The fake discontinuance pushed prices up, but it now lists for $400, which is not bad. It’s definitely worth a look because of how desirable it is. This is a film-era lens with a focal length that makes it a good approximation of a standard lens for APS digital, and is a comfortable wide angle for full frame. It has a manual aperture ring. I’m not sure of its performance in full frame wide angle mode, but for crop sensors, this lens was noteworthy for having a fast aperture yet being sharp edge to edge when wide open. Considered very very good overall, but a leetle bit harsh. It’s a Jun Hirakawa design. With a crop-sensor body, you might get a better value with the DA 35mm f/2.4 — you give up half a stop of speed, but pay less than half the price — the list price is half that of the HD FA version, but it’s being heavily discounted, with new ones now seen for under $100.

(HD) DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 Fisheye

I’m not aware of anyone else that made a fisheye zoom at the time this came out, except that Canon has one for full frame, which at the short end is a “circular” fisheye, exposing only a patch in the middle of the frame. Pentax’s lens doesn’t go circular like that. (It’s not Pentax’s first; in the nineties they made the F 17-28 f/3.5-4.5 Fisheye for film.) Also sold by Tokina (same glass, different body) but is designed by Pentax — specifically, by Takayuki Ito in collaboration with Jun Hirakawa. Ito also created the excellent DA★ 60-250mm f/4, and was one of the co-creators of the legendary 31mm f/1.8 Limited. The Pentax version is actually less expensive than the Tokina! Tokina actually sells a version of this for use on full frame, just by leaving off the hood; I’ve heard that the corner quality is very dubious when it’s used this way, which is no surprise. The degree of fisheye distortion decreases as you zoom from 10mm to 17mm. Considered okay... no fisheye is going to be a stunning performer optically. Be warned that if you try to convert this to rectilinear use by de-fisheyeing the image with software, the corners are going to get really blurry, at least toward the wide end. A Samyang 8mm manual fisheye (which I bought) is probably better for preserving sharpness around the sides, though even that wants a lot of stopping down first.

This is a fairly old lens in the DA lineup, so it was kind of a surprise when they went back and made an HD version of it in 2019, more than thirteen years after its original release. They also updated the exterior design of the body.

HD D FA 150-450mm f/4.5-5.6 DC AW

New in March 2015 is a supertele zoom to fill the gap between the compact DA★ 300 and the cumbersome DA 560. I don’t know much yet about its performance, though it’s said to have faster autofocus than star-series lenses, and to be very ruggedly constructed. The price started at around $2400, but dropped below $2000 surprisingly soon. The “D FA” name designates that it’s explicitly intended for their full-frame body. I’ve heard from one guy who shoots air shows with it, and it sounds like it’s a winner for that purpose, relative to the older “star” telephoto options, which are held back by slow focusing. Another guy says it’s far better for tough focus situations than the old 60-250. I haven’t yet seen very much in the way of tight crops, but what I’ve seen so far looks pretty close in sharpness to a DA★ 300 + teleconverter, while focusing much more quickly. It looks like the contrast is somewhat reduced wide open, but it doesn’t necessarily lose fine detail. I hear that the two become equal in sharpness with less than one stop of aperture reduction — and that’s about the point where the 300 is already hitting the diffraction limit. One comparison I saw showed that the short end is softer than a 60-250, but the long end is substantially sharper than a Sigma 500/4.5 prime.

On the other hand, the bokeh definitely gets edgy and nervous when wide open, sometimes being quite donut-ish when used for full frame, but on the first hand, it apparently calms down nicely when closed one stop. The bokeh quality wide open in crop format is, to my eye, neither better nor worse than the 300+TC combination (which is to say, it’s inferior to that of the bare 300). Despite these largely positive reports, other opinions I’ve heard are less than enthusiastic about the lens’s optical performance, saying it may not be all that much better than a Bigma. I don’t know how to reconcile that, since I’ve always heard that the Bigma was hardly different from the 150-500 “Bigmos” at the long end, and in my opinion the difference between that sad lens and the 300+TC is vast.

The lens’s non-optical features are an interesting new direction for Pentax, as it has a big strong DC motor, a focus limiter, an option to let you grab the focus ring manually and take over even while the camera is turning it, and buttons — four of them, to be accessible from all sides — which can be used either to trigger or stop autofocus, or to make it reset back to a default focus distance that you chose earlier. There are four switches to control all these options, most of which have not appeared on any previous lens. These show that Pentax is paying attention to what makes a long telephoto more usable. But the main complaints I’ve heard about this lens are also non-optical: namely that it breaks down or even falls apart into two pieces.

D FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro

A leftover from the film era, updated with digital-grade coatings. Has a manual aperture ring. Considered very good — has a reputation for being really sharp. I don’t know if they’re still making any; they have not produced a WR version. Its role from the film era has been taken over by the DA 35mm f/2.8 Limited Macro. According to test reports, the physical construction may be dated but the optical performance is impeccable: sharp wide open even in the corners, with no distortion, little vignetting, and only the most minimal color issues. The bokeh is good, and better in the foreground than the background; macro shooting is the one type of shooting where it’s routine to need good foreground bokeh more than you need it in the background.

D FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro (WR) (AW)

Another film-era leftover with updated coatings. Considered quite good. Whether it’s ahead of or behind the 50mm macro is hard to say; some early voices said the 50 was the more impressive, but lately the consensus has been swinging the other way. Some (including Pop Photo) say the optics beat those of the Canon L 100mm macro, which is of course a lot more expensive. Exists in two versions: the original has a manual aperture ring, then it was redesigned as a “WR” with a completely new body which uses more metal in the construction than the older one did. It’s the first “D FA” lens to lack one. I believe the original version is generally unavailable now. It’s been said that this macro also makes a good portrait lens, with “rich, smooth rendering”.

But it had one Achilles heel: purple fringing. To cure this, they redid it with a new optical formula in 2022, using an extra-low-dispersion element and two anomalous-dispersion elements, as well as upgrading the seals to “AW” grade. This uses one more overall element than the old optics did.

HD DA 560mm f/5.6 AW

Finally, a really serious wildlife supertelephoto. It might be a bit too long for sports use, as they mostly use somewhat more moderate degrees of telephoto magnification. They use huge lenses such as a 400/4 (with a full frame body) because they like to keep the depth of field quite shallow. On APS this has about twice the magnification of a 400mm in full frame. This is an “AW” lens, meaning it has really serious weather seals, and is better protected than any mere “WR” lens, though not necessarily much better than a DA★ prime lens.

The interesting aspect of its design is its so-called “telescope-style” optics, which means that it contains no retrofocus group to cheat the focal length. Most telephoto lenses use what amounts to an internal teleconverter to make the effective focal length longer than the lens barrel’s physical length, and like any teleconverter, this can have a cost in sharpness. But this lens gets its 560mm honestly, by actually being over half a meter long. This means there’s no sharpness penalty... and may also mean that handholding it is best done by someone with long arms. But don’t take the idea that teleconversion is bad seriously! The almost supernaturally sharp DA★ 300 has a substantial teleconversion factor without suffering for it one bit. (The term “telescope-style” does not mean, as some claimed in prerelease rumors, that the lens barrel collapses to a shorter length for storage.) Indeed, the optics are very simple and classical — it’s mostly just a double doublet, with a couple of small correctors. The simpler design might save money, but probably not, given the necessity of larger physical size. So hopefully, this simplicity is not about cutting corners, it’s about refusing to compromise. If this saved any money, you wouldn’t know it much: the list price is seven thousand dollars. That’s quite possibly enough to get a 500mm f/4 from Canon or Nikon... though that would, admittedly, be an older model. (Canon’s new 500/4 version is $10K. Sony has just come out with one at $13K!)

After all that, I was expecting some pretty flawless performance, but tests seem to say that it needs stopping down to be fully sharp. It certainly loses some microcontrast wide open. On the other hand, it’s clearly sharper wide open than the Sigma 500mm f/4.5, and sharper than putting a 2× teleconverter on a DA★ 300. And it’s way sharper than a Sigma 50-500mm or 150-500mm. But bokeh is not this lens’s strong suit, and there is apparently more CA and purple fringing than one would hope to see. From what I understand, these are tough issues to avoid when you go for such great length — for all I know, some competing lenses may be worse. But the Sigma 500/4.5, though softer, has better bokeh and fewer false color issues, and for really fine pictures, those are equally important.

Even with the sharpness, some find this lens disappointing. At an extreme, I heard one guy (someone who had switched from Pentax to Canon) say, after trying this, that he wouldn’t even pay two thousand for it. He didn’t consider it any better than a Bigma zoom. Most would not agree... I certainly wouldn’t expect to, as my experience with other Sigma long zooms has been consistently disappointing. Another (a full frame shooter) said this failed to improve on cropping the center from a shot with the 300/4. But others disagreed, saying this lens can get clear shots in cases where the competing lenses from the big two brands — at least, their lightweight fresnel-based ones — cannot. The consensus is that this may not be the sweetest and smoothest of lenses, but it does deliver plenty of the raw performance a long-distance shooter needs. I’ve seen pictures taken through this with two 1.4× teleconverters stacked on the back; the results were perfectly decent, though the autofocus suffers with even one teleconverter due to the f/8 aperture, and I imagine f/11 is a real struggle unless you use live view.

One thing everybody always praises is how it always nails the autofocus more precisely than any lesser lens. It’s been said that it gets a lot more keepers than the Sigma 500 can manage, especially in continuous shooting. That’s important. Also, it’s light for its size, at under seven pounds. And the high price is finally coming down — it’s now available for $5000 in the US, and in Europe, the cost has reportedly dropped to be less than the Sigma 500.

So why is it 560mm, instead of an even multiple of 100mm? Maybe because that’s thought to be the limit of what can be handheld; 600mm is just too long to balance on an outstretched arm. Even people who criticize this lens say that it’s much slimmer and lighter than similar lenses from the film era. I’ve heard it’s completely possible to handhold this, which is generally not the case with similarly long lenses from the other camera brands... but on the other hand, its length does make handholding significantly more awkward than it is with the Sigma 500/4.5, which not only is substantially shorter, but also has the mounting bracket positioned at a better balance point for when you aren’t handholding it. Surprisingly, despite Pentax going full frame not long after this was released, it reportedly does not do that great a job of covering the full frame image area. The corners may not be blurry, but I hear they are quite dark until you stop down. Despite this, Pentax has officially endorsed the lens as full-frame compatible — something they have not done with several other lenses which work quite acceptably in practice.

This lens is apparently being discontinued. Could that mean a replacement is coming?

HD DA★ 11-18mm f/2.8 DC AW

At least this one doesn’t appear to be a copy of a Tokina or Tamron. No word yet on optical quality, but it’s intended to be a major improvement over the old DA 12-24/4, and the price is correspondingly higher: about $1400 at release. It’s also bigger and heavier: about 700 grams vs 430. But from the little I’ve seen of samples, improvement over the 12-24 may not be dramatic: the corners still show some blurring and color fringing.

(HD) DA★ 16-50mm f/2.8 (PLM AW)

The older version was also sold by Tokina (same glass, different body) but designed by Pentax. This highly controversial lens has been plagued by quality control problems (mainly decentering) so extensive that it has sometimes been a real black eye for Pentax. When wide open, only the center is really sharp. Defended by some, considered disappointing and uncompetitive by others, though certainly it’s capable of strong performance... if you apply some CA correction.

In 2021 they finally came out with an optically improved 16-50 lens, which starts at $1400. It has a PLM focus motor, electric diaphragm (so check your firmware if you have an older body), HD coatings, and AW seals. Besides better autofocus, they claim even the manual focus is improved. The stated goal of the new optical design is to reduce the chromatic aberration and be sharp edge to edge. Early reports from buyers are enthusiastic: “It is better at f/2.8 than the old one at f/5.6”, said one. They also say it’s more mechanically solid, and that the bokeh is good. But it is bigger and heavier than the old lens.

DA★ 50-135mm f/2.8

Also sold by Tokina (same glass, different body) but designed by Pentax. In its day this was considered superb, with great bokeh — some asserted that it was the finest zoom lens on the market at that time. (It’s hard to believe how two lenses designed as a matched set could have one be such a triumph and the other be, comparatively, a turkey...) And it’s not even all that pricey. Has become quite popular as a portrait lens, invading a niche where people usually prefer fast primes.&esnsp;But nowadays people seem to be less impressed with it, noting that it’s not as sharp as the revised 16-50, nor does it compete with late-generation lenses in focusing speed. The rumors say a PLM version is coming.

Until then, the one other caveat is that there have been a fair number of complaints of the SDM motor failing. One rental agency says this affected mostly the early production run, but there are reported cases of the same lens going in for repair three times. Apparently the issue is not that the motor breaks, but that it jams somehow — some have reportedly managed to do the repair at home. (There is a perception among many Pentax customers that this company is especially prone to quality control errors, but there’s also plenty of evidence out there that the competing camera companies are no better, and third-party options are still much riskier. See this survey, for instance. It’s a little bit outdated, but from what I’ve seen of newer data, the main changes are that Sigma has improved but Tamron has gotten worse.)

DA★ 60-250mm f/4

Delayed for years and years after its initial announcement, the end result seems to be as good as everyone hoped. According to tests it has excellent sharpness, keeps very consistent performance at all focal lengths, has little distortion or vignetting or CA, and has nice bokeh — in short, it’s nearly flawless, even better than the 50-135 except for being a stop slower. Some say it’s just as sharp as the 200mm and 300mm primes... at least on normal DSLR sensors. And some say it may have Aero Bright coating, but I can’t pin this down. About the only negative thing I’ve heard anyone say about this is that it doesn’t quite equal the classic FA★ 80-200mm f/2.8... no wait, one more critic says that the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 is a hair sharper and costs less. Of course, you would give up some significant zoom range with that.

This lens apparently does work on full frame (which the 50-135mm does not), though only marginally, as the corners are pretty dark when wide open in the some parts of the range, and may be soft at some other lengths. However, the darkening can apparently be reduced significantly by removing the rectangular baffle from the back end, leaving a degree of vignetting which should be correctable wide open and dwindles as you stop down, at least at the longer focal lengths. One report says that the corners have surprisingly little loss of sharpness at the long end, but at the short end the corners are poor at any aperture, leaving the lens as more a 135-250 than a 60-250 for full frame shooters. Add to this a report that bokeh at the long end is not nearly as nice in full frame mode, and I think this lens’s usefulness in that scenario may be less than it seems.

This lens was recently discontinued, and it's not clear what the intended replacement is supposed to be, unless they want people to just buy the much bigger and heavier full-frame 70-200/2.8 instead.

HD D FA★ 70-200mm f/2.8 DC AW

Originally scheduled for the spring of 2015, but delayed by a year, this is the fast tele zoom for Pentax’s full-frame body, the K-1. You would use it for the same purposes that you use the 50-135 for on a crop body, though being bigger it will offer shallower depth of field. The coatings are a mix of HD and “Aero Bright Coating II”. I don’t have word on the performance yet, though we all expect that it had better be impressive. This lens has a complex and ambitious internal design, and several features designed to appeal to sports shooters, such as a focus limiter with a few choices of range, and a setting to allow you to manually grab the focus ring to override the autofocus even while it’s moving. For that crowd, the DC focus motor had better be very big and fast — early reports are that it’s substantially faster than the older star lenses, but what I’ve heard later is that it still lags behind the equivalent Canon and Nikon lenses, and is significantly slower than the new PLM motor. It is said to feel more solid and rugged than the older star lenses. The price is over $2000, which is similar to the prices of the two competitors just mentioned.

DA★ 55mm f/1.4

Designed specifically as a portrait lens for APS, and is said to put an emphasis on good bokeh. Supports SDM autofocus only. Reputed to be quite good. Its designer, the legendary Jun Hirakawa, admits to taking pride in it. (This was his final lens before Hoya forced him out.) While the old FA 50mm is smaller and cheaper than its competitors, this is big and startlingly expensive. It was the first lens to use the Aero Bright coating. After all that, it ought to be really special... but personally, what I’ve seen of the bokeh has not impressed me. I think many of the Limited lenses are better, including the FA 31mm, the FA 77mm, the DA 70mm, and sometimes even the DA 35mm Macro... and all of them fall short of the quality of bokeh that was easily available with manual-focus film lenses decades ago. This lens can be used full frame if you really want to, but the corners become rather soft wide open, so you’d be restricted to shots that put all the sharp stuff in the middle. Of course, that’s exactly what portraits often do.

DA★ 200mm f/2.8

Optically copied from a film era 200/2.8, rather than being a new design. Considered decent but far from perfect, and increasingly outdated. Has some purple fringe trouble... but it’s been reported that this issue mainly affects only old sensors such as that in the K10D. Now discontinued with no clear replacement.

DA★ 300mm f/4

For a long time this was Pentax’s only real sports and wildlife lens. Considered superb, with excellent rendering and bokeh, and it has nearly full sharpness wide open, unlike the 200/2.8. One thing I’ve been told is that if you stack up two teleconverters, you can stretch this out to be like a 710mm f/9.5, and the autofocus still manages to work, whereas if you try this trick with other lenses in the 300/4 ballpark, it generally fails. That’s got to say something about how sharp it is. Also an ideal match for a Q body for those who want the most extreme telephoto magnification. (The Q is able to see a distinct improvement in sharpness when you stop down to f/5.6; larger cameras can’t see much difference, though closing just half a stop makes a measurable difference with a K-3 under the most careful test conditions.) These two facts suggest that this might be a lens which outresolves Pentax’s current DSLR sensors. Anyway, one guy who owns dozens of lenses called it “the best danged 300mm lens in the whole danged universe.” It’s also one of the few DA lenses that Pentax offers which covers the full frame image area with no loss of quality. And it’s been to space: a cubesat which needed a very sharp ground observation lens ended up using one of these off the shelf, with the unnecessary external bits removed.

So after years of considering it too expensive, I finally got a used one. With this lens, things can still look good even after a fairly drastic crop, and the focus performance is good enough that on my first time out with it, I was able to catch swallows in flight. It made me feel like my K-3 body was, for the first time ever, finally living up to its full potential. It’s definitely the sharpest lens I’ve ever used, and the best at tracking focus, though the motor is not quick. I have found that it is capable, if focus is nailed accurately enough, of resolving detail near the limit of a 24 megapixel APS sensor (or 50 in full frame). I would say that it’s probably hit the limits of diffraction by f/5.6, and even at f/4.5 performance is near peak. It could be used for astrophotography if it just had a way to manually do fine focus adjustment. And with the new teleconverter (see below), it really does pull out even more detail on a 24mp APS sensor than you can get by magnifying a crop without the TC. In my experience the main disadvantage of using the TC is poorer bokeh, though it’s still not bad. Also, of course, the darkening affects focus speed in dimmer light. Combine all this with a substantial recent drop in price (probably just due to the availability of the D FA 150-450), and this lens gets my highest personal recommendation. It is my favorite lens of all time.

HD D FA★ 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW

Pentax joins the club of those supplying giant expensive complex updates of simple little standard lenses, which is now officially a trend. With a price tag of $1200 and a mass of damn near a kilogram, you’d better be someone who really really likes to get the most out of a fast fifty. The samples I’ve seen show terrific flare resistance thanks to Aero Bright Coating II, and bokeh that is nearly flawless in at least some circumstances. The SDM drive now uses a ring motor (finally!), which boasts 7.5× the torque of their old SDM system. They need this torque because the focus group is apparently quite heavy. It has an electronic diaphragm, so it is not fully usable on bodies older than 2013 or so. Supposedly its focusing mechanism is designed to minimize “breathing”.

Tokina has an “Opera” lens which uses the same optical formula in a different body, without HD coatings. One difference is that the focus ring turns in the opposite direction. They did not design it — they licensed the patent from Pentax.

HD D FA★ 85mm f/1.4 SDM AW

This is new in 2019. It’s their full-frame portrait lens, with presumably the emphasis being on perfect bokeh. We shall see. The price is. near $2000, but discounts of a few hundred are showing up  It’s large and heavy — three pounds! — and the motor is fast. Said to be sharp at very wide apertures, which can make accurate focus a finicky challenge, with a touch of coma in the corners. And yep, the bokeh is plenty smooth. The corners have some significant darkening wide open, some say, but chromatic aberration is almost nonexistent.

HD DA 20-40mm f/2.8-4 Limited DC WR

Despite being a zoom it remains compact — downright miniscule, in fact, compared to the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 which it competes with in focal length range. Early findings suggest that besides being faster than the 21mm at the wide end, it might be sharper as well. And from the sample shots I’ve seen, bokeh looks very good. Anyone interested in the 21mm and 40mm should probably give strong consideration to buying this instead of that pair. More recently, an extensive review comparing it to the Sigma 18-35 concluded that they’re pretty much neck and neck in performance over the shared lengths and apertures, with both beating some respected primes, and both superior to the DA* 16-50 zoom. But on the other hand, some buyers have been disappointed, so it may be subject to a bad degree of sample variation.

(HD) DA 15mm f/4 Limited

A very compact wide angle. It’s not ultra wide compared to some zoom lenses, but a lot of people who have this lens rave about how superb it is. Has magnificent contra-light performance, even in the non-HD version — if the sun’s in the shot, you’ll see a fourteen-armed starburst, and no ghosts. With the HD version, the starburst is a good deal less pronounced — in some cases, the sun can be directly in the frame and you see almost nothing but a disc. But in either version, it’s not fast — the corners weaken a bit when wide open, and best performance is at f/8. According to tests, the sharpness numbers aren’t really exceptional — in fact, not at all better than the DA 12-24mm zoom... but this is one of those lenses where people swear that there’s a special virtue which lab tests can’t measure. “It’s sprinkled with magic dust.” But others are starting to whisper that maybe being Limited doesn’t make this one anything special at all. For landscapes you have to pick a focus point halfway to the edge instead of the center, to compensate as best you can for field curvature, and maybe stop it down as far as f/11.

(HD) DA 21mm f/3.2 Limited

A pancake wide angle. Very small, and as a consequence, very slow for a prime. Considered good, though it does have some barrel distortion. Some people just adore this lens, and swear that objective performance measures just don’t do it justice... but personally, I can’t see the point. Even the 20-40mm Limited zoom is faster, and might be just as good by a lot of other measures too. About its only optical advantage over a good zoom in that range is flare resistance, but it’s not as good as the 15mm, and with the HD coatings, even the 20-40 zoom has very robust flare resistance.

(HD) DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited

Pentax pretty much invented pancake SLR lenses with the great M 40mm f/2.8 — this one is even smaller and better. It’s so tiny it barely protrudes at all from the camera, which does make it inconvenient to manually focus. Was considered excellent at first, but as sensors have evolved, opinions of this lens’s performance have slumped somewhat. It may be outdated at this point. And as mentioned, 40mm is a bit of an awkward focal length for the APS-C sensor size. At least this one beats the 20-40mm Limited on aperture, unlike the 21mm. It reportedly works fairly well on full frame, though with a bit of weakening in the corners.

(HD) DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited

A pancake portrait lens. Not as compact as the other two pancakes, but still darn small, and probably a more useful length and aperture than the other two. Considered excellent. Like the 40, this reportedly works with full frame but might weaken a bit in the corners.

Some say this is the most magical of the DA Limiteds. Its optical design apparently comes from a venerable 105/2.4 lens made for the 6x7 medium format film camera, which they simply scaled down.

(HD) DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited

A digital-age answer to classic 50mm macro lenses. Considered very sharp, though somewhat harsh of bokeh, as a general use “standard” lens, and excellent as a macro. Like the 15mm f/4, it is not a pancake, but is still pretty darn compact. The quality is said to be noticeably better at middle distances than at infinity.

(HD) FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited

One of the “Three Amigos” — a set of Limited lenses designed for film, which have survived into the digital era because of their unsurpassed quality. Considered breathtakingly superb — this has been called the finest autofocus lens ever sold by any company. Unfortunately it is also very expensive. Those who can’t stand the price sometimes turn to the FA 35mm f/2 as an affordable approximation. They say you have to relearn some of your habits to shoot with this (and the other Amigos too); some people hate it for the first month they have it, then they learn how to use it and suddenly they’re in love. But be warned that since this dates back to the nineties, today’s very high resolution sensors are starting to expose imperfections that weren’t noticeable in the past. In terms of pure sharpness, this is no longer the leader in its category, as it once was. But the quality of its rendering is still considered top-notch, and now that Pentax is supporting full frame again, this lens can once again work the way it was designed to, and sharpness quibbles in crop mode are less important again. The HD re-release actually lowers the price a bit relative to the original.

(HD) FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited

The second of the “Three Amigos”. Considered excellent, at least once it’s closed up by one stop. The most affordable of the Amigos, and at optimum aperture (f/4) maybe the sharpest lens Pentax makes, at least near the center. Unlike the other two Amigos, this one is small, nearly qualifying as a pancake.

(HD) FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited

The last of the “Three Amigos”. Considered very good, but not up to the level of the 31 or the 43. Has some purple-fringe issues, as most older longish lenses do. Expensive. People constantly debate between this and the DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited. You’d think that the slower lens would be the sharper one wide open, but it isn’t... and to me, the FA 77 is the winner on bokeh. The one clear advantage of the DA 70 is with purple fringing and other chromatic aberration. The FA may be above average, but the DA is just bulletproof when it comes to color issues.

HD D-FA 21mm f/2.4 Limited DC WR

The first modern Limited for full frame is a wide angle, and moderately fast in aperture. It fits perfectly into the biggest remaining gap in Pentax’s lens lineup... except that it’s too expensive and too massive for most users, and a lot of people would probably like to lose a little sharpness to gain a bit more aperture, like a Samyang 20/1.8 or similar lens, as this length could be very useful in smallish interior spaces that may not have a lot of light or much need for high performance, such as living rooms.

(HD) FA 35mm f/2

FA 50mm f/1.4

HD D FA 15-30mm f/2.8 SDM WR

HD D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 SDM WR

HD D FA 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6 DC WR

HD D FA 70-210mm f/4 SDM WR

HD D FA 150-450mm f/4.5-5.6 DC AW

D FA 50mm f/2.8 Macro

D FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro (WR) (AW)

HD D FA★ 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW

HD D FA★ 85mm f/1.4

HD D FA★ 70-200mm f/2.8 DC AW

(HD) FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited

(HD) FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited

(HD) FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited

HD D-FA 21mm f/2.4 Limited DC WR

HD DA 560mm f/5.6 AW

DA★ 200mm f/2.8

DA★ 300mm f/4

DA 35mm f/2.4

DA 40mm f/2.8 XS

DA 50mm f/1.8

DA★ 55mm f/1.4

(HD) DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited

(HD) DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited

(HD) DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited

HD DA 1.4× AW Rear Convertor

DA★ 60-250mm f/4

DA 14mm f/2.8

(HD) DA 15mm f/4 Limited

(HD) DA 21mm f/3.2 Limited

...all DA and DA★ zooms other than the DA★ 60-250mm f/4, though some may be usable through part of the zoom range

Tokina, having entered into an agreement with Pentax to share lens designs, ceased releasing lenses under its own name in Pentax mount. Once the agreement ended, they never came back. This meant that from then on, most competitive third-party choices would come from either Tamron or Sigma, until the recent rise of new brands. Nowadays, even Sigma is largely abandoning the K-mount, leaving it to companies like Samyang and Venus. Of the traditional two, Sigma has a much wider selection but, until fairly recently, a much poorer reputation for quality control. (According to the survey cited above, your chance of needing to return a brand new Sigma lens because of a defect may be nearly one in four!) I am listing here only selected lenses that are either solidly competitive with Pentax offerings or in classes not offered by Pentax. Unfortunately, these lenses are regularly being discontinued, with replacement models no longer supporting the mount.

There are also lenses available from lower-end companies such as Cosina (which sometimes markets under the Vivitar and Phoenix names)... generally speaking, avoid these. Cosina recently announced they are abandoning the Pentax mount for future lenses... good riddance.

Though Tokina is mostly out of the running here, there is one lens they used to make in K-mount that has gotten fairly strong interest from buyers: the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AT-X. It’s said to be a bit better than, for instance, the contemporary Sigma 135-400mm... but not a lot better. (I had that 135-400 once; it was not a keeper.) Nowadays, zooms in this category have improved significantly and this lens is probably quite obsolete.

It’s also possible to get Carl Zeiss lenses for Pentax mount, but only primes with fully manual focus and aperture. They only supported the K-mount for a two year period starting in 2008, and didn’t sell many. The prices are... well, if you have to ask, they ain’t for you. Note: watch out for lenses branded “Carl Zeiss Jena” — these are actually made by Sigma.

A new Chinese company has just started, called Venus Optics, or Laowa (apparently they changed their name). So far they are concentrating on special-purpose lenses with limited competition. Unlike some Chinese outfits which are making cheap nasty knockoffs for the Canon and Nikon mounts, this bunch seems to be making pretty good stuff.

An even newer entry than Venus is a brand calling itself Irix, which is apparently a Swiss/Korean collaboration where the actual manufacturing is done by Samyang. As the selection from Tokina and Samsung shrinks, these new companies are making more and more lenses available. But these are generally niche specialty lenses, rather than mainstream general purpose competitors. This increases the Pentax system’s already notable tendency to lean toward odd or unusual lens options.

In the world of manual lenses, there is a vast selection not only of vintage models made by Pentax in past decades, but also lots of obscure German and Russian creations. Some of these can be interesting — for example, many are rather taken with the Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye — and they are usually quite affordable, but digging through these choices is an occupation for the advanced lens-shopping hobbyist. Some of the Russian finds are very cheap, and in some ways pretty good, as they are knockoffs of classic German designs. Some of those creaky old lenses have bokeh that modern digital lenses cannot match. For those with interest, this is one of the more attractive aspects of Pentax cameras, as they can boast of the deepest inventory of vintage lenses available for any camera type. But of course, anyone with a short-flange mirrorless camera can adapt almost any old lens there is.

Samsung also sold K-mount lenses, branded as “D-Xenon” or “D-Xenogon”. Some additionally carried the brand of Schneider-Kreuznach (an old-time German lens company like Zeiss, which now makes lenses for Mamiya medium-format). These were just Pentax’s own lenses with different badging. Lenses that appeared in this line included the DA 18-55mm and DA 50-200mm budget zooms, the FA 35mm f/2, the D FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro , the DA 12-24mm f/4 and the DA 10-17mm Fisheye. I believe all were the older non-WR versions, in the cases where different versions exist. Note that there is also a Samsung D-Xenon 50-200mm zoom which is not branded Schneider-Kreuznach; apparently this one is Samsung’s own and not made by Pentax. If you find one of the Pentax-made models, the Samsung branding may allow you to save money. Samsung, having failed massively to sell K-mount gear, has now switched their attention to a new mirrorless mount system that’s all their own. By all reports, it was a perfectly decent system, and should have been fairly competitive in the mirrorless world, but not many people were interested, and Samsung killed off the entire product line.

Another company that used the K-mount in their film cameras and made lenses for it was Ricoh (lens brand “Rikenon”, but also watch out for “Rikenar” and “Rokinon”). These are to be avoided with fear and trembling, because not only are they cheap and lousy, but many models are slightly incompatible in such a way that, when mounted on a Pentax body with autofocus, they go on easily but are very difficult to remove again! You may also see ancient gear with a Sears brand on it; this was made by Ricoh and is also to be avoided. Some of these lenses were manufactured in Korea by Samyang. Above all, if you see any K-mount lens with a little cylindrical peg sticking out of the back, DO NOT PUT IT ON YOUR CAMERA! The only way to use such a lens safely is to physically dismantle it to get rid of that extra pin.

Speaking of Samyang, they are now evolving into a respectable lensmaker, with some of their newer models considered to be of quite decent quality and workmanship. If you see a modern digital lens branded as Rokinon, that’s actually a Samyang and there’s nothing about it to avoid. Their lenses are also branded as Bower, Pro-Optic, and occasionally as Vivitar. But there is one thing to be aware of: most of their lenses are manual focus. Also, they’re all primes of generally unexciting focal lengths, but sometimes they have other aspects that make them interesting. The interesting ones are listed below. Prices are generally very attractive — especially if you get one of their off-branded ones. For instance, I saved sixty bucks by buying their fisheye under the Bower name instead of the more recognizable Samyang or Rokinon names. Since they are old fashioned manual designs with aperture rings on the lens, some camera makes have a hard time doing any kind of automation with them — the Canon mount is especially problematic — but on Pentax, they work as well as Pentax’s own A-series lenses, with all automation fully functional aside from focusing.

They’re starting to make a whole series of new optical designs for short-flange mirrorless mounts: Micro Four Thirds, Sony E, Samsung NX, and Fujifilm X. I don’t know how well the electronics work in those cases.

Samyang has reworked many of their lenses for cinema/video use, giving them stepless aperture rings, geared focus rings, and other movie-friendly features. I think these are mostly sold as Rokinon. Lack of autofocus is no problem for cinematographers, as they generally focus with a rig that puts a big knob or hand crank on the side.

“SP” used to designate their premium line, but nowadays they don’t draw a distinction anymore. Unfortunately, Tamron has pulled back from the Pentax market, releasing a number of new lenses with no Pentax version... they swear they’ll be back, they’re not abandoning Pentax customers, but unless there’s a new surge of Pentax popularity, I would not expect much.

If they ever do return more strongly to Pentax-land, that will mean that we would get to once again enjoy the talents of Jun Hirakawa, the great lens designer who was foolishly let go by Hoya. He is apparently now designing some quite well respected new Tamron designs, such as the 24-70mm for full frame (which was apparently rebadged as a Pentax D-FA), and the latest version of their 70-200. Pentax also rebadged their 15-30/2.8, but that one is not his, apparently.

Tamron has some lenses that support optical image stabilization, like Canon’s “IS” or Nikon’s “VR”. They call their version “VC”, but as yet no model that includes this is sold for Pentax. Instead, sometimes the same model is sold with and without the VC feature.

Tamron has kind of made a specialty of all-in-one superzooms. They currently sell no less than seven of them — some for full frame, some for crop SLRs, and some for mirrorless. Besides the 18-270 that’s rebranded for Pentax (and the older 18-250 that preceded it), none of these are of interest. The stabilized 28-300 is meant for full frame but is not made for K-mount (I think there used to be an unstabilized version which was), and the 18-200 is apparently a budget cheapie of the lowest optical quality. Some other uninteresting lenses that are available in K-mount include a 28-75 and a 70-300.

In the old days, Tamron sold a line of lenses known as “Adaptall”. These were generic lenses for which a modular mount adapter could be attached, rapidly converting a lens to suit any camera system. Some of these lenses are still well regarded, and it’s not too difficult to get them in K-mount versions. But note that these lenses are manual focus only... and if you buy one that doesn’t come with a K_A mount adapter already on it, the price of the adapter by itself may exceed that of the lens.

17-50mm f/2.8 (discontinued for K-mount)

Some claim this is actually better all around than Pentax’s 16-50mm f/2.8, despite being far cheaper. It does have more uniform edge-to-edge resolution at the short end. One issue is that the plane of focus is... not a plane. So things may go out of focus at the edges if you’re shooting a flat surface. Also, there’s rather a lot of brightness falloff in the corners, though this is something that post-processing can easily correct. Caveat: some copies are made in Japan, others in China. Make sure you don’t get a Chinese one, especially if the price seems suspiciously low. Also, quite a few customers have had trouble with focus calibration, i.e. the lens locks focus slightly in front of or behind the subject. This can apparently be fixed by sending it in for service, but whether you’re issue-free after that is not entirely clear. Though it isn’t as notorious for quality issues overall as the Pentax 16-50 is, it should be. (Tamron has recently come out with a new optically stabilized 17-50mm f/2.8 “VC” with completely different optics, but this is not available for Pentax... and according to tests, it seems to be less sharp than the old one, especially in the corners.)

90mm f/2.8 Macro

At one time, this may have been the most popular macro lens on the market. Considered good. This is now obsoleted in favor of a new VC version, and a 60mm f/2 that I know nothing about, neither of which are made for Pentax. But it’s still sold. Directly comparable to Pentax’s 100mm macro, and though it lacks weather seals and quick-shift focusing, it does have a focus limiter which Pentax lacks, and the optics are, as far as I’ve heard, competitive with the Pentax, while being far more affordable. But watch out that you don’t buy an early copy, as the earliest version could not reach 1:1 magnification.

70-200mm f/2.8

This might be out of production now, in favor of a new VC-equipped model which is not available for Pentax, but the old one is still sold. Some say it’s solidly superior to the Sigma version in the corners... but that may only be relevant when using a full-frame camera. And the Sigma is said to be better at focusing, both auto and manual. But from samples I’ve seen... this one has some sweet-ass bokeh. Many consider this a very competitive cheaper alternative to the DA★ 60-250.

200-500mm f/5-6.3

Discontinued, but still of interest for those seeking a long zoom. Much less popular than the competing “Bigma”, but it’s lighter and less expensive. There’s also an older manual-focus 200-500mm lens, which was available with the “Adaptall 2” mount system, with constant f/5.6 aperture. That one is said to be better than some newer autofocus zooms. Said to be sharper than the first-generation Bigma at the long end, but relative to the new Bigma, I’m not hearing many positives for it except for its size and weight. Everyone complains about the slow and hunt-prone autofocus. One user said the autofocus mechanism fell apart in less than a year.

The important thing about this lens is that Tamron recently replaced it with a 150-600mm which, from early reports, appears to be much more desirable than the old 200-500mm, and which is very affordably priced. It looks like easily the most attractive value in superlong zooms — at least until Sigma comes out with their counter-offer. But unfortunately, the new one is not being made available in Pentax mount!

10-24mm f/3.5-4.5

Their previous ultra wide angle offering, the 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6, was a flop, but now they’ve come out swinging. We’ll see. Apparently it does have nicely low distortion at the wide end, and not much corner darkening... but sharpness in the corners is apparently downright poor. This is not a good area to cut corners for a lens likely to be used for landscapes, where all parts of the frame have equal need for sharpness.

Modern glass in old-school bodies, specializing in wide focal lengths, mostly manual focus. Pentax is the best SLR mount to use with these manual focus lenses, as they don’t support aperture automation very well on Nikon, or at all on Canon or Sony mounts. To compensate for this, once they started adding autofocus lenses to the lineup, Canon and Sony are the mounts they chose to support — particularly the former. Later they made their autofocus lineup more extensive by designing for mirrorless mounts: as of this writing they have only two lens sizes for SLR but five for mirrorless. The one lens type available for both is their 14/2.8, which also has manual-focus versions.

Among the less exciting lenses they offer are a 35mm f/1.4 (which may be a commonplace spec nowadays, but the bokeh is very smooth), a 50mm f/1.4 (they have an expensive f/1.2 for Canon), an 85mm f/1.4, a 12mm f/2.8 full frame fisheye, and in 2015, a 100mm macro. They used to have a set of crappy old supertelephotos, some being reflectors and others just being skinny and slow, all requiring an adapter to use on any modern camera. I predicted they might drop those embarrassments, and they have, except for one 300mm f/6.3 mirror. They’re moving up fast. All in all, the focal lengths they offer in K-mount are 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, 24, 35, 50, 85, and 135 mm, all manual focus.

The interesting lenses are:

8mm f/3.5 Fisheye

This is attractive because not only is it wider than Pentax’s fisheye zoom, but at under $300 (even cheaper with non-Samyang branding) it’s also one of the least expensive crop-sensor fisheyes you can get. It has decent performance around the edges, where some more costly fisheyes can be pretty awful, and the flare control is quite good. Still, the best corner sharpness doesn’t happen until f/8. There are two versions of this, the older one being distinguished by its sunshade being nonremovable. (They made a removable version because people were cutting the shades off in order to use them on full frame, where the image circle meets the top and bottom of the sensor frame, but not the sides. I do not recommend getting a removable one.) It uses a stereographic protection rather than an equidistant or equisolid projection like most fisheyes; this results in objects near the edges having a more natural shape. People say it’s at least mildly preferable to Pentax’s 10-17mm fisheye zoom.

Add all that up, and I had to buy one. The main drawback I find in practice is purple fringing against bright backgrounds, such as branches against a cloudy sky. This may be exacerbated if you focus closely in order to get a sharp foreground. There is some flare, too. In the worst cases, bright windows in indoor shots can produce large pale smears, with some purple in them. Also, if you use a computer to undo the fisheye distortion, the corners can get quite soft. But all of these issues can improve greatly if you stop down enough, like to f/8.

The lens can work very well for natural scenery, if you aim close to horizontal so the horizon isn’t curved; the projection keeps distortions remarkably mild and unnoticeable through a large part of the frame, and the width of the image doesn’t seem extreme at all. If you have natural elements in the middle and something straight and manmade near the side, you can create a dramatic contrast where the manmade thing appears far more distorted than the natural stuff does. To really use this to its utmost as a wide angle, you should get ahold of some software that converts the projection from spherical to cylindrical, so vertical lines are straight but the perspective and proportions in the side areas appear locally natural. That is probably the best way to approximate the way the eye sees really wide panoramas.

One warning I’ve heard: apparently the focus distance can change noticeably when you stop down, so if accurate focus is a concern, try using some depth-of-field preview to check the focus when the diaphragm is at shooting aperture... it may not match the focus you get wide open, especially if focusing close. I’ve heard that the 85mm also has this issue, so for all I know, it may be a common problem with many Samyang lenses. But with this one, you’re not focusing on an object; you’re just estimating the minimum and maximum distances of objects in the scene, and setting the focus ring somewhere between the two.

10mm f/2.8

Long delayed, but finally released. According to tests, it’s very sharp, but only in the center. The edges don’t catch up until like f/8. There’s also plenty of barrel distortion and tons of vignetting. Add that up and it’s sounding like the f/2.8 aperture is going to be usable only in very limited types of shooting. If it was good, this could have been a very tempting alternative to the DA 12-24mm for landscapes, being both wider and faster. But from here it sounds like you’d be just as well off optically with any of the competing zoom lenses, since high sharpness that applies only in the center is a pretty useless attribute for a landscape lens. At first I was interested in this one myself, but decided to go ahead and get the fisheye instead of waiting to see how this turned out. At this point I’m glad I did. Note that it cannot use filters; the front is very bulged out. (To protect the front surface, the hood is nonremovable.) That it’s manual focus is hardly an issue for such usage, I think. To control flare, they gave it a nano crystal coating — a first for the company — though only on one surface. According to the test results I saw, flare is still fairly bad. The price didn’t take long to drop below $500, which is certainly competitive.

Be warned that with this wide an angle of view, a rectilinear lens will in a fairly real sense introduce as much distortion as a fisheye does; objects near the edges will appear stretched along the radial direction. But there’s no substitute if you want straight lines to come out straight.

12mm f/2.8 Fisheye

I presume that this is similar to their 8mm fisheye, except for full frame. It is actually more compact than the 8mm, and features a fancier coating.

14mm f/2.8

A very commonplace and uninteresting spec nowadays, but this lens is worthy of attention because it just might be the best available way to shoot landscapes on a crop-sensor Pentax. It’s reputed to be sharper at the edges than almost any other commonly used wide angle, and it’s very affordable too. But it’s a lot poorer with flare than a 15mm Limited, so if you routinely have the sun in or near the shot, the Limited would probably be the better choice. Also, this is big and heavy compared to the Limited — for good reason, as it’s actually a full-frame lens. If you’ve got a full-frame body, this becomes much more interesting, as for that format 14mm is a truly hardcore ultrawide focal length. Note that the warning about rectilinear distortion applies even harder for this lens in full frame than it does for the 10mm in crop format. Note also that the corners are very dark in full frame, and the darkening may be noticeable even as tight as f/8. Barrel distortion is substantial, over five percent. According to test charts, peak sharpness is at f/5.6, but don’t worry too much about that, because it’s already almost that good when wide open, even in full frame — as far as test results can say, the corner sharpness this achieves is pretty much unprecedented in fast ultrawides.

16mm f/2.0

Interesting because it’s a stop faster than most other such wide angle lenses, and two stops faster than the 15mm Limited. It’s said to be as sharp as any comparable lens out there, peaking at f/4, though perhaps lacking in microcontrast, which is easy to add back in postprocessing. It is not, apparently, as uniform in sharpness from center to edge as the 24mm f/1.4 (below) is, but according to ePhotoZine’s test, it may beat the 14mm f/2.8 at the same aperture. Bokeh looks pretty darn good to me. Flare handling looks kind of average, from what I’ve seen. It’s only a little more expensive than the 14mm f/2.8 and only a little heavier in exchange for the extra stop of speed, so for APS cameras it may be a tricky question to choose between the two. I don’t know which performs better in real life; I only know that I’d rather have the additional width. My ideal landscape lens would probably be about a 12mm f/4.

20mm f/1.8

This one is brand new in late 2016. I know very little about it, but it does sound tempting. The price is around $550 (it’s cheaper for the bigger brands).

24mm f/1.4

In this case, the extra speed is remarkable; I believe this is the first lens in the world that achieves f/1.4 speed at this focal length. (Sigma has since announced a 24mm f/1.4 for Canon and Nikon in their “Art” series.) I’d be delighted if Pentax made a 24mm DA lens that was even as fast as f/2.0. But on the other hand, some have said that this lens doesn’t actually reach f/1.4, and it might honestly be more like f/1.7. That’s still a remarkable aperture, especially considering that it’s a full frame lens, making it as wide in that context as the 16mm is for APS sensors. We are now getting into moderate focal lengths where the lack of autofocus might be more of a hindrance than it is with the wider lenses. It’s not going to be very good at handling flare, of course, with that aperture. And the corners have a lot of brightness fall-off when wide open. But the bokeh looks pretty good. Sharpness, as is typical of very fast lenses, doesn’t peak until about f/5.6, and appears to be quite uniform from center to edge, which is good for landscaping. Whereas most of the Samyangs are very affordable, this one is midpriced, like $700.

TS-24mm f/3.5

It’s a tilt-shift lens! This lens allows you to offset the lens or tilt it at an angle relative to the camera’s sensor, so the plane of focus and center of perspective is altered. This can create useful effects for photographing buildings, such as making the sides go up straight and parallel instead of converging. If you didn’t already want one, never mind, you don’t need it. Perspective correction can be done on your computer; it’s only the angled plane of focus that actually requires a lens, and that’s only rarely useful, and when it is useful the effect is subtle. Playing around to create exaggerated effects will generally just make you look like a dork. But architecture shooters consider such a lens essential. I think this is the only tilt-shift that’s readily available and affordable for K-mount, though if you pay four times the price you can get some fancier tilt-shifters from Schneider. Theirs come in 28mm, 50mm, and 90mm lengths. On the other hand, the adjustment knobs on this one are said to feel a bit flimsy. Be aware that K-mount tilt-shift lenses offer absolutely no automation at all; if you stop it down, the viewfinder will get dimmer, as if you were using the most ancient screw-mount gear. If this type of shooting is your bag, you might do better with something that uses a fully electronic mount interface. But don’t ask me what lenses are available for such.

135mm f/2

This is considered a classic length for full frame telephoto, sort of bridging the gap between a portrait lens and a sports lens. Personally, I see little point, but whatever. The emphasis, of course, is on speed and bokeh. I can’t say much else about it, except that I’ve heard some people say it’s really sharp. For those who want one, there is no Pentax equivalent, so here you go.

This company is brand new. At first they specialized in macro lenses; then they started branching out to other unusual and specialized types with limited competition. They make a fisheye zoom, for instance.

60mm f/2.8 Ultra-Macro

They claim this is the world’s first macro to offer both infinity focus and 2:1 magnification at the same time, and it’s pretty affordable too. It’s available for Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax SLR mounts, but not for any mirrorless mount. They say that on a full frame body, it will vignette at infinity focus, but not when focused close. On APS, vignetting is not a big deal, but the corners still dim a bit under some circumstances. It uses a 14 blade iris to improve bokeh. Apparently this lens is 100% manual, offering no connection to any camera aside from physical attachment. The bokeh you see in the viewfinder is the bokeh you get... if you can see it at all after stopping down enough. Early reports on the images it makes are very positive.

What does 2:1 magnification mean? On an APS camera, it means that the entire width of the image can be filled by an object only half an inch wide.

15mm f/4 Macro

New for 2015, this is the world’s widest 1:1 macro lens. Not only that, it has 6mm of shift ability (though not tilt). And despite its 110 degree angle of view if mounted on a full frame camera (and even on APS-C cameras it’s 85 degrees), it’s flat enough in the front to mount filters. This will produce a perspective on tiny subjects that no lens has ever offered before. The bokeh seems surprisingly decent, and the price is pretty reasonable too.

12mm f/2.8

New for 2016, they claim this will be free of all barrel distortion, even in full-frame use.  Not confirmed yet that it will support K-mount, but it seems likely. If the price is good, this could be exactly the landscape lens that I hoped for (aside from the likelihood that it will be all-manual), though if I’m sensible I should probably wait for a new ultrawide zoom to push down the price of the DA 12-24.

14mm f/14 Macro Probe

Yes, that’s f/fourteen. This is a long skinny telescoping tube with a tiny objective at the tip. Since the lens is so much closer to the subject than it is to the camera, the exposure is going to be quite a bit dimmer than even the f/14 number suggests. Strong lighting is a necessity. A matched flash accessory adds $300 to the $1500 base price.

STF 105mm f/2 (T3.2)

Also new for 2016, this is a portrait lens which incorporates a graduated neutral-density filter which dims light going through the edges of the inner lens elements.  This technique can produce bokeh of an almost unnatural smoothness not achievable any other way.  I believe this is the only such lens ever made for K-mount.

This is an even newer brand, from a parent company called TH Swiss, collaborating with a Korean company which may or may not be Samyang. The Irix lenses are typically available in two mechanically different versions, one being plastic for light weight, and the other being magnesium for robustness and premium feel. These two design types are branded with the somewhat ludicrous names “Firefly” and “Blackstone”.

11mm f/4

This is just about the length and speed that I have said I wanted as a landscape lens. It’s full frame, so in crop mode it should have pretty good corners. We shall see. They claim it has minimal distortion, and partial weather sealing.  The magnesium version uses phosphorescent paint for the markings, to make them easy to read in the dark. The price is around $600 for the plastic version... and even that supposedly lightweight version might weigh somewhere near a pound and a half, which is a distinct disadvantage for hiking. Apparently it’s designed so that an optional filter holder can be attached to the back. The aperture control is apparently similar to Samyang lenses which support auto aperture but manual focus, but this is not fully confirmed yet. As it has become more available, substantial price discounts can sometimes be seen.

15mm f/2.4

New for 2016 is this full-frame fast ultrawide, which is being touted as a very premium option. It’s manual focus but otherwise seems to support a full electronic connection to the supported cameras, with no aperture ring on the lens. Despite marketing which seems aimed at the exclusive snobbery demographic, the price is midrange, like $700. No word yet on performance, but their MTF charts suggest that you might have to stop it down kind of hard to get sharp corners, which is no surprise given the lens’s very ambitious width and aperture. The front has got a very wide flange so it’s possible to screw a low-profile filter on it (they sell their own as accessories), which is a bit redundant given that it also has an internal filter slot at the back, of the type more commonly used in giant telephotos.

From what little I’ve heard so far, it’s plenty sharp and handles flare well, but vignetting is substantial at the wider apertures in full frame use, and distortion is moderate.

One cool little thing that Pentax offers which most lensmakers do not is a window on the bottom of the hood so you can turn a polarizer without taking it off. Irix is the first third-party lensmaker I’ve seen adopt this idea, and they do it better than Pentax, because the opening is made with a sliding piece instead of a detachable one.

The other third-party lensmakers are small potatoes, but Sigma is big — I’ve heard that they are actually the number one seller of interchangeable lenses, ahead of both Canon and Nikon. They are also the most ambitious lensmaker, sometimes coming up with designs more innovative and radical than those of any camera company. The downside is that their history of bargain pricing and poor quality control means that their recent efforts to position themselves as an upscale competitor stand on less than solid ground. In general, the more recent a lens is, the more likely it is to be good; designs only a few years old may have flaws not found in the newest ones, such as a slight yellow color cast.

Formerly, “EX” designated their premium line. There wasn’t really much difference between EX and non-EX offerings as far as optical quality went — it’s mostly a matter of mechanical construction quality. But recently, they’ve created an “A” series (for “Art”) which is more truly premium — this seems to be their attempt at an equivalent to Pentax’s “Limited” series. In fact, the first Art lens they made was rather similar to the FA 31mm f/1.8, the crown jewel of the Limiteds, though nowhere near as hardcore in its premium-ness. Most A-series lenses are primes, many of them for mirrorless mounts only, but they’ve come up with one zoom, with an astonishingly fast aperture. They’ve also taken to labeling their new large telephotos “S” for Sport, and the newest 17-70mm standard zoom is labeled “C” for, um, Contemporary. (I guess they didn’t want to say “Consumer”.)

Sigma’s support of the autofocus K mount dates from 2006, the year that the K10D brought Pentax back into the limelight and reinvigorated interest in the system. There are K-mount lenses from Sigma from an earlier era, but they are to be avoided; not only is the quality often very dubious, but some of them use the incompatible Ricoh mount instead of the true K-mount. Unfortunately, their interest in K-mount waned somewhat after 2010. After 2015, it started to become quite limited, and by 2019, it was clear that support for the K-mount was limited to selling out existing stock. By 2022 all Pentax lens sales had ended, so every lens listed here is historical, but I am keeping this section here anyway because of Sigma’s unique importance. The same goes for some other second-tier mounts.

Warning: A new problem has arisen with Sigma lenses used on the K-3 body, and possibly some other recent bodies. The K-3’s lens-to-body communication protocol includes two separate focal length fields: one which gets recorded in the EXIF, and a separate one which is used for SR correction. Many Sigma lenses are reporting completely erroneous values in this second field, and as a result, the shake reduction doesn’t work! It ends up doing more harm than good, and you have to turn it off and just use good steady technique. I expect that Sigma will fix this with firmware updates at some point, but these won’t help older lenses, and it’s up to you to find and apply the updates as needed.

Many Sigma lenses support in-lens focus motors, which they call “HSM”, for Nikon but not for Pentax. This was driven by Nikon’s decision to make low-end bodies for which in-lens motors are the only supported means of autofocus. Some Sigma lenses, mainly the newest models, do support it for Pentax, so it works like SDM — these are noted individually. When a lens does use HSM on Pentax, that means it cannot autofocus with an older non-SDM Pentax body such as a K100D. Like Pentax’s SDM, Sigma’s HSM system has sometimes been an aggravating source of mechanical failures. If a lens has “HSM” in its name but does not actually offer HSM in the Pentax version, I will indicate that by using gray strikethrough text.

Some lenses are designated “OS”. This means they have in-lens image stabilization, such as is used by Nikon and Canon cameras. This stabilization feature can also be used with Pentax cameras now, if you turn off the camera’s internal “SR” stabilization. This apparently does not work on older Pentax bodies — I don’t know where the cutoff is for sure, but if I read Sigma’s website correctly, I think it may be supported by the same bodies that support SDM focusing, since it uses the SDM contacts to supply the OS mechanism with power. This might be worth doing on some of the longer telephoto lenses... on at least some older Pentax bodies, in my experience, the SR system is kind of useless for focal lengths longer than 300mm. I have not had this trouble on my newer camera. One reviewer who tried to measure the difference with a “Bigmos” on a modern Pentax body concluded that in-body SR was a bit less effective than Sigma OS for focal lengths above 300mm... but more effective when the lens was moving. SR handled panning with less trouble. As with HSM, if the lens has “OS” in its name but it doesn’t work in the Pentax version, I will use gray strikethrough text to indicate that.

In-lens stabilization may have performance advantages at long focal lengths, and it does make the image in the viewfinder less shaky, which aids focusing and composition... but bear in mind that it can also create a noticeable degradation in optical quality; sometimes when the same lens is available in OS and non-OS versions, the unstabilized version is measurably sharper. Also, the viewfinder stabilization means that the boundaries of the finished image may not quite match what you see... and some implementations include sudden random lurches in the viewfinder image when the stabilization system wanders too far off center. Image stabilization in general is a feature that was very competitive five years ago, but is now receding in importance because of the extraordinary high-ISO performance of the latest camera bodies.

You’ll note that Sigma models are constantly being revised and updated. For a while they seemed to do this more frequently than anyone else, but lately they have tapered off somewhat. As a result, I will sometimes list two or three lens versions in the same segment. Though they may have pissed a lot of people off with bad products and breakage over the years, there is no denying the prowess of their optical design team. They may produce more genuinely new lenses per year than any other maker, and their average quality — in design, if not in mass-produced execution — seems to be as good as anyone’s. Their best designs sometimes outdo what any of the camera makers come up with.

And speaking of revisions and updates, you should watch out if you’re putting and older third-party lens onto a newer camera body. The third-party makers don’t have licenses and specs for the camera mounts they work with, and have to achieve compatibility by reverse engineering. The camera makers often tweak their electronic interfaces just to make this more difficult for the lensmakers. So a lens from 2009 may stop working when put onto a 2010 camera. If this happens, you have to send the lens back to its maker to be “rechipped”. This happens a lot more for Canon shooters than Pentaxians, but such issues are not unknown. For their new models, Sigma has fought back against this problem by releasing a docking station which allows the lens’s firmware to be updated by your computer.

So here are the lenses of interest that are, or recently have been, available in K-mount. At this point, they are likely to have only a limited supply of new old stock available at best.

18-35mm f/1.8 HSM | A

Sigma decided that what APS shooters need is an exact equivalent of a traditional full frame 28-70mm f/2.8, so they made the fastest zoom lens in the world. They couldn’t stretch the long end of the zoom lens to 45mm, but given the astonishing f/1.8 speed, nobody’s going to blame them. Said to be quite sharp, though not perfect away from the center... given how amazing it is that such a design works at all, nobody’s going to be picky, but even without that, people are very impressed with this lens’s performance. Vignetting, distortion, and chromatic aberration are kept low, flare control is adequate, and sharpness is very competitive among the most modern zooms. What’s probably going on is that it really is a 28-55ish lens, with a built in “speed booster” — that is, a reverse teleconverter — in the back. Such designs seem to be becoming increasingly popular for cameras with crop-format sensors, especially on mirrorless cameras, where short flange distances make speed-boosting easier. One drawback of this approach, of course, is that the resulting lens has all the weight and bulk of a full frame 28-70. For us, this will compete directly with Pentax’s 20-40mm Limited WR, which is far slower but also far smaller and lighter and better built. It’s also costlier than the Sigma because it’s a Limited... but not by very much.

On paper, this lens seems tremendously impressive, but there are three warnings to keep in mind about it, which I will give in terms of increasing severity. One: its build quality may feel solid due to its great weight, but it’s not impressive. It’s all plastic, the friction levels on the rings are reportedly not well controlled, and despite every opportunity (it’s both internally focused and internally zooomed), it has no weather sealing. Second, it has the very strange property of shifting in color as you stop it down. The color balance of the shot moves from bluish to yellowish as you change aperture! I’ve never heard of any other lens doing this in a noticeable way, and in this one the change is large enough to be quite clear in an A/B comparison. Third... many buyers, not just on Pentax but on other mounts as well, have reported that phase-detect autofocus is miscalibrated so badly that it renders the lens unusable without live view. This may be correctable through their docking software, but not easily. And some report that the lens improves if it’s exercised with repeated focusing. This may be due to overly thick lubricants needing to warm up — some say that when the lens is new, the smell of oil is quite strong. This last issue could be a deal breaker, unless you happen to get a copy that plays nice with phase-detect autofocus. But the lens has to remain very tempting anyway, simply because Pentax’s DA lineup is so blatantly lacking in any wide angle lens with a fast aperture. And I’ve recently heard reports that the updated focusing algorithm in the K-3 II body somehow makes this lens focus perfectly well, where the previous K-3 model failed.

20-40mm f/2.8 EX

An older wide angle zoom, now discontinued, of interest to those with a full-frame body, on which it would be roughly equivalent to a 12-24 on APS. Said to be fairly competitive with primes in its range, for example the Samyang 14mm. It’s not their widest full-frame zoom; they now make a 12-24 full frame for other mounts.

17-70mm f/2.8-4.5   /  17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS HSM   / &esp;17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS HSM | C

Surprisingly good for an affordable standard zoom, especially at the long end. I have the older version and was pretty happy with it until, after seven or eight years of use, the focus gearing started to stick. Corners go rather soft at the short end when wide open. (My personal copy seems to be softest at the lower left, for some reason — maybe due to the number of knocks it’s taken.) The corner vignetting at the wide end can be substantial too, and with stabilization turned on, won’t be symmetrical. But with very good performance under all other conditions, this earned points in its day as perhaps the most versatile short zoom on the market. I don’t have any direct experience with the newer f/2.8-4 OS upgrades, but according to tests, performance of the f/4 replacement (pre-“C”) is similar to the old f/4.5 version, and definitely softer in the corners than Pentax’s DA 17-70. But on the other hand, tests say it’s sharper in the center and has less chromatic aberration. Some say that of those two, the oldest one may be optically preferable.

Only a couple of years after coming up with the new formula, they changed it again, with the newest one being labeled “C”, as the launch of their new “Contemporary” series. By some reports, the “C” version is far superior to both previous models, especially in the corners. All three versions also call themselves “Macro” — they’re not true macros, but they can focus so close you can almost touch the subject to the front element. The two newer ones use HSM focusing but lack OS in Pentax mount; the old one is screwdrive, and uses a very short throw, which makes focusing quick but not very precise. Apparently the HSM “C” retains this short throw, but now has better damping when focusing manually. Both newer versions reportedly suffer from zoom creep when positioned vertically. None of them are weather resistant.

I’ve heard of a few users who got to directly compare the “C” to Pentax’s f/4 DA model, and some reported that optically they’re tied, but one of them said the Pentax autofocuses significantly better, and is less bulky. Others say that the “C” is optically better than the DA 17-70, but not better than the DA 16-85 unless you need the extra stop of aperture. I have heard one opinion which prefers the “C” to the 16-85, but that seems to be a minority view.

I’ve heard a rumor that a small number of f/2.8-4 models were made in which the OS is operational on Pentax bodies, but they’re apparently pretty scarce, and I’m not sure if this is the “C” version or not. Meanwhile, the “C” lens is one of those bitten by the firmware bug where it would report the wrong focal length for shake-reduction purposes, so that the in-body SR would not work, but Sigma now has a patch for this. As of 2022 copies of this lens are still available.

18-50mm f/2.8 EX  /  17-50mm f/2.8 EX OS HSM

Sigma’s original 18-50 EX had to be redesigned because the cheaper 17-70mm was embarrassing it. Now more competitive, as long as you don’t get an old one. To be certain it’s the new one, make sure it claims to be “Macro”. (Also, do not confuse this with the 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6, which was a minimal budget lens, or the 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5, which I guess is a more midpriced but still lower-end model.) Still, the Tamron 17-50 was pretty clearly the better buy according to most. But now there’s an even newer 17-50mm model, which offers OS and HSM where the older one does not. This one has less CA than the old one... and possibly a more pronounced difference between sharpness in the center and softness in the corners. The bokeh may not be great, but it’s certainly better than some in the class, and it does a good job of avoiding green and purple fringing. The corners are blurry at f/2.8, but once you stop down to f/4 they immediately sharpen up. Overall, it’s said to be a substantial improvement, but the Tamron is still way more affordable. This may now be hard to find in K-mount.

10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX HSM  /  10-20mm f/3.5 EX HSM

The original is a cheaper and wider alternative to Pentax’s 12-24mm, mostly considered not as good overall. Goes funky at the short end, with compound uncorrectable distortion. But it is quite a bit cheaper, and surprisingly, in some ways it does beat Pentax on flare control. The f/3.5 version is faster, but might be quite a bit more expensive, and reportedly it’s not as sharp as the older one, though better with flare. Many prefer the old one even years after it’s gone out of production. It uses HSM focusing, while the old one does not. Neither is considered anywhere near as desirable as the recent 8-16mm. A warning about the old one: apparently the autofocus mechanism can break easily on a surprisingly minor drop impact.

8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM

It may be slow as molasses, but nobody else makes a rectilinear wide angle zoom that goes down to 8mm. (Sigma also makes an equally extreme 12-24mm for full frame.) Said to be impressively not-bad given its extreme goals — I’ve heard one report that its resolving power on a high-megapixel sensor is dramatically improved over the 10-20mm, particularly in the corners. (The center may actually be poorer than the old ones, but who cares — evenly distributed sharpness is far more important at these focal lengths.) At the longer end of the zoom range, it nearly covers a full frame view. And they say it handles flare very well, and the grade of sunburst effect it gives is right up there with the 15mm Limited. Note that it is not possible to screw a filter onto this lens, as the front bulges out too much. When this first came out it was very expensive, but over just one year, the price dropped tremendously. It now costs less than the Pentax 12-24mm does! Or it would, if you could find one — the supply has run out and they’ve now become scarce.

20mm f/1.8 EX   /  24mm f/1.8 EX   /  28mm f/1.8 EX

Those looking for a fast wide-standard or moderate wide angle lens may find one of these a useful offering, mainly because of the lack of alternatives at moderate prices. Designed for film. Considered mediocre and outdated, and no longer easily available, but they have their advocates. I’d probably go for one of the manual-focus Samyangs instead.

Sigma has come up with a new expensive 24mm f/1.4 in their Art series, but it’s not sold in K-mount.

30mm f/1.4 EX  /  30mm f/1.4 HSM | A

A fast standard lens. In the older one, performance varies tremendously between the center and the edge — the middle is awesomely sharp and the corners are awful, they don’t even try. The new one takes some pains to even this out, but there’s still a quite noticeable difference. Both are large and bulky. (If you want even more bulk, Sigma also makes a 35mm f/1.4 A for full frame; this is the lens that I mentioned above as being kind of similar to an FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited.)

50mm f/1.4 EX HSM  /  50mm f/1.4 HSM | A

The brand new A-series version seems to be trying to compete directly with the ultra-costly Zeiss Otus 50, which might be the best SLR lens ever made. By all reports the “Art” lens is breathtakingly wonderful. For that size and price, it had better be. But it’s not the first to try to redefine the venerable “fast fifty” for the digital age; that would be Sigma’s older EX model, which predated the Pentax 55mm f/1.4 portrait lens. Even that old one was much bulkier and heavier and higher priced than a traditional fifty, and had improved performance to match, including some good bokeh for portraits. It’s a lot more even edge-to-edge than the 30mm Ex in crop usage, since like the Art version it’s a full frame lens. In full frame usage it apparently does weaken a lot at the corners. For crop shooters, both of these compete directly with Pentax’s DA★ 55mm f/1.4 — the EX version from below and the Art version from above. And the extra price it commands over the Pentax is not all that much more... if you can find one.

(Sigma also offers an 85mm f/1.4 EX, which some portraitists consider an ideal length... but most seem to refer to track down an FA★ 85mm f/1.4, though it costs more used than the Sigma costs new. The FA’s bokeh is legendary, while that of the Sigma 85mm is controversial... one person called it “horrific”, but others say that the bokeh is fine, it’s just the chromatic aberration that’s bad. The shots I’ve seen support the latter opinion. An Art-series replacement came out, but not for Pentax.)

70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM  /  70-200mm f/2.8 EX OS HSM

A bit heavier and more expensive than Tamron’s 70-200, but both versions support HSM focusing with Pentax bodies. I don’t know much about it. Apparently this was made in many variants. The older one has an 18 element design, while the new OS model has 22 elements, and a drastically higher price. Between the two I would suggest the non-OS version, which is distinguishable from outdated variants by the phrase “APOMacro HSM II”. But really, I’d rather have one of the DA★ teles. But someone primarily interested in autofocus performance might feel otherwise: this bad boy is said to focus significantly faster than Pentax’s 60-250 (and likewise, Sigma’s 50-150 is speedier than Pentax’s 50-135). May now be hard to find.

135-400mm f/4.5-5.6  /  120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OS HSM

The 135-400mm is no longer made but possibly still available. It was a temptingly affordable way to get into the supertelephoto range. Considered sort of okay... but I had one and didn’t like it at all. I called it “the piglet”. It tended to always produce frustratingly blurred images in the field, though its performance would always be adequate under careful test conditions. As for the 120-400mm that replaced it, I know relatively little about how it performs, but it’s said to be improved over the old one, though it’s rumored to still go kind of soft above 300mm. One guy says it gets sharp if you stop down to f/8. I can say that it remains less expensive than Sigma’s comparable constant-aperture telezooms (120-300mm f/2.8 and, until recently, 100-300mm f/4). The new one supports OS and HSM on Pentax; the old one did neither. The new one appears to still be available with some looking.

50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX  /  50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 OS HSM

The legendary “Bigma”. A favorite with birders. Considered remarkably good given the size of its zoom range. The original f/4-6.3 was discontinued, but now it’s back, with OS and HSM this time. But apparently the new version has had a substantial price increase, and the discontinued one apparently had better bokeh, possibly thanks to the lack of OS. The old one had the EX designation and the newer one does not, but there hasn’t really been any change in the construction quality... only in the level of the competition. The newer one is about twelve ounces heavier. Don’t be surprised if Pentax autofocus struggles with the f/6.3 speed at the long end, because it’s not really designed for lenses slower than f/5.6, but apparently a lot of customers find that it works well enough for them, at least in sunlight. (In fact, if the light is bright enough and the optics are sharp enough, some people report getting autofocus to work on teleconverted lenses as slow as f/9.5.) Note that the claimed focal length range of 50 to 500mm is a definite exaggeration; the true range is more like 60 to 450. This kind of inaccuracy is not uncommon in almost all lens brands, though this case is worse than most. Some say a better Sigma alternative in this range is to use the 100-300mm f/4 with a 1.4× teleconverter (not Sigma’s own, which apparently is not sharp)... but that will probably cost you more money, and it’s not easy to obtain one with a Pentax mount, and furthermore, that lens has recently been discontinued.) This one remained available for much longer.

170-500mm f/5-6.3  /  150-500mm f/5-6.3 OS? HSM

A cheaper alternative to the Bigma, sometimes known as the “Bigmos” — I guess because it offered optical stabilization at a time when the true Bigma didn’t have it yet. That name is not very widespread, as far as I know, and doesn’t apply to the older 170-500 version, which never earned a cutesy name. The current one is said to be “a vast improvement” over that old version, which is not recommended by anyone. It’s also said to be slightly sharper than the older version of the Bigma. As to whether the new Bigma beats its cheaper sibling, the jury’s still out. One user, sponsored by Sigma, said he found the edge going to the Bigma in the middle zoom range and to the Bigmos at the long end, but only by a hair. Other tests say the Bigma is better at all focal lengths, but the difference is not significant. It may depend strongly on sample variation between individual copies (I heard from one guy who claimed that he’d gotten a 170-500 so good that it was better than most Bigmas or Bigmoses.) The size and weight is not much different: all four versions weigh between four and five pounds, with lengths around nine or ten inches when not zoomed (the Bigmos being the longest, but not the heaviest). Note: there was a recall of some earlier Bigmoses due to a firmware error. I think there’s a web page somewhere on Sigma’s site that’ll let you know whether you have one that needs servicing.

So is the Bigmos good, or not? I finally ordered one... and sent it back. At first, every picture was crap. With a little time and effort, things started to get halfway decent, but it still failed to give a significant improvement over the DA 55-300. When I finally got myself a DA★ 300/4, the improvement was tremendous, and I breathed a deep sigh of relief that I had avoided continuing to struggle with the Bigmos.

I can’t seem to get a clear answer on whether OS works with Pentax. They say it doesn’t, but when I tried it with mine, I thought it did... I’m not sure. The OS does work on Pentax with the Bigma.

Sigma has a new 150-600 “C” to counter Tamron’s advance in that area, and it’s acting as a replacement for this lens. No version for Pentax mount ever came out. The very similar 150-600 “S” (which came out first, is two pounds heavier, is nearly twice the price of the Tamron, and apparently is quite a bit superior to it optically) shows no signs of ever being made available for mounts other than Canon and Nikon, but the “C” version should by rights be quite a bit more consumer-friendly in its availability, but this never did include any K-mount plans. And that’s unfortunate, as what little I’ve learned so far about its optical quality sounds very positive.

300mm f/2.8 EX HSM

One of Sigma’s most highly reputed older offerings, this is probably the most affordable and least bulky way to get into the really big leagues for sports and wildlife... for other mounts. You’ll want a good teleconverter to supplement it with. Sigma has 1.4× and 2× converters designed to work with it, but not for Pentax. Using it with a TC is probably going to be less sharp on a modern sensor than a lens that’s natively longer, but it reportedly works better than you might think. This may be best suited to those who don’t want any longer than 300mm and need the wide aperture, which is a pretty small niche... shooting basketball games indoors comes to mind. For those who want length, the 500/4.5 isn’t much more expensive. Getting a bit long in the tooth; has no optical stabilization and does not support HSM on Pentax. Weighs over five pounds. Still available by special order.

500mm f/4.5 EX HSM

If you want a really serious wildlife lens and can spare several thousand dollars, this is an attractive option... a bargain, relative to its class, and it costs less than the Pentax 560/5.6 (or at least it used to) even though it’s faster. Weighs a hair under seven pounds and is over a foot long. Does not support HSM on Pentax, nor does it have optical stabilization. Of all the big expensive tele primes out there, this has traditionally been the most popular for well-heeled Pentaxians. But that is changing, as this apparently is not especially sharp, needing to be closed at least one stop to be competitive with Pentax’s 560/5.6 or 150-450. Like many Sigma lenses, the focus ring has a short throw, which means that autofocus is quick but not very precise.

They are now coming out with a new 500mm f/4 Sport, which of course is only available in Canon and Nikon mounts. The old lens is getting hard to find.

Sigma’s biggest zooms were never available for Pentax. They are the 300-800mm f/5.6 “Sigmonster” (recently discontinued) and the 200-500mm f/2.8 “Sigzilla”. The latter is the mightiest zoom lens sold by anyone, costing tens of thousands of dollars and weighing 28 pounds without the hood... and the hood adds another seven pounds! It comes with a matched 2× teleconverter to give you 400-1000mm f/5.6. By contrast, the biggest zoom lens Pentax ever made is the aforementioned FA★ 250-600mm f/5.6, which weighs twelve pounds, is eighteen inches long, and last I saw sold for about seven thousand dollars, but I really doubt it can be had for that kind of money anymore. It is a legendary piece of glass — back in the film days, many non-Pentax shooters were known to buy a Pentax body just to use on one of these. [A new lens that can roughly approximate this is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 with a 2× teleconverter — this ran about $3500 and six pounds in the EX version, and the new S version is over seven pounds, but about the same price. Due to the teleconversion, this almost certainly isn’t as good, and they never released a K-mount version.] The biggest Pentax prime ever was, I think, the A★ 1200mm f/8 — reputedly a superb lens — and the biggest autofocus prime was the F★ 600mm f/4 — also eighteen inches long, and weighs fifteen pounds, but is actualy cheaper than the 250-600 zoom, and can go longer with TC-ing.

The biggest lens made for the 645 medium-format cameras was an A★ 600mm f/5.6, and the largest autofocus model was a FA★ 400mm f/5.6 — a length that, for this format size, barely qualifies as a supertelephoto.  The biggest prime ever made for any SLR may be the Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L, which weighs over 36 pounds and today sells for over $150,000. It is believed that a couple of dozen copies exist, some of which date back to the days of their obsolete FD mount — they were taken back to the factory and converted to the new standard.

Heck, I’ll just make a quick list of what big sports/wildlife telephoto lenses are offered in the current lineup from all major SLR lens makers. I will include all openly sold lenses longer than 300mm, and any 300mm that is f/4 or wider. Certain giant lenses not listed here may be available by special order. I’ve highlighted the ones that cost under $3000. As many brands have gradually increased their listings here, the Sigma section of this table has actually shrunk a lot, as quite a few legacy lenses have finally disappeared from their listings. This process has left them with only one large prime; it seems that only zooms interest them now.

This table formerly included two additional columns: optical stabilization, and availability for Pentax. These were dropped as no third parties sell K-mount anymore, and the only non-Pentax supertele left with no optical stabilization is the Sigzilla. (Sony’s A-mount lenses, which may still be available here and there, also lack it.)

Focal length	Aperture	Wt (kg)	FL/PL	Price	Notes
Canon L (EF-mount)
300mm	f/4	1.2	1.13	$1350
300mm	f/2.8	2.3	1.02	$6100	“II” (original was similar)
100-400mm	f/4.5-5.6	1.6	—	$1800	“II”; old version had trombone-style zoom
200-400mm	f/4	3.6	—	$11000	includes internal 1.4× teleconverter
400mm	f/4	2.1	1.44	$6100	“II”; “DO” for Diffractive Optics (original was similar)
400mm	f/2.8	2.8	1.03	$12000	“III” (“II” is 3.8kg, $10000)
500mm	f/4	3.2	1.17	$9000	“II” — RF-mount version coming
600mm	f/4	3.1	1.22	$13000	“III” (“II” is 3.8kg, $11500; original was 5.4kg)
800mm	f/5.6	4.5	1.58	$13000	replacement rumored for years
Canon (RF-mount)
600mm	f/11	0.9	2.07	$700	non-L; collapsible, no diaphragm, no seals, diffractive optics, hood and foot cost extra
800mm	f/11	1.3	2.15	$900	non-L; collapsible, no diaphragm, no seals, diffractive optics, hood and foot cost extra
400mm	f/2.8	2.9	1.44	$12000	L series; same as SLR version
100-500mm	f/4.5-7.1	1.4	—	$2700
600mm	f/4	3.1	1.22	$13000	L series; same as SLR version
800mm	f/5.6	3.1	?	$17000	announced; L series; based on 400/2.8
1200mm	f/8	3.4	?	$20000	announced; L series; based on 600/4
Nikkor (F-mount)
120-300mm	f/2.8	3.2	—	$9500	“f/2.8G”
300mm	f/4	0.8	0.75	$2000	ultralight; “f/4E PF” for Phase Fresnel — no collar
300mm	f/2.8	2.9	0.96	$5500	“f/2.8G”
80-400mm	f/4.5-5.6	1.6	—	$2300	inferior old model had aperture ring, new one does not
180-400mm	f/4	3.5	—	$12400	includes internal 1.4× teleconverter
200-400mm	f/4	3.4	—	$7000
200-500mm	f/5.6	2.3	—	$1400	the best supertele zoom?
400mm	f/2.8	3.8	0.99	$11200	older version was 4.6kg
500mm	f/5.6	1.5	1.76	$3600	very light; “f/5.6E PF” for Phase Fresnel
500mm	f/4	3.1	1.15	$10300	older version was 3.9kg
600mm	f/4	3.8	1.25	$12300	older version was 5.1kg
800mm	f/5.6	4.6	1.58	$16300	includes matched 1.25× teleconverter
Nikkor (Z-mount)
100-400mm	f/4.5-5.6	1.4	—	$2700	S-line; no collar
400mm	f/2.8	3.0	0.99	$14000	S-line; includes internal 1.4x teleconverter
200-600mm	f/?	?	—	$?	announced
600mm	f/4	3.3	1.32	$15500	S-line; includes internal 1.4x teleconverter
800mm	f/6.3	?	?	$?	S-line; Phase Fresnel, lighter than 400/2.8; announced
Sony G series (A-mount)... all discontinued?
300mm	f/2.8	2.3	1.03	$7500
70-400mm	f/4-5.6	1.5	—	$2200	“II” or “G2”
500mm	f/4	3.5	1.22	$13000
Sony G and G Master series (FE-mount)
100-400mm	f/4-5.6	1.4	—	$2500	G Master; unstabilized on early bodies?
400mm	f/2.8	2.9	1.06	$12000	G Master
200-600mm	f/5.6-6.3	2.1	—	$2000	plain G series
600mm	f/4	3.0	1.28	$13000	G Master
Pentax (K-mount)
300mm	f/4	1.1	1.30	$1100	DA★ series; was $1400 for years
150-450mm	f/4.5-5.6	2.0	—	$1600	AW
560mm	f/5.6	3.0	0.99	$4000	AW; starting to get affordable
M.Zuiko (Micro Four Thirds mount)
300mm	f/4	1.3	1.12	$2500	equivalent to 400 or so on APS-C
100-400mm	f/5-6.3	1.3	—	$1500	equivalent to 135-535 or so on APS-C
Panasonic/Leica (Micro Four Thirds mount)
100-400mm	f/4-6.3	0.9	—	$1800	equivalent to 135-535 or so on APS-C
Fujinon (X-mount)
100-400mm	f/4.5-5.6	1.4	—	$1900	described as disappointly plasticky
Tamron
100-400mm	f/4.5-6.3	1.1	—	$800	for C or N SLR
150-600mm	f/5-6.3	1.9	—	$1100	“SP” — “G2” is improved (G1 sucks) — matched teleconverters available; for C or N SLR
150-500mm	f/5-6.7	1.7	—	$1300	for mirrorless; currently Sony only
Sigma
120-300mm	f/2.8	3.4	—	$3400	Sport series (EX discontinued)
100-400mm	f/5-6.3	1.2	—	$800	Consumertemporary series; mirrorless version available
200-500mm	f/2.8	15.7	—	$26000	“Sigzilla”; EX series — includes matched 2× TC, but no stabilization
500mm	f/4	?	~1.14	$6000	Sport series
60-600mm	f/4.5-6.3	2.7	—	$2000	Sport series; Bigma replacement
150-600mm	f/5-6.3	2.8	—	$2000	Sport series; mirrorless version available
150-600mm	f/5-6.3	1.9	—	$900	Consumertemporary series, different optics than Sports... sharper?

What is “FL/PL”? This is the ratio of focal length to the lens barrel’s physical length plus the depth of the mount. It’s a surrogate for estimating the degree of internal teleconversion that the lens is applying. As a rule (but with frequent exceptions), you can guess that sharpness may decrease as this ratio increases.

Zuiko and Panasonic offer consumer zooms that reach to 300mm, which arguably could count just because of the crop factor, but I did not include them, just as I do not include other companies’ 300mm consumer zooms. The addition of a native 300/4 adds Olympus as a credible competitor in this field as of 2016, and a 100-400 zoom gives them a solid presence. The 100-400 models from Panasonic and Fujifilm should make them usable options too. (Fujifilm has also added a 200mm f/2, which may be of interest for teleconverting.) On the other hand, Samsung’s promised 300/2.8 for NX was never released. Sony, now as fully committed to mirrorless mounts as they ever commit to anything, has added a 400mm prime and a 100-400 zoom, and then a 600mm prime and a slow 200-600 zoom at prices no higher than the 400mm versions, giving them the strongest lineup in mirrorless-land until Canon started steamrolling them in 2021-22.

The new mirrorless RF and Z mounts from Canon and Nikon are still too new to have mature lineups, but both are growing very rapidly, with Canon quickly moving from newcomer to dominance. Not long ago, Nikon hadn’t yet come up with anything at all, and Canon has only produced a pair of small primes with extreme internal teleconversion, which is better than nothing. They were generally dependent on adapters, but both moved pretty fast on rectifying this. In the end, nobody could keep up with Canon. The other mirrorless mounts have mostly been doing only enough to get by, and all still have significant catching up to do if they want to really compete with SLRs in this area. Before the Z and RF mounts came out, only Sony was making significant effort at supertelephoto. It appears that meanwhile they have stopped all sales of A-mount lenses, which is very strange as they still sell one A-mount body, the α99 II. By 2022 the big three had all made solid progress on both migrating SLR lenses and creating new ones. Canon will soon be passing Sony, once announced models come out.

Sigma lenses are now sold only for Canon and Nikon SLR mounts unless they are marked as “mirrorless version available”, so anybody using a second-tier mount is out of luck. Even the two so marked are so far only available for EF and L mounts, not for Micro Four Thirds or X or RF or Z yet. Well, they’re also also available for Sigma’s own Foveon-based SLRs, but nobody buys those; even Sigma has switched to L mount. I’ve heard they used a mount which was copied from Canon’s except for a change to the bayonet to make it mechanically incompatible (like the way that Stanley/Black+Decker uses the same batteries for their different brands like Craftsman and DeWalt, but with different plastic connector pieces to make them not fit each other), so a Canon mount lens and a Sigma mount lens differ in only one metal part, and it’s possible to make a device that accepts both. Tamron’s 100-400 and 150-600 also only support Canon and Nikon SLRs, but the older generation of their 150-600mm zoom was also available for Sony A-mount, without optical stabilization, and they also used to have an 18-400 superzoom. Their new 150-500 for mirrorless has so far only been produced in the Sony mount; that will presumably change, but it looks like the Z and RF mounts are being avoided so far by the third parties, or haven’t been reverse-engineered yet. (Support for the Fujifilm X-mount is forthcoming for some lenses, apparently with Fuji’s blessing, but whether this will include any supertelephotos is not yet known.)

Leica does not make long telephotos (though back in the day they did make some for their old R mount), nor do the lensmakers Zeiss or Samyang (except for outdated budget garbage in the latter case), nor does any medium format maker make anything that qualifies as a supertelephoto as far as I can see. (Zeiss did build a 1700mm f/4 for Hasselblad mount a few years ago, but only one copy exists. Pentax’s longest available lens for the 645 was a 400/5.6 from the FA period.) Tokina has dropped out of this market, no longer offering any supertelephoto. So there really aren’t any decent options not listed here (except, of course, the used market has many outdated models that may be of interest). The only other alternatives are cheap bodges such as mirror lenses, bargain-brand lenses with bad optics, adapted telescopes, and sticking midsize teles onto small-sensor cameras like the Q or the Nikon 1. (The 1 option might be rather more attractive now that they have a native 70-300mm consumer zoom available, but since their adapters support autofocus, the Nikkor 300/4 listed above might be a better choice if you can spare the bucks, though it now costs quite a bit more than similar lenses from their competitors.)

The adapted-telescope sector does include some interesting choices, such as modular spotting scopes that allow attaching a camera mount in place of an eyepiece holder, or small Maksutov scopes sold with camera adapters and tripod mounts, such as the Celestron C90 — a quite affordable Chinese product which may bear little resemblance to the orange telescope once sold with that name, but might have equal optical performance if you get a good copy. Of course, you’ll get the same donut bokeh, lack of aperture choice, and difficult manual focus as any cheap mirror lens, but the length is in another league from what you can get with non-mirror lenses, though the optical quality may be rather poor.

With the giant expensive prime lenses listed above, note that few people spend this kind of cash and really get their money’s worth. Thanks to atmospheric distortion, the guy who gets closer with a small lens will always get a better picture than the guy who’s at twice the distance with a lens of eight times the weight. Furthermore, the heavy lens needs a heavy tripod, which is itself an obstacle to getting yourself closer. And when you really need the distance, 500mm isn’t much better than 300mm — it can’t begin to compare with the 1300mm or so that an adapted telescope can give you for a similar weight.

But what about the professional sports shooters who really use these monsters? Well, they don’t pay for them — they either draw from a pool owned by an employer, in which most of the gear is usually many years old, or get loaners for free from the camera companies, for the purpose of getting their prestige products before the public eye. When neither of those options is available, they rent it.

I’m afraid that more often than not, buying big telephotos is more a matter of conspicuous consumption than of practicality. But of course, if you’re rich, there are legitimate situations where having one is better than not having one. In the somewhat rare cases where the length and aperture actually fit the needs of the shot, you will indeed get a better picture — possibly quite a lot better — than you can get with lesser equipment. Where the bigger lenses help the most is not in greater magnification, but in allowing the same image to be shot over a larger sensor area: a 500mm lens on a full-frame body will outperform a 300mm on a crop-sensor body, which yields about the same magnification relative to the frame. This is especially important with birds as you usually get to use only a fraction of your sensor area, since on most days it’s impossible to get close enough to use it all. A smaller lens can result in that fraction being of sub-cellphone quality, and a large one... well, it can mitigate the problem a bit. The difference is not dramatically large.

One thing that becomes very clear in this table is that in the long tele area, SLRs are still dominant over mirrorless systems, but this is rapidly becoming less and less true. If you don’t go with the big two SLR mounts, the standings otherwise are fairly even. Canon’s RF mount appears to be charging toward a lead over Sony and Nikon, but this is partly illusory as they have a couple of lenses appearing in two versions, differing only in internal teleconversion. Rumor had it that many or most of their current EF-mount telephotos would be released in RF versions over the next few years, and so far they have ported over the 400/2.8 and the 600/4. Another rumor says that the RF mount will get an all-new diffractive (fresnel) 500/4 lens, and that new diffractive lenses in several sizes might appear for the old mount as well... which I doubt.

You’ll note that there’s a price break between the $2000 lenses at the top of the handholdable range and the multi-kilodollar pro lenses that like to live on gimbal mounts. This divide used to be much deeper; there are now several models of handholdable zoom and prime lenses pushing toward the $2500 mark, which was rare a few years ago. Also, some of the older lenses from above the gap are dropping into it as they get discounted. But unless you’re rich, my recommendation is to not bother hankering over anything on the wrong side of that line. The improvement in utility is small compared to the immense increase in cost and weight. So if you disregard those super-lenses and look at the affordable models (the highlighted ones), what Pentax had been lacking was a zoom in the 100-400mm area, and the new 150-450mm f/4.5-5.6 fills that gap perfectly. One lens of interest in this gap is the Nikkor 500/5.6, which is not only cheaper than Pentax’s 560/5.6, but thanks to the use of a Phase Fresnel element, is only half the weight. If I were starting from scratch on a new system, that might be the lens I base everything else around.

So overall, if you are willing to pay for the giant pro lenses, you probably should go with one of the Big Two brands, and not try to make do with a partial effort at supertele support... but if you’re wanting affordable supertelephoto, Pentax is certainly competitive: we’re a match for Nikon except for their new 200-500 (for a little while we’d completely caught up with them). For some time we were better off than Sony, but this is turning around. And the arrival of the Tamron and Sigma 150-600 models undercuts Pentax’s position again, as the Tamron seems to be a solid improvement over its undistinguished predecessor, the 200-500mm f/5-6.3, and there’s no sign yet of either of Sigma’s two answering models becoming available for K-mount later. I formerly said that Canon might still be the best choice, as nobody else has an answer to their very affordable 400/5.6 except in the used market, and they beat Nikon’s prices on the other affordable lenses... but that 400/5.6 is now gone. If you can get one, I hear that it stays plenty sharper than a Bigma even after you put a TC on it. Now there may be some teleconverted combinations that can match it in both size and performance, including the DA★ 300 with the HD TC. Even Canon’s own 300/4 with TC is said to be competitive with the 400/5.6, with preferences between the two choices often coming down to qualities other than optical performance. But no such combination matched the 400/5.6 in price at the same time; the Pentax combo (which is my most used lens nowadays) costs more used than the Canon lens did new. The Canon is unstabilized, but for wildlife shooting, that may matter less than you think; shutter speeds of 1/1000 or faster are often necessary even with support. Canon’s option now is the 600 and 800mm f/11 cheapies, which will never be as sharp as big lenses, but could make sense in cases such as birding where even at 400mm you’re still cropping the image. With the Z mount, none of the supertele options are budget friendly yet.

Tests at dpreview.com comparing the affordable supertele zooms, which were done prior to the Sigma 150-600 models being available, can be summarized as follows: at 600mm the Tamron was all alone (so far) but unimpressive, with lots of red/cyan chromatic aberration when used in crop format; at 500mm it’s about tied with the Bigma and Bigmos; at 400mm the revised Sony wins, the revised Nikkor is in the middle with the third party zooms, and the old trombone-style Canon 100-400 is in last place. And this ranking doesn’t change for the shorter focal lengths. But the Sigma 150-600 S is said to be clearly superior to the Tamron (you get what you pay for), and I have not yet seen a test of the 150-600 C, or of the de-tromboned Canon 100-400 II.