Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-24-2011, 09:58 PM   #16
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,824
So, the * 28-70. It has some issues as well. It's not IF: it's front element rotates when zoomed, which means CPL use is going to be a bit complicated.

Both are not internal zooming, as they both protrude when zoomed.

It also has some reputation for substantial purple fringe and blossoming, more so than the 16-50. I don't have the 28-70 so I can't compare.

I'm told it's quite large.

You will have a freaking wicked hard time getting one at a reasonable price, and I really don't know why.


Now the * 80-200 is an entirely different bag. That's a nice lens. I'd put the 50-135 on par with it any day.


Last edited by Clinton; 10-26-2011 at 06:06 AM.
10-25-2011, 12:02 AM   #17
Pentaxian
MegaPower's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hong Kong / Irvine, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 562
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
So, the * 28-70. It has some issues as well. It's not IF, (well neither is the 16-50) but it's front element rotates when zoomed, which means CPL use is going to be a bit complicated.

It also has some reputation for substantial purple fringe and blossoming, more so than the 16-50. I don't have the 28-70 so I can't compare.

I'm told it's quite large.

You will have a freaking wicked hard time getting one at a reasonable price, and I really don't know why.


Now the * 80-200 is an entirely different bag. That's a nice lens. I'd put the 50-135 on par with it any day.
The *16-50 should be a IF lens, no?
It does extend during zoom.
10-25-2011, 01:04 AM   #18
Senior Member
mclarenman01's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 109
QuoteOriginally posted by MegaPower Quote
The *16-50 should be a IF lens, no?
It does extend during zoom.
Clinton is bang on. The FA*28-70 is not IF as the front element both rotates and extends slightly when focusing and this definitely makes using a polariser a bit of a pain in the ass.

I tried the DA*16-50 before I bought the FA* and I was really quite disappoint with the performance of it. Whilst Clinton was right in saying the the FA* 28-70 is not without its issues IQ wise I found the FA*'s colour fringing easier to correct in camera raw than DA*'s (maybe because it isn't as wide?) . Plus the SDM af is just shockingly slow on the DA* where as the FA* is blisteringly fast. It even focuses whilst you are power zooming so there is less focusing required when you actually want to take the shot.

I have to add too that back when I tested the DA* it was selling for over AUD$1600 here in Australia (it still sells here for about AUD$1300)!!! Making it significantly more expensive than the FA* for a product that I didn't really feel was up to the same standard as other "*" lenses.

I know this might be wishful thinking too but the fact that the FA* will work on FF should Pentax go that way in the future is a major selling point for me too
10-25-2011, 04:14 AM   #19
Site Supporter
robbiec's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cork, Ireland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,207
Gonna hijack the thread a little... how would you rate the FA* 28-70 for doing low light gig work? I have been considering the DA* 50-135 for this but am thinking it may be a bit slow focussing wise. FL wise it seems perfect for me, I've been using a combo of 43, 50 & 77 recently to good effect but have been wishing for a little wider at times.

10-25-2011, 04:34 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,361
If the op has the idea to cover 28-200 mm at F2.8 there are other options as well. I use a Tamron 28-75/2.8 and Sigma 70-200/2.8. Both a excellent lenses

As for weather proof, mine are not WR but do get damp occasionally. I wipe them off and shield them from most of the rain when needed. Use a rain cover if you need true WR For me WR is insurance when the primary protection fails
10-25-2011, 04:41 AM   #21
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
If the op has the idea to cover 28-200 mm at F2.8 there are other options as well. I use a Tamron 28-75/2.8 and Sigma 70-200/2.8. Both a excellent lenses
Those are excellent options as well. I had both the FA*28-70 and Tamron 28-75 and choose to keep the Tamron for a number of reasons. Primarily it came down to the fact that the Tamron is smaller, lighter, sharper and costs one-third as much as the FA*.

The Sigma 70-200/2.8 is also an excellent option. Although I don't have either one now (had them both at one point or another), I preferred the Tamron 70-200 optically, but the Sigma is a bit better built and has faster AF. Both are fine lenses and you can't really go too wrong with either. They're both a bit larger and heavier than the DA*50-135, but that's the price you pay for the extra reach.
10-25-2011, 05:03 AM   #22
Senior Member
mclarenman01's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 109
QuoteOriginally posted by robbiec Quote
Gonna hijack the thread a little... how would you rate the FA* 28-70 for doing low light gig work? I have been considering the DA* 50-135 for this but am thinking it may be a bit slow focussing wise. FL wise it seems perfect for me, I've been using a combo of 43, 50 & 77 recently to good effect but have been wishing for a little wider at times.
I think the AF on the FA* 28-70 would be tops for gig work. I haven't tried shooting a gig with mine yet but the af seems to work very well in low light. If you are looking at just shooting gigs with it and want to shoot at f2.8 constantly just be careful, as everyone on the forum mentions at f2.8 and the longer end of the zoom range the FA* isn't as sharp as some of the competition. I wouldnt say its too soft..... But its not as good as some other f2.8 zooms I have used.

If sharpness wide open is your main concern I would be looking at the Sigma or Tamron offerings I had the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM and found it to be super sharp but it had very average af performance in low light to the point that most of the gigs I shot with it I ended up manual focusing
10-25-2011, 08:25 AM   #23
Veteran Member
soppy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gainesville
Posts: 348
Original Poster
How is the autofocus on the Tamron 28-70? I am starting to think that may be a more viable (Read: cheaper) option for a college student. If the IQ is on par (or better in sharpness) with the FA*, then I may go that route and upgrade later if I feel like it's necessary. Noise wise, is the Tamron comparable to the FA* when autofocusing? I am also interested in low light autofocusing and overall autofocus speed compared to the FA*.

10-25-2011, 08:26 AM   #24
Veteran Member
soppy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gainesville
Posts: 348
Original Poster
Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for the help as well, it's certainly making this decision easier.
10-25-2011, 01:48 PM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Wiltshire/Hampshire
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,724
Axl - if you don't mind me asking, how much did you pay for your FA*28-70?

This: Pentax SMC FA* star 28-70mm F/2.8 AL power zoom Lens in working condition | eBay seems like a good deal?
10-25-2011, 02:44 PM   #26
Veteran Member
soppy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gainesville
Posts: 348
Original Poster
Actually that's the exact one I was looking at. It seems like a great deal seeing as many are going for over $1000 (that one is $877 US).
10-25-2011, 03:02 PM   #27
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
I bought mine hoodless for 558 shipped so we're talking just about the same price as the one on ebay. I added PH-RBK77 as a hood for APSC use only for additional 25 so my total costs came to around 935$. So yes, 877$ is a good deal IMO.

As for low light work, on K-5 certainly, on K-7 or older I'm not sure f2.8 would cut it but that depends on how low is the low light. For real low light I think you are still better off with sub f2 primes IMO. In terms of AF, the 28-70 (as most of the F/FA lenses) seems to be a charm IMO. Fast and accurate.

My 2p
10-25-2011, 11:45 PM   #28
Senior Member
mclarenman01's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 109
QuoteOriginally posted by rob1234 Quote
Axl - if you don't mind me asking, how much did you pay for your FA*28-70?

This: Pentax SMC FA* star 28-70mm F/2.8 AL power zoom Lens in working condition | eBay seems like a good deal?

Seems like a pretty good deal to me too. From memory I paid close to AUD$1600 for my copy and a FA*24 about a year ago (I guess that would have made the FA*28-70 around $1000-$1050).

That seller "doupangpang" seemed to have some good stuff at pretty decent prices. I relieved him of his F*300
10-26-2011, 06:07 AM   #29
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,824
QuoteOriginally posted by MegaPower Quote
The *16-50 should be a IF lens, no?

You are correct. I fixed my post. What I meant to say was that it is IF, but neither are internal zooming.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
40mm, f/2.8, fa*, k-mount, ltd, pentax lens, questions, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
need info for fa* 400 bollicina31 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 01-20-2011 09:07 AM
Some info please JACOBY Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 11-22-2010 12:06 PM
Brief info about K-5 and KR ogl Pentax News and Rumors 569 09-13-2010 12:06 PM
Vivitar 24/2.8 PK - any info? axl Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 11-05-2009 04:08 PM
Info needed Donquichotte Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 12-02-2007 03:13 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:38 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top