[jypfoto]

I apologize if this has been asked before but looking for some insight. Received my K-1, 43/77/100 and my 24-70 this past week. So far haven't had a lot of time to go out and shoot but from what I can tell it's a keeper. Love the compact 43 and 77. 43 is faster than I thought and quieter as well. The 77 is a tad slower and slightly louder. I knew going in that the 24-70 would be a big lens (82mm, 800+ grams) but didn't realize how big it would be. Tolerable but doesn't fit well in my existing bags. Considering doing a swap out for the 28-75. I had the 28-75 when I had a Nikon D610 years ago. For the price I could swap out the 24-70 for the 28-75 and a 70-200 and still have money left over. I think I'll shoot with the 43/77 a lot but having kids there are times when having a zoom will be needed. Here's my list of pros and cons

24-70
+ WR
+ probably better IQ than the 28-75
+ probably quicker
+ quieter
- 82 mm, doesn't fit my existing bags well
- heavier
- $1,000 more

28-75
+ lighter
+ much cheaper
+ would fit better in my bags
+ would allow me to possibly get a he 70-200 (admittedly I don't use a 70-200 often but could come in handy for when I go to the zoo with the kids and do some portrait work.
- not WR
- slower?
- noises?

In the past I was a 60/40 zoom/prime. Prime for indoors/paid gigs, zoom for travel/ walk around.

Should I just suck it up and deal with the 24-70? Or should I consider the 28-75 swap, pick up a used 70-200 and/or pocket the savings?

[sergysergy]

It depends a little bit on what you are planning on shooting but a 70-200 is always nice to have

[C_Jones]

The Tamron weighs 1.12 pounds and the Pentax 1.73. That is a little bit over a half pound difference. The filter thread size on the Tamron is 67 and the Pentax is 82. If your main concern is packing, I can see your point as far as a width concern, but it would probably be something that could be easily dealt with. The 24-70 being Pentax and devoted to use with the K-1 in technology may be the better performer. I know cost is a sensitive issue and decisions can be weighty, but if I were you I would stick with Pentax and either hold on to the 24-70 or invest in the 70-200 which utilizes DC AF. As has been said, it depends on what you want to really shoot. I do not see keeping the 24-70 as being a loss as far as having it for its range. You could hold onto it and get a 70-200 later, or do it the other way around if you invest in a 70-200 now. Good luck, whatever decision you make.

[jypfoto]

Is there any truth to the rumor that the 24-70 Pentax was put out as a holdover to a potential * version or a true Pentax design instead of a Tamron.

What I may end up doing is pick up the 28-75 and give a comparison. It could be transitioning back from a 18 month stint with Mirrorless that has me feeling the extra heft of the 24-70 and something that just needs a readjustment. Right now it feels like I would be leaving the 24-70 and using it only for paid gigs of which are fewer and far between lately.

[C_Jones]

Trying the 28-75 would at least show you how it really performs, enabling you to make any decision with some reasonable surety.

[tromboads]

28-75. Fits your bag. This is important And I doubt the 24-70 will be any sharper.

[biz-engineer]

Should I just suck it up and deal with the 24-70? Or should I consider the 28-75 swap, pick up a used 70-200 and/or pocket the savings?

You seem to consider acquiring other lenses as well (70-200), if so, the choice between 24-70 or 28-75 should not be done by considering one lens alone.

Case A) The DFA24-70 is the lens to have if you'll never buy a wide angle lens, because the DFA24-70 is sharp wide open at every focal length, you can use the 24mm for occasional wide angle shots., if wide angle is not your main interest and if you don't want to spend money on a UWA lens. Ultimately, you have two lenses: 24-70 + 70-200.

Case B) If you plan to do wide angle photography, then, 24mm isn't wide enough, so you'll buy a wide angle lens in addition to your standard zoom lens. In this case, your standard zoom lens FL may start at 28mm. If you plan to purchase a wide angle lens in the future, better get a cheaper standard zoom that starts at 28mm, such as the Tamron 28-75 or DFA28-105. Ultimately, you'll have three lenses: 1xUWA + 1x 28-75 (or 28-105) + 70-200.

Note that f2.8 isn't necessarily an advantage on a standard zoom like 24-70 or 28-75, because of what a standard zoom is meant to do, and the thinner DoF on FF. What I mean: with UWA, the hypoerfocal is fairly short so that you can have everything in focus even with f2.8 (f2.8 is useful for indoor architecture where you can't use multiple flashes). For a 70-200, the goal is to produce bokeh, hence f2.8 is an advantage. But for a standard zoom, you seldom shot at f2.8 because bokeh isn't best achieved with a standard zoom and more often than not, you want everything in focus.

I got the DFA24-70, but I use this lens with apertures between F5.6 and F22 in order to have everything in focus, so if I was to redo the purchase, I'd buy a DFA28-105 (silent AF, WR more versatile and half the price of the 24-70), and save the price difference to buy a UWA lens (already having the Tamy 70-200, works great on FF).

Hope this help.

---------- Post added 12-06-16 at 08:12 ----------

28-75. Fits your bag. This is important And I doubt the 24-70 will be any sharper.

The 24-70 is definitely much sharper across the frame, wide open and stopped down. In the center, 24-70 is sharper wide open (if used wide open...). In the center and stopped down to f4, both are equally sharp.

---------- Post added 12-06-16 at 08:18 ----------

Is there any truth to the rumor that the 24-70 Pentax was put out as a holdover to a potential * version or a true Pentax design instead of a Tamron.

No way, the DFA24-70 (Tamron) rivals the best of Canon or Nikon, to the point that some Canon and Nikon users select the Tamron 24-70 for its sharpness, independent from the price. Yes, Ricoh sells the DFA24-70 at a premium , but not sure the lens would be better if they designed it themselves. Tamron and Sigma have recently upped their game, so that their new products rival or even beat the optical quality of OEM lenses (one of the reasons why Ricoh rebadged the Tamron 24-70).

[ChatMechant]

Maybe I had a bad copy, but the 28-70 I had could not hold a candle to my 16-50 (which the 24-70 is supposed to be similar to, even a bit better than). The cost differential and size is indeed very very tempting, though.

[dave2k]

I'm also interested in this topic as I'm trying to decide between using my Tamron 28-75 on my K-1 or going for the new Pentax 24-70. My current lens of choice on the K-3 is the Sigma 17-50 and I've done side by side testing to compare the 28-75 on the K-1 to the very sharp Sigma on the K-3. The 28-75 on FF looks pretty comparable to the Sigma on the K-3, although I lose a little width with the Tamron. I definitely shoot a lot of wide landscapes so 24 is quite a bit better than 28, but perhaps I'll end up getting a UWA and using the 28-75. It's a hard decision.

[redcat]

the combo 28-75 & 70-200 sounds soooo good ^^

[tromboads]

If there really isn't that much in it, how will it affect any of our images?

Fits bag, done :P

[Rondec]

I guess the question is how much you would use the 70-200. It certainly would be a handy lens to have and the 28-75 could be a place holder, doing a pretty decent job and if you wanted to get a 24-70 down the road, you could.

I have shot with the 24-70 for awhile now and have been very pleased with the results. I use it as a walk around and landscape lens and would have a hard time giving up the 24mm side of things, in particular. From what I have seen, the borders will be a little better on the 24-70 lenses than the Tamron 28-75 wide open, CA is better controlled, and auto focus will be a little better.

Good luck on your choice.

[y0chang]

i own the tamron 28-75 and its a wonderful lens for the price but its soft wide open (the tamron glow, under corrected spherical abberation similar to fa 50 1.4 glow wide open). Its also softer at the long end of the zoom. The colors and flare also dont match pentax smc. Personally i would keep the 24-70.

[slip]

I had the Tamron 28-75 and got rid of it because I didn't like the build quality. seemed cheaply made but I guess that is one of the reasons it is less expensive
good luck with your choice

Randy

[mattb123]

I'm also interested in this topic as I'm trying to decide between using my Tamron 28-75 on my K-1 or going for the new Pentax 24-70. My current lens of choice on the K-3 is the Sigma 17-50 and I've done side by side testing to compare the 28-75 on the K-1 to the very sharp Sigma on the K-3. The 28-75 on FF looks pretty comparable to the Sigma on the K-3, although I lose a little width with the Tamron. I definitely shoot a lot of wide landscapes so 24 is quite a bit better than 28, but perhaps I'll end up getting a UWA and using the 28-75. It's a hard decision.

I have a 28-75 and was thinking if I got a K-1 I might just get a Rokinon 14mm UWA until I can afford something like the 15-30 for the wide end.