FA* Info

**Clinton** · 10-24-2011, 09:58 PM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

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.

MegaPower · 10-25-2011, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Clinton

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.

mclarenman01 · 10-25-2011, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by MegaPower

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

**robbiec** · 10-25-2011, 04:14 AM

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.

**Lowell Goudge** · 10-25-2011, 04:34 AM

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

dgaies · 10-25-2011, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

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.

mclarenman01 · 10-25-2011, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by robbiec

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

soppy · 10-25-2011, 08:25 AM

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*.

soppy · 10-25-2011, 08:26 AM

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for the help as well, it's certainly making this decision easier.

rob1234 · 10-25-2011, 01:48 PM

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?

soppy · 10-25-2011, 02:44 PM

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).

axl · 10-25-2011, 03:02 PM

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

mclarenman01 · 10-25-2011, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by rob1234

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

**Clinton** · 10-26-2011, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by MegaPower

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.

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

10-24-2011, 09:58 PM	#16
Clinton Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,910	Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here. 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
MegaPower Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Hong Kong / Irvine, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 636	Originally posted by Clinton 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
mclarenman01 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 109	Originally posted by MegaPower The 16-50 should be a IF lens, no? It does extend during zoom. Clinton is bang on. The FA28-70 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 DA16-50 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
robbiec Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Cork Photos: Albums Posts: 1,882	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
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	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
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge 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 FA28-70 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
mclarenman01 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 109	Originally posted by robbiec 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
soppy Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Gainesville Posts: 347 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
soppy Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Gainesville Posts: 347 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
rob1234 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wiltshire/Hampshire Photos: Albums Posts: 1,760	Axl - if you don't mind me asking, how much did you pay for your FA28-70? This: Pentax SMC FA star 28-70mm F/2.8 AL power zoom Lens in working condition \| eBay seems like a good deal?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-25-2011, 02:44 PM	#26
soppy Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Gainesville Posts: 347 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: 7,183	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
mclarenman01 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 109	Originally posted by rob1234 Axl - if you don't mind me asking, how much did you pay for your FA28-70? 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 FA24 about a year ago (I guess that would have made the FA28-70 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
Clinton Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,910	Originally posted by MegaPower 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.