[iht]

Anyone had a chance of comparing these two full frame zooms?

[rawr]

Fight!

[LennyBloke]

I'm looking forward to this comparison too...

...the DFA 24-70 should be significantly better at the long end (the FA* does tend to be slightly soft at 70mm) and at 28mm (after all 28mm is an "extreme" of the FA*, but merely a moderate wide on the DFA) - hopefully we'll find out soon

[max_pyne]

there must be someone...:-)

[Rondec]

I doubt most people who own the FA will look at purchasing the DFA. I would say that if you have interest in using the lens on a crop camera that having the 24-28mm range makes a lot of sense. I would guess that the DFA has less fringing and LoCA than the older lens (I own the DFA, but have never used the FA).

[iht]

I doubt most people who own the FA will look at purchasing the DFA.

A perfectly logical statement normally, but that logic doesn't apply at this forum! There MUST be those with both lenses by now!

[zzeitg]

I doubt most people who own the FA will look at purchasing the DFA. I would say that if you have interest in using the lens on a crop camera that having the 24-28mm range makes a lot of sense. I would guess that the DFA has less fringing and LoCA than the older lens (I own the DFA, but have never used the FA).

I have to admit that I'm confused by the Ricoh strategy concerning Pentax lenses. The price of DFA 24-70 (considering it's NOT *-lens, probably from some good reason (?)) is extreme. I'm proud owner of 28-70 (FA*) and see almost no reason why to switch to the new one.

[iht]

I have to admit that I'm confused by the Ricoh strategy concerning Pentax lenses. The price of DFA 24-70 (considering it's NOT *-lens, probably from some good reason (?)) is extreme. I'm proud owner of 28-70 (FA*) and see almost no reason why to switch to the new one.

Pricing of the new lens seems to be on par with other systems though - it is a full frame 2.8 zoom intended for professional use.

From a features point of view, the FA does lack 24-28, WR and SDM, and obviously little things like quick shift. I do like the FA's aperture ring so I can use it on my LX

Anyway, if someone does own both the DFA and the FA, please post some photos and comparison results!

[ddamski]

I have to admit that I'm confused by the Ricoh strategy concerning Pentax lenses. The price of DFA 24-70 (considering it's NOT *-lens, probably from some good reason (?)) is extreme. I'm proud owner of 28-70 (FA*) and see almost no reason why to switch to the new one.

i think soon we will have comparisons for the two lenses.. as for the price, i dont think it is extreme for FF format. And this is just the start price, i am sure it will drop in the future.. Maybe they sell this as a kit with the new body, much cheaper as if buying it separately

[zzeitg]

Pricing of the new lens seems to be on par with other systems though - it is a full frame 2.8 zoom intended for professional use.

From a features point of view, the FA does lack 24-28, WR and SDM, and obviously little things like quick shift. I do like the FA's aperture ring so I can use it on my LX

Anyway, if someone does own both the DFA and the FA, please post some photos and comparison results!

I have to agree that compared with other systems the price is not any higher. But in the past Pentax normally used to be (way) cheaper than Canon, Nikon... So is there a new trend, strategy (after being bought by Ricoh)?

i think soon we will have comparisons for the two lenses.. as for the price, i dont think it is extreme for FF format. And this is just the start price, i am sure it will drop in the future.. Maybe they sell this as a kit with the new body, much cheaper as if buying it separately

You can get 28-80 for something like 650 USD - and it's FF, too. Of course it's not the state-of-the-art of the today's lenses, but still "powerful". But once more - what surprises me the most (considering its price tag) is the fact that 24-70 is NOT (whyever...) *-lens.

[Moe49]

I doubt most people who own the FA will look at purchasing the DFA.

I'm proud owner of 28-70 (FA*) and see almost no reason why to switch to the new one.

I think you are right. I am one of those who also owns a FA*28-70/2.8,
I will not be looking to audition the DFA 24-70/2.8 to use on my future Pentax Digital Full Frame camera,
or on any of my Pentax film cameras.

Mainly because:
1. I have the FA*24 and FA*28-70 lenses already.
2. the DFA 24-70 has no aperture ring.

[ColiNiloK]

I'm interesting to know too...

However, as many people noticed that the DFA 24-70mm f2.8 seems to be a rebadged Tamron 24-70mm f2.8, it would also be interesting to see a direct comparison of these two to confirm.

And would it be nice if Pentax also makes a DFA* 28-85/90mm f2.8 lens alongside the cheaper DFA 24-70mm f2.8? We need a standard * lens to pass on the legacy of the FA* 28-70mm f2.8 right ?

[Rondec]

I have to admit that I'm confused by the Ricoh strategy concerning Pentax lenses. The price of DFA 24-70 (considering it's NOT *-lens, probably from some good reason (?)) is extreme. I'm proud owner of 28-70 (FA*) and see almost no reason why to switch to the new one.

I am not sure about the extreme part. Nikon and Canon sell their 24-70 f2.8 lenses for about 1900 dollars (Amazon pricing) and the Tamron version for these lens mounts runs 1300 dollars (it can be lower in some places if their is a rebate in effect). Pentax has priced it at 1300 dollars. That seems very reasonable.

Obviously if you are satisfied with your FA 28-70, then there is no reason for you to upgrade, but I think it is a very reasonable price for upgraded lens coatings, silent (faster) auto focus, and sealing of some sort.

Since the 28-70 isn't available new Pentax isn't selling the 24-70 versus it.

[FantasticMrFox]

I have to agree that compared with other systems the price is not any higher. But in the past Pentax normally used to be (way) cheaper than Canon, Nikon...

I don't know which past you are talking about, but since I entered the system (2011) Pentax has not been way cheaper than CaNikon. Some stuff is cheaper, other stuff more expensive. Their camera bodies usually deliver more bang for the buck, but lenses wise Pentax is and has not been cheaper than CaNikon.

[zzeitg]

I don't know which past you are talking about, but since I entered the system (2011) Pentax has not been way cheaper than CaNikon. Some stuff is cheaper, other stuff more expensive. Their camera bodies usually deliver more bang for the buck, but lenses wise Pentax is and has not been cheaper than CaNikon.

Well, in my opinion there's a clear price gap between (just to name some examples) DA* (16-50, 50-135, 60-250) and the new DFA lenses (whereas only one of them, DFA 70-200 is marked as * by Pentax).


While the others (Canikon, ...) have many "basic" lenses (low prices), just a few "advanced" lenses (middle level prices) and then fairly enough exclusive (and expensive) lenses, Pentax has always been especially strong in the middle line: able to provide broad range of high quality lenses but for reasonable costs.


Now when I see price tags like USD 1500 (well, at least here in Europe) for 24-70 or USD 2550 for 150-450 - both not * lenses - I wonder, if this Pentax strategy is not changing (with Ricoh).
(just to compare: DA*16-50 price is under USD 1000; Sigma 150-500 under USD 700)


I'm not sure if such dramatic price level increase can be explained "only" by the FF factor, because before the digital age, all the old beautiful lenses used to be FF (as standard). Actually I'm not able to judge it, so let's suppose so.