Is the 24-70 f2.8...

**hjoseph7** · 03-03-2016, 06:10 PM

Is the 24-70mm f2.8 a little too big and heavy for your taste ? Although this lens looks compact in the pictures, this is a huge lens that weighs almost 2 pounds and has an 82mm filter. That is about twice as heavy as the 18-135mm. If you attach this lens to the K-1 you might as well call it a Studio camera. I don't know are there any other lenses as heavy and big as this in Pentax's current lineup ?

CarlJF · 03-03-2016, 06:19 PM

All 24-70 2.8 FF are big lenses. Unless you change the laws of physic, you can't make it small. The 18-135 is smaller because it has a smaller aperture and isn't FF but APS-C.

**kiwi_jono** · 03-03-2016, 06:36 PM

And the DFA 28-105 is a more valid FF comparison to the 18-135

Ole · 03-03-2016, 06:52 PM

It actually balances well on a K-3. I'm used to the FA* 28-70 mm F2.8, which is about the same size and weight, so you could say I'm biased, of course!

**jatrax** · 03-03-2016, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by hjoseph7

That is about twice as heavy as the 18-135mm.

Not really a valid comparison. The APS-C lens to compare to would be the DA*16-50 which weighs 565gm. FF f/2.8 lenses are big and heavy.

Originally posted by hjoseph7

I don't know are there any other lenses as heavy and big as this in Pentax's current lineup ?

Well, yes:
DA*50-135 = 765gm
DA*60-250 = 1120gm

Personally I would prefer a lighter set of f/4 lenses and maybe someday we will get them but for now this is what we get.

I am going to start with:
FA 20-35 = 245gm
F 24-50 = 380gm
FA 24-90 = 355gm

Will they be good enough on the K-1? I do not know yet.

beachboy2 · 03-03-2016, 07:15 PM

I have used a Sigma 28-70 F2.8 for some time. It's similar in size (670gms) but 120gms lighter than the Sigma 24-70 and Pentax 24-70 (each 790gms). Body is just long enough to be well supported in one hand. I use this lens with a K5 and just tried it with a full frame Asahi pentax KM. Weight is not a problem to my mind.

Sandy Hancock · 03-03-2016, 07:32 PM

It certainly is big, and the 82mm is a real put-off - I have a 77mm polariser and I always felt that was as big as I would go. As an event zoom, I'll probably stick with my DA*16-50 on crop for now, and use my wide primes (24, 28, 31, 43) and my FA20-35 on the K-1.

But never say never

**clackers** · 03-03-2016, 07:42 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by hjoseph7

Is the 24-70mm f2.8 a little too big and heavy for your taste ? Although this lens looks compact in the pictures, this is a huge lens that weighs almost 2 pounds and has an 82mm filter. That is about twice as heavy as the 18-135mm. If you attach this lens to the K-1 you might as well call it a Studio camera. I don't know are there any other lenses as heavy and big as this in Pentax's current lineup ?

It's a BIg Boy lens with Big Boy quality on a Big Boy camera, Hjoseph.

In wanting similar products to Nikon and Canon, be careful what you wish for!

Luckily, we have choices. I have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8: much smaller and has really good IQ, but can't be expected to go head-to-head imagewise with its 82mm filtersize brother - a lot less glass is inside it.

**jatrax** · 03-03-2016, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by clackers

It's a BIg Boy lens with Big Boy quality on a Big Boy camera, Hjoseph.

+1. Yep, we've been begging to be allowed to play with big boy toys, no whining now that we have them.

Imp · 03-03-2016, 07:55 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

But never say never

Every time...

Sandy Hancock · 03-03-2016, 08:19 PM

I actually wasn't aware that the top-line Canon L and Nikon E 24-70/2.8's are also both 82mm at the front.

The Nikon G version is a 77mm thread, so it is possible....

Paul the Sunman · 03-03-2016, 08:48 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Ole

It actually balances well on a K-3. I'm used to the FA* 28-70 mm F2.8, which is about the same size and weight, so you could say I'm biased, of course!

Sorry to hear you're biased. If you put the lens down, I'm sure you'll revert to standing straight pretty soon.

souless · 03-03-2016, 08:55 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by CarlJF

All 24-70 2.8 FF are big lenses. Unless you change the laws of physic, you can't make it small. The 18-135 is smaller because it has a smaller aperture and isn't FF but APS-C.

Yep, CarlJF is right!
Time to hit the gym, and welcome to the digital 35mm world, people!!!
funny that I don't hear people using 645 system complaining the size or weight of their lens though XD

Adam · 03-03-2016, 09:09 PM

I'd say it balances well on the K-1.

rawr · 03-03-2016, 09:22 PM

Compared to some recent FF Sigma's (eg 24-105 f4 = 82mm/885g, 24-35 f2 = 82mm/940g), or the new Sony G Master 24-70 f2.8 (82mm/885g), at a mere 787g the Pentax 24-70 seems not particularly hefty.

---------- Post added 2016-03-04 at 03:31 PM ----------

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

The Nikon G version is a 77mm thread, so it is possible....

The former G 24-70 was still 900g though. The newest Nikon 24-70 is 82mm/1080g, so it looks like super-sizing is the new lens trend.

03-03-2016, 06:10 PM	#1
hjoseph7 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2014 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,045	Is the 24-70 f2.8... Is the 24-70mm f2.8 a little too big and heavy for your taste ? Although this lens looks compact in the pictures, this is a huge lens that weighs almost 2 pounds and has an 82mm filter. That is about twice as heavy as the 18-135mm. If you attach this lens to the K-1 you might as well call it a Studio camera. I don't know are there any other lenses as heavy and big as this in Pentax's current lineup ?

03-03-2016, 09:09 PM	#14
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,593	I'd say it balances well on the K-1. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Will Pentax ever give is a 24-70 F2.8?	alcstudios	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	09-15-2015 05:21 AM
Tamron 70-200 F2.8 vs Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG HSM II - Battle of the older telephotos	JinDesu	Pentax Lens Articles	45	11-03-2014 06:30 AM
The Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM is a big lens	VoiceOfReason	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	10-28-2014 03:28 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: *ist DS; AF500-FTZ; Sigma 24-70 f2.8; Sigma 70-200 f2.8	CapitaineAbitibi	Sold Items	7	02-05-2008 05:08 AM

03-03-2016, 06:19 PM	#2
CarlJF Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Quebec City Posts: 1,185	All 24-70 2.8 FF are big lenses. Unless you change the laws of physic, you can't make it small. The 18-135 is smaller because it has a smaller aperture and isn't FF but APS-C.

03-03-2016, 06:36 PM	#3
kiwi_jono Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,437	And the DFA 28-105 is a more valid FF comparison to the 18-135

03-03-2016, 06:52 PM	#4
Ole Administrator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,408	It actually balances well on a K-3. I'm used to the FA* 28-70 mm F2.8, which is about the same size and weight, so you could say I'm biased, of course!

03-03-2016, 07:08 PM	#5
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by hjoseph7 That is about twice as heavy as the 18-135mm. Not really a valid comparison. The APS-C lens to compare to would be the DA16-50 which weighs 565gm. FF f/2.8 lenses are big and heavy. Originally posted by hjoseph7 I don't know are there any other lenses as heavy and big as this in Pentax's current lineup ? Well, yes: DA50-135 = 765gm DA*60-250 = 1120gm Personally I would prefer a lighter set of f/4 lenses and maybe someday we will get them but for now this is what we get. I am going to start with: FA 20-35 = 245gm F 24-50 = 380gm FA 24-90 = 355gm Will they be good enough on the K-1? I do not know yet.

03-03-2016, 07:15 PM	#6
beachboy2 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 222	I have used a Sigma 28-70 F2.8 for some time. It's similar in size (670gms) but 120gms lighter than the Sigma 24-70 and Pentax 24-70 (each 790gms). Body is just long enough to be well supported in one hand. I use this lens with a K5 and just tried it with a full frame Asahi pentax KM. Weight is not a problem to my mind.

03-03-2016, 07:32 PM	#7
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,267	It certainly is big, and the 82mm is a real put-off - I have a 77mm polariser and I always felt that was as big as I would go. As an event zoom, I'll probably stick with my DA*16-50 on crop for now, and use my wide primes (24, 28, 31, 43) and my FA20-35 on the K-1. But never say never

03-03-2016, 07:42 PM - 2 Likes	#8
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by hjoseph7 Is the 24-70mm f2.8 a little too big and heavy for your taste ? Although this lens looks compact in the pictures, this is a huge lens that weighs almost 2 pounds and has an 82mm filter. That is about twice as heavy as the 18-135mm. If you attach this lens to the K-1 you might as well call it a Studio camera. I don't know are there any other lenses as heavy and big as this in Pentax's current lineup ? It's a BIg Boy lens with Big Boy quality on a Big Boy camera, Hjoseph. In wanting similar products to Nikon and Canon, be careful what you wish for! Luckily, we have choices. I have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8: much smaller and has really good IQ, but can't be expected to go head-to-head imagewise with its 82mm filtersize brother - a lot less glass is inside it.

03-03-2016, 07:49 PM	#9
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by clackers It's a BIg Boy lens with Big Boy quality on a Big Boy camera, Hjoseph. +1. Yep, we've been begging to be allowed to play with big boy toys, no whining now that we have them.

03-03-2016, 07:55 PM - 1 Like	#10
Imp Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Washington, DC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,749	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock But never say never Every time...

03-03-2016, 08:19 PM	#11
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,267	I actually wasn't aware that the top-line Canon L and Nikon E 24-70/2.8's are also both 82mm at the front. The Nikon G version is a 77mm thread, so it is possible....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-03-2016, 08:48 PM - 2 Likes	#12
Paul the Sunman Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,842	Originally posted by Ole It actually balances well on a K-3. I'm used to the FA* 28-70 mm F2.8, which is about the same size and weight, so you could say I'm biased, of course! Sorry to hear you're biased. If you put the lens down, I'm sure you'll revert to standing straight pretty soon.

03-03-2016, 08:55 PM - 1 Like	#13
souless Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Taipei Posts: 110	Originally posted by CarlJF All 24-70 2.8 FF are big lenses. Unless you change the laws of physic, you can't make it small. The 18-135 is smaller because it has a smaller aperture and isn't FF but APS-C. Yep, CarlJF is right! Time to hit the gym, and welcome to the digital 35mm world, people!!! funny that I don't hear people using 645 system complaining the size or weight of their lens though XD

03-03-2016, 09:22 PM	#15
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Compared to some recent FF Sigma's (eg 24-105 f4 = 82mm/885g, 24-35 f2 = 82mm/940g), or the new Sony G Master 24-70 f2.8 (82mm/885g), at a mere 787g the Pentax 24-70 seems not particularly hefty. ---------- Post added 2016-03-04 at 03:31 PM ---------- Originally posted by Sandy Hancock The Nikon G version is a 77mm thread, so it is possible.... The former G 24-70 was still 900g though. The newest Nikon 24-70 is 82mm/1080g, so it looks like super-sizing is the new lens trend.