[zeitlos]

Agreed but my point perhaps poorly worded is that the penalty for the k-1 isn't that high as far as weight and even bulk when coupled to something like a 28-105. The extra ISO performance and dof will result in generally similar performance or better than the 16-50 with more overall resolution.
I'm not in the market for the k-1 but I can see how I could keep the load and bulk similar to my k-3 loads with compromise on zooms. My primes would remain fast alternatives.

Thank you for your comment(s)!

Basically that's what I am after. I think (hope) that the 28-105 having a similar performance compared to the 16-50mm on APS-C as far as DoF is concerned would be enough for most "standard situations". If it gets more tricky, fast primes might do the job. Of course there's no such thing as the "perfect solution". Everything's a compromise. I completely agree with "UncleVanya" on that point. I could keep it similar to the APS-C gear I used before (even tough I have to get used to the thought that I invested lots of money in FF to get the same return as if I was shooting APS-C I'm still not over it...).

The Only thing I might really be missing is the 24mm and the dof-capabilities at wide angle. Maybe the most noticeable difference I could make out between APS-C and FF was shooting at 24mm at F2.8 and seeing how blured the background was, even when shooting "full body portraits". I'm not sure how much I will lose when using the 28-105.

[UncleVanya]

The option to keep the 24-70 and use it for shorter trips and decide if it is going to fit you or be sold off is still there.

Even with similar dof and low light with the travel zoom your underlying resolution is higher. Give it some time. You will quickly learn if the k-1 added options or was a sidestep.

[zeitlos]

I will definitely have a parallel run before selling one again! Thanks!

[Nicolas06]

Thank you for your comment(s)!

Basically that's what I am after. I think (hope) that the 28-105 having a similar performance compared to the 16-50mm on APS-C as far as DoF is concerned would be enough for most "standard situations". If it gets more tricky, fast primes might do the job. Of course there's no such thing as the "perfect solution". Everything's a compromise. I completely agree with "UncleVanya" on that point. I could keep it similar to the APS-C gear I used before (even tough I have to get used to the thought that I invested lots of money in FF to get the same return as if I was shooting APS-C I'm still not over it...).

The Only thing I might really be missing is the 24mm and the dof-capabilities at wide angle. Maybe the most noticeable difference I could make out between APS-C and FF was shooting at 24mm at F2.8 and seeing how blured the background was, even when shooting "full body portraits". I'm not sure how much I will lose when using the 28-105.

To be fully honest, we creates our own needs. I used mostly primes but recent I used a cheap HD55-300 and while I can whine that the 100% crop at 300mm are not razor sharp, but the shoot themselves look great. The key point is I was in the right place, because I paid for the trip. I could have K1 with 150-450 if I stayed home I wouldn't have the picture. On the opposite with a used K30 and used sigma 70-300 would have been sufficiant and that basically 350€ investment.

This isn't really about what you get more for quality or the dof at 24mm framing f/2.8 or you just have brougth a fast lens for APSC like sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or samyang 16mm f/2.

Your FF justfications are rationnalization to justify the buy, to justify the new toy. That's how we are. This isn't like we are a pro doing weddings all day and need every bit of performance and need the durability or that we print 60" many time during the year. I think we have to admit it, be honest about ourselve. Your K1 like my FA ltd are a luxury. You could has well have brought a premium car or gone to a nice restaurant.

The question isn't really if the basic car can't get you to the destination, if the K3 + 16-50 doesn't provide enough quality for the shoot or dining at home is not as good for your health. This is about what we desire !

[Nicolas06]

Agreed but my point perhaps poorly worded is that the penalty for the k-1 isn't that high as far as weight and even bulk when coupled to something like a 28-105. The extra ISO performance and dof will result in generally similar performance or better than the 16-50 with more overall resolution.
I'm not in the market for the k-1 but I can see how I could keep the load and bulk similar to my k-3 loads with compromise on zooms. My primes would remain fast alternatives.

Yep K1 + 28-105 should be a bit similar to K3 + 16-50. A better high iso performance on the wide angle part on the 28-105, less wide angle, a bit more reach. Twice the price overall than used K3 and used 16-50. Overall I think a bit more sharpness. Significant for large prints if you do any.

A few other improvements. But no radical change, for sure.

[UncleVanya]

Yep K1 + 28-105 should be a bit similar to K3 + 16-50. A better high iso performance on the wide angle part on the 28-105, less wide angle, a bit more reach. Twice the price overall than used K3 and used 16-50. Overall I think a bit more sharpness. Significant for large prints if you do any.

A few other improvements. But no radical change, for sure.

But then when you want to the option to pop a wide aperture high end lens is available. Which is different. The price of admission is high but that's up to the wallet of the photographer.

[zeitlos]

Just ordered a Pentax 28-105mm

Looking forward to shooting with it. Maybe I can do some cross testing... but maybe I won't. Just out of curiosity I'm inclined to do so but I know that this might lead me nowhere. I'll better just do some "real world" shooting and judge by the results only (do I like them in general => colors etc.) without comparing both lenses on a "pixel peeper basis". Well, to be honest, it's highly likely that I wouldn't even be able to see certain differences since I lack the knowledge you need for such a kind of judgement .

Thanks for all your support!

---

Last edited by zeitlos; 10-06-2016 at 01:44 PM.

[zeitlos]

Just got my 28-105mm today. Really a lovely lens. K-1 feels manageable now. We'll see whether it's an option for me when travelling. Still I'm considering to replace it with the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 since this will give me all the advantages a FF camera can offer while still keeping at a reasonable level (size/weight).

Now I feel a little like I could have stayed with APS-C . But this is only true for the 28-105. Pairing the K-1 with the FA31 oder FA77 reveals it's full potential. However, still not sure whether I really need it.

Hope I won't end up following this path: APS-C - FF - mft

[Nicolas06]

Now I feel a little like I could have stayed with APS-C . But this is only true for the 28-105. Pairing the K-1 with the FA31 oder FA77 reveals it's full potential. However, still not sure whether I really need it.
Hope I won't end up following this path: APS-C - FF - mft

You could have stayed, 100% sure. As of the path you choose, what matter isn't to worry you may have made errors in the past. That irrelevant. You can't change the past and you need experience to progress. What count is you don't let the past blind you, block you. Be it you discover FF is key or that m4/3 the best for you, that a lesson learned and that just as informative as anything else. Leaning is also accepting you don't already know everything and that eventually you may get surprised at time.

A great photographer make great photo, almost regardless of the gear. The problem isn't FF, APSC or m4/3. The best investment you can make is on yourselve. To improve, try, experiment... And that doesn't apply only for photographers but for everything.

Just check that

You Tube

You Tube

Attached the actual cameras used and the photos, made by professionals photographers. Ask yourself if you manage that on regular basis with your K1 and see what is more important to achieve great results

[GeneV]

Just got my 28-105mm today. Really a lovely lens. K-1 feels manageable now. We'll see whether it's an option for me when travelling. Still I'm considering to replace it with the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 since this will give me all the advantages a FF camera can offer while still keeping at a reasonable level (size/weight).

Now I feel a little like I could have stayed with APS-C . But this is only true for the 28-105. Pairing the K-1 with the FA31 oder FA77 reveals it's full potential. However, still not sure whether I really need it.

Hope I won't end up following this path: APS-C - FF - mft

My 28-105 arrives tomorrow. I have been happy using my FF primes, but a while back I took the K1 as my only camera on an overnight trip, and sometimes you just want to go for a walk and have a lens that is more versatile.

For traveling lighter these days, I'm actually more inclined to take one of the mirrorless Sony E-mounts. The A6000 can get down to not much bigger than a point and shoot, and even with a 16-70, it goes in a waistpack. It now has the role of my old Kx. I like the K1 much better than the A7R, so I bought the walk around lens for the Pentax.

[zeitlos]

Thanks again for your valuable comments! I appreciate them.

Maybe one advantage of a walk around lens like the 28-105 is, that you are more or less forced to use the K-1 as an interchangeable lens system again... Having it equipped with the 24-70mm 2.8, I found myself too lazy in the end for changing lenses because you could, after shooting architecture and landscape, also make a decent portrait with it... this might now change so that in the end I'll be using my FA77 or FA43 more often which might end up in better quality.
While travelling I actually used my 24-70mm as a versitle lens, almost like a "superzoom" just without the (wide) zoom . Or I didn't use it at all because it's was inconvenient due to its size/weight.

Well, the 28-105 might change bad habits! (hopefully)
So if one looks at it this way...

[Nicolas06]

Thanks again for your valuable comments! I appreciate them.

Maybe one advantage of a walk around lens like the 28-105 is, that you are more or less forced to use the K-1 as an interchangeable lens system again... Having it equipped with the 24-70mm 2.8, I found myself too lazy in the end for changing lenses because you could, after shooting architecture and landscape, also make a decent portrait with it... this might now change so that in the end I'll be using my FA77 or FA43 more often which might end up in better quality.
While travelling I actually used my 24-70mm as a versitle lens, almost like a "superzoom" just without the (wide) zoom . Or I didn't use it at all because it's was inconvenient due to its size/weight.

Well, the 28-105 might change bad habits! (hopefully)
So if one looks at it this way...

Maybe, but you also find that 28-105 to be a great performer

[AggieDad]

Well, we all have our own ways of handling the bulk/weight issue.

For me, it is weight, not bulk that is my concern.

I find that I attack it in various ways, depending on conditions. I like to carry my camera in my hand so I have a wrist strap which I always slip on for safety. If I am going to out and about for any amount of time, I slip on a shoulder harness (the simple strap type) so I can quickly put the camera on the harness (I use Op-Tech with quick disconnects) as I do not like neck straps. I also have a vest with a million pockets ($50 at Bass Pro Shops) to put stuff in.

I am considering a Cotton Carrier hip unit as an alternative.

But at 73, I don't find carrying my camera so much of a burden that I miss shots at the Grand Canyon.

[ChristianRock]

Sigma made a 24-60 2.8 that was smaller than the 24-70 designs. Might be worth trying to find one.

[UncleVanya]

Sigma made a 24-60 2.8 that was smaller than the 24-70 designs. Might be worth trying to find one.

What I found seems like you are right. 550g 84mmx87mm in size vs. 790g ? x 95mm.