[Roburg]

I'm a new forum member and I'd be interested in hearing of people's views on these two lenses (well I think there's 3 versions of the 28-105) for those times when you don't want to be changing lenses. There also seemed to be mixed views about how good they are.

At present I use an A35-105mm f3.5 for this purpose, a fantastic sharp lens, but with 2 issues - first, its heavy (all that good glass and metal) and second, its not quite wide enough. I usually end up taking a 28mm lens with me as well. I'd prefer to get something of similar image quality.

At this stage I would prefer to keep to the older lenses with longer telephoto capacity rather than go to the DA series, like the DA 16-45, as I seem to take a lot of photos at 105mm. I did have a Sigma 18-200 I got with the K100D, but sold it as the IQ wasn't in the same league as my old Pentax lenses.

Anyway, any views or suggestions are welcome.

[axl]

how about this one then:
FA 28-200/3.8-5.6 AL [IF]
I have the Tamron version of it (28-200 XR) and for walkaround lens it's good. In cases it's too narrow I always have Sigma 10-20 handy....

[Canada_Rockies]

I have the 24-90, and it is a great lens for just wandering around ... on a film camera. This is equivalent to point and shoot at the wide angle end. I have the 16-50 as the alternative, and still added the 12-24 to go a bit wider. That crop factor so highly touted as an advantage for telephotos is a PITA at the wide end.

[axl]

...That crop factor so highly touted as an advantage for telephotos is a PITA at the wide end.

could not be more right here

[Roburg]

Thanks for your comments.
axl, I have the FA28-200 which I hoped would be my answer but I've never been that happy with it - too much prone to flare, and a bit soft at the telephoto end. I may have a really bad copy but I struggle to get any good photos from it in all but ideal lighting conditions. I understand that even though the Tokina version is essentially the same, it is better for some reason.

The 16-50 is probably out of my price range for a while yet, so I'll keep my eye open for a FA24-90. While its not that wide I like to shoot panoramas and much wider than that can start to give distortion issues.

[AndrewG NY]

I have both the FA 24-90 f/3.5-4.5 and FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 and think both are pretty good lenses. I often use FA 24-90 as a single-lens walkaround. I am more likely to use 28-105 in conjunction with another lens for the wide end such as DA 21 f/3.2, FA 20-35 f/4, or DA 16-45 f/4. 24mm (~36mm equiv) is wide enough *most* of the time, but its shortcomings are most apparent when in particularly constrained areas like indoors. I sometimes bring the DA 12-24 f/4 with me though rarely end up using it all that much.

The FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 is particularly tiny and light. I find the weight and size of the 24-90 nearly perfect for a zoom--just looks and feels right on a D-SLR.

The 24-90 is f/4 until ~50mm, the 28-105 is f/4 until ~70mm if I recall correctly.

I have also tried the F 35-135 f/3.5-4.5 but as you've discovered starting at 35mm has its limitations for walkaround duty. Furthermore, this lens is considerably larger & heavier with a more dated design than the two FA's we're talking about.

Looking ahead, the digital-only DA 17-70 f/4 zoom looks like a highly attractive range--max 105mm equiv @F4.

[frogger]

Just saw that there was a Sigma 28-105mm f2.8-4. I don't know anything other than this listing though

SIGMA Aspherical IF 2.8-4 28-105 Pentax mount

[WJW]

Just saw that there was a Sigma 28-105mm f2.8-4. I don't know anything other than this listing though

SIGMA Aspherical IF 2.8-4 28-105 Pentax mount

I recently picked up the same lens off ebay for about $80. I just started testing it this past weekend and like what I see so far. You can see some test shots here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/27329-learning-new-camera.html

[axl]

Talking Sigmas they were doing 18-125 f3.5-5.6
I don't know anything about that lens, but range seems to be something you would be looking for...

[praxxis]

I have the FA 28-105/f4-5.6 version (Tamron-Pentax rebadged) and so far loving it... But nothing compares to the Pentax FA 28-105/F3.2-4.5 version...

[Roburg]

Looking ahead, the digital-only DA 17-70 f/4 zoom looks like a highly attractive range--max 105mm equiv @F4.[/QUOTE]

Good point - although I think I'd like a little more at the long end than 70mm. I have a good f70-210 f4-5.6 and would like to get a good shorter walk around zoom and 300mm lens to complete a travel kit.

The 24-90 and any version of the 28-105 seem to be fairly scarce here in Australia. I have been using 28mm (42mm on the digital sensor) as my 'wide' angle, so I'm looking forward to going a little wider.

[Roburg]

Just saw that there was a Sigma 28-105mm f2.8-4. I don't know anything other than this listing though

SIGMA Aspherical IF 2.8-4 28-105 Pentax mount

Thanks for the heads up - another to do some research on and look out for. Life is so busy....