[beachgardener]

yes the tammy 28-75 would be good, but I have a fancy for 50mm lenses, maybe the FA 50 f1.7

or the trio 31, 43, 77

[K5_Ltd_User]

Hello,


What I' d want in my bag with a Ff:


* 70- 200
* 85 1.4 (or 1.2) (Pentax or if your eyes can handle it, a M Zeiss)
* 40 mm or 50 (maybe)
* 31 mm
* Something wide or UW (Zeiss maybe)

This would be the FL' s I would take into consideration (so for me) .


And ofcourse the nessary Filters (protection, CPL' s, ND, ect. ) .


Enjoy!

[Nicolas06]

I understand exactly what you're saying. It's a wonderful lens. But if you're argument holds true than all those people spending $1,296.95 on the D FA 24-70 are just a bunch of lemmings sucked into thinking this is a better lens because it's so much more expensive. Ok....maybe they are lemmings and you're the smart one I mean we since you're beginning to convince me

Ask youself, what would you take the $1300 version?

If you are really a pro, you need the best, so even if it is 1% better, you don't care. $1300 deducted from your taxes is dirty cheap anyway. If you make $50K or $100K a year from your trade, it would be stupid to spend too much time thinking about that. Again if you are wealthy, have money to spend that would stay otherwise at the bank, there no reason to think much. Get it and be done. Spending day figuring if you could save money is more costly than buying the stuff. Many are like that here. Retired, have everything already and more money than remaining years to use it. This is also the case of young manager in many company. In 5 years once they have a mortage and 2 childs, they understand even $100 is a significant money, but now, they spend a lot going to restaurant often, having brought a BMW, branded clothes and the latest mac computer.

Now there all the guys that think they need the best, even if they are going to use the lens 3 time per year, even if they are mediocre photographers. It like the many people owners of many musical instruments but are not even part of musical group, didn't complete ever complete music conservatory and can't reliably play moderate difficulty music track but would spend most their time on musical instrument forum speaking on how different one sound than the other. They are collecting gear. This is a huge part people here and people paying high money for the gear. Many of us are like that, and I include myself in it. We call it GBA or LBA here.

Let's not forget all the newbies that are convinced they need it, because they don't really know the stuff, the seller insist they need it, and the LBA afflicted guys on forum insist you can't ever take a decent shoot if you don't have the 3 FAltd and the whole DFA line and a K1 with you.

So yes there many other category of people and among them many that really need the benefit of a DFA24-70 no doubt.

But we also all know that a better photographer with the 28-75 will consistently get much better shoot than a worse photographer with the DFA24-70... The only really thing maybe is starting at 24mm instead of 28 and having silent focussing... But the sigma good enough for that and still 30% cheaper than the DFA... that is tamron lens, let's not forget it.

[Driline]

Ask youself, what would you take the $1300 version?

If you are really a pro, you need the best, so even if it is 1% better, you don't care. $1300 deducted from your taxes is dirty cheap anyway. If you make $50K or $100K a year from your trade, it would be stupid to spend too much time thinking about that. Again if you are wealthy, have money to spend that would stay otherwise at the bank, there no reason to think much. Get it and be done. Spending day figuring if you could save money is more costly than buying the stuff. Many are like that here. Retired, have everything already and more money than remaining years to use it. This is also the case of young manager in many company. In 5 years once they have a mortage and 2 childs, they understand even $100 is a significant money, but now, they spend a lot going to restaurant often, having brought a BMW, branded clothes and the latest mac computer.

Now there all the guys that think they need the best, even if they are going to use the lens 3 time per year, even if they are mediocre photographers. It like the many people owners of many musical instruments but are not even part of musical group, didn't complete ever complete music conservatory and can't reliably play moderate difficulty music track but would spend most their time on musical instrument forum speaking on how different one sound than the other. They are collecting gear. This is a huge part people here and people paying high money for the gear. Many of us are like that, and I include myself in it. We call it GBA or LBA here.

Let's not forget all the newbies that are convinced they need it, because they don't really know the stuff, the seller insist they need it, and the LBA afflicted guys on forum insist you can't ever take a decent shoot if you don't have the 3 FAltd and the whole DFA line and a K1 with you.

So yes there many other category of people and among them many that really need the benefit of a DFA24-70 no doubt.

But we also all know that a better photographer with the 28-75 will consistently get much better shoot than a worse photographer with the DFA24-70... The only really thing maybe is starting at 24mm instead of 28 and having silent focussing... But the sigma good enough for that and still 30% cheaper than the DFA... that is tamron lens, let's not forget it.

You mis-understand me. I DON'T agree with macman. He is the one who thinks the $500 Tamron lens is = to the $1,300 DFA 24-70. I was only trying to get him to understand the enormity of his flawed thinking. I personally believe you get what you pay for and the Pentax lenses are a much better value than the Tamron due to obvious IQ and construction differences. I've used Tamron lenses and think are are rather cheaply made and the IQ and color contrast is not = to Pentax. That is my own observation. I'm sure many will think otherwise. If you look at my signature you will only see that I have quality Pentax glass. I've bought and sold well over 20 lenses to get my current stable of lenses where it's at. I am the Mediocre photographer you speak about who thinks he requires the best glass to succeed

[Nicolas06]

You mis-understand me. I DON'T agree with macman. He is the one who thinks the $500 Tamron lens is = to the $1,300 DFA 24-70. I was only trying to get him to understand the enormity of his flawed thinking. I personally believe you get what you pay for and the Pentax lenses are a much better value than the Tamron due to obvious IQ and construction differences. I've used Tamron lenses and think are are rather cheaply made and the IQ and color contrast is not = to Pentax. That is my own observation. I'm sure many will think otherwise. If you look at my signature you will only see that I have quality Pentax glass. I've bought and sold well over 20 lenses to get my current stable of lenses where it's at. I am the Mediocre photographer you speak about who thinks he requires the best glass to succeed

And yet you compare basically 2 tamron the tamron 28-75 and the tamron 24-70 rebadged into Pentax If Tamron IQ not good, surely the DFA24-70 should be avoided too. We could explain the whole thing about Pentax is the build quality of the lens (really? but this doesn't make for better pictures) and coatings. But honestly that would be rather depressing... . We don't know even if the "HD" coating on that 24-70 is Pentax own or just pentax brand. We know for sure the "SDM" is Pentax brand (rather poor choice) for a tamron motor...

As for the mediocre photographer we are many there with more money that skills. I count myself in. But I don't trust that if you take the 28-75 you picture will look much worse than on the DFA24-70. At most the biggest problem might be the range difference.

[Driline]

And yet you compare basically 2 tamron the tamron 28-75 and the tamron 24-70 rebadged into Pentax If Tamron IQ not good, surely the DFA24-70 should be avoided too.

I have no idea what side the fence you are sitting on. I just picked the DFA lens because it was $1,300 compared to the $500 lens. So do you believe the $500 lens is = to the $1,300 lens or not?

[macman24054]

I DON'T agree with macman. He is the one who thinks the $500 Tamron lens is = to the $1,300 DFA 24-70. I was only trying to get him to understand the enormity of his flawed thinking.

What makes my thinking seem flawed to you is that I look at every dime I spend on photography in term of ROI (return on investment). If I can book and satisfy the same number of couples with a $500 lens as a $1300 it does not make business sense to pay more. Just like my view of MP is different from most. Time is money. So the more time I spend with larger files the longer I spend in post production. I charge my customers in part for the amount of time it takes me in post. When I am not booked, I shoot freelance for a large wedding photography company. One of the restrictions to upload my DNG files to them is that the long side of the image is to be 3000 pixels max. It is all based on the upload, download and post time. Much of the gear a person needs depends heavenly on the intended use. That is why my second shooter and I shot with 16MP bodies.

[Nicolas06]

I have no idea what side the fence you are sitting on. I just picked the DFA lens because it was $1,300 compared to the $500 lens. So do you believe the $500 lens is = to the $1,300 lens or not?

Both version are tested on Canon in fact on photozone:

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Tamron AF 24-70mm f/2.8 SP Di USD VC (Canon EOS) - Full Format Review / Lens Test - Analysis

The 28-75 overall optically has soft corners at f/2.8 (but borders are ok) and that going to be an issues mostly for astro photography or other very specialized stuff. Both have average bokeh with different issues. Buzy in different part and more pronounced oignon bokeh for the 24-70, maybe because it is more corrected.

The 28-75 is 510g and 73x92mm and around 300€ here while the DFA24-70 is 88x108 and 825g and cost 1300€. Between the 2, I'd definetely take the 28-75 but ultimately I prefer primes. So as I have FA31 and FA77 on FF I'd take the old FA20 for now and if I I was to take a zoom, what I want for an FF is a 24-105 f/4.

Outside the 28 vs 24mm thing I don't think you'll notice any difference in pictuere quality for 99% of the shots and the price difference here (1000€) can pay for either:
- a DFA15-30 f/2.8 that by the way is also a tamron rebadge and give you much more possibilitiies for wide angle coverage
- a used FA77 (for portraiture) + used FA20 (for landscapes), you may have in fact to give in 200€ more for getting both.
- a sigma 85mm f/1.4 for portraiture
- a 70-200 f/2.8 from tamron (and 400€ saved) or even sigma.

[Maksim]

You lost me....?

Sorry was typing on the phone.

I meant how many of those people buying Canon and Nikon DSLRs actually need such an auto focus system? you know, with more focus points than you need and the ability to shoot god knows how many frames per second until your card fills up.

[Nicolas06]

Sorry was typing on the phone.

I meant how many of those people buying Canon and Nikon DSLRs actually need such an auto focus system? you know, with more focus points than you need and the ability to shoot god knows how many frames per second until your card fills up.

From my experience, AF was a major revolution and the single most important change to me between K5 and K3 was the AF improvement.

The problem is al lthe rest like many megapixels, pixel shift, they are worth it only when the photo is perfectly sharp and in focus. Otherwise it is irrelevant.

AF is damn conveniant and an efficiant AF system that focus instantly in low light, can track everything and require just you to push the shutter release at the right time is fantastic. It make the machine our slave and not us the slave of the machine. This AF system doesn't exist yet. Until it exist, there will be benefit for any progress that will make us more near toward this target.

[FantasticMrFox]

So, what do I like?

* wide/ultra-wide/Fisheye lenses. fast with little or no coma

You've got that in the Samyang 14 f/2.8.

* ultra-wide zooms

Currently only the Pentax 15-30 f/2.8 available, which is pricey but a great performer.

* short telephoto, fast and no coma

I understand 'short telephoto' to refer to the 70-150 mm range, so you have several options. Pentax 77 f/1.8 Ltd., Samyang 85 f/1.4, Pentax 100 f/2.8 WR Macro and many more. The 100 Macro, for example, has been tested to have little to no coma (at least in the corners of APS-C), and it's wicked sharp.

* really long telephoto

Your choice is between the Sigma 500mm F4.5 EX DG APO, Pentax 560 f/5.6 and Pentax HD DA 150-450 WR. Know nothing about the Sigma, the Pentax 560 is wicked expensive, the 150-450 is versatile and seems to perform very well.

See above.

[Kaisas]

Im trying to figure out is it really worth spend 1299$ pentax dfa 24-70? My question is u think is it huge difference between pentax 24-70 an tamron 28-75?
Im trying to get in wedding photography with my k1. Pls help me to figure out which lens I need ..thanks

[wanderer2]

Im trying to figure out is it really worth spend 1299$ pentax dfa 24-70? My question is u think is it huge difference between pentax 24-70 an tamron 28-75?
Im trying to get in wedding photography with my k1. Pls help me to figure out which lens I need ..thanks

If you haven't already read them check out macman's several posts earlier in this thread. As a pro wedding photographer his experience should directly relate to your question.

I have the Tamron 28-75 for my K-1 and have found it's IQ to be excellent as long as it's stopped down to f5.6 or smaller. As pointed out in the lens test posted earlier in this thread it is somewhat soft in the corners wide open. When assembling a lens kit for my K-1 I went through the same decision process regarding the two Pentax and Tamron lenses and it was easy for me because of my restricted retirees budget, but I've not been disappointed with the Tamron for landscape use.

[normhead]

True except Pentax cannot AF fast enough for action shots compared to Nikon and Canon so I'm sure that's why they go with those camera's and the fact there are far more lens choice available.

That has to be the biggest ego trip going. "My needs are so great that i have to have pro quality action cameras." But I don't own a D750, a Dx1 or a D4. What I need is cheap fast AF and Canon and Nikon provide that. <I just brought some vomit up into my mouth, but I', OK now, no one worry.> You ask people why they need this stuff and they post action photos of their dog running straight at them. Pretty crappy photos I might add.

Why do they have specific cameras with super fast tracking and lenses... because most people don't need them and because most people won't pay what it costs to make one. But those people are quite happy to turn up on Pentax forums and complain that Pentax doesn't make one. What a bunch of egotistical cheapskates.

I need an emoticon of someone getting slapped upside the head.

But back on topic, that Tamron 28-75 is almost as expensive as the new Pentax 28-105, if you're looking for a kit type lens.