[VoiceOfReason]

I think there's a place in a lens lineup for a good 24-105/24-120 lens which is slower than the standard 24-70 f2.8, you see it for Canon and Nikon and the fixed f4 lenses sell very well.
I'm torn because I'm now on a second 24-70 which I'm finding not to be great and considering its dearer than the Tamron badged version of the lens I'm wondering if I'd rather just make do with only 28mm at the wide end and buy one of these instead.

If there was a good, fast 24mm prime available then it would be a no brainer to have the 28-105 as my zoom as it would give great reach and as most of my shooting is tripod based landscapes I'm stopped down mostly anyway but I would miss that wide end I think.

It could allow me to invest in a 15-30 at the wide end which seems really the only good wide option and

If I could get a constant f/4 24-105, 24-120 or 24-135 I'd love it, with the longer the range the better. Heck, I'd even settle for a good 24-135 variable aperture.

[gaweidert]

Norm,

When I got my K1 I was 2,200 mile form home. Like an idiot I did not have any lenses with me that covered the shorter focal lengths. I did for my K3 and K5-IIs but they don't translate well to full frame and I did not want to use the K1 in crop mode. They had a D FA 28-105 at the store so I got it. Since there is no sales tax in Montana I saved almost half the cost of the lens by purchasing everything there rather than in good old New York state.

Other that some slight vignetting, this lens is a very good performer.. 24-105 would have been better, but I am really happy with this lens. I am looking for something wider in a prime, but that is for some time next year,

Right now my 20+ year old Polar (Samyang) 18-28mm zoom is filling that role. I got it in the duty free shop in Kimpo Airport in South Korea for $120. It actually does okay on the K1. Much better than I thought it would. It also surprised me on my film cameras too when I got it. Wobbly front element group and all.

[Skewed]

If I could get a constant f/4 24-105, 24-120 or 24-135 I'd love it, with the longer the range the better. Heck, I'd even settle for a good 24-135 variable aperture.

Me too. I've only had the K-1 + 28-105 for a couple of weeks, but I've already shot a couple of scenes in wide open spaces that might have looked better if wider.
I took ~1k shots on a trip to the Eastern Sierra and Utah in October with my K3 + 16-85, and was a bit surprised to see how many were at 16mm (24 mm E). Even in Death Valley I used 16mm a lot. Compared to the 16-85, the 28-105 seems to benefit more from a circular polarizer, but I've been trying to push the 28-105 to its the limits. When used in less challenging situations (and not pixel-peeping), the IQ of these two lenses seem comparable.

For serious landscape shoots, as opposed to just wandering around, I'll try carrying both the K-1 with 28-105 and K3 with DA12-24. I do a lot of hiking and running for conditioning; I don't think the weight will bother me.

[Scorpio71GR]

Nice shots Norm. I picked one of these up too from Amazon for less than sell used. I'm still using it on the K3 but when I get a K1 at least I will have a decent full frame walkaround lens to mount on it. So far I have been very pleased with. I was surprised by the fact that it was only a little bigger than the 18-135.

[Paul the Sunman]

Nice shots Norm. I picked one of these up too from Amazon for less than sell used. I'm still using it on the K3 but when I get a K1 at least I will have a decent full frame walkaround lens to mount on it. So far I have been very pleased with. I was surprised by the fact that it was only a little bigger than the 18-135.

On APS-C I prefer the 16-85 because of the much wider short end; 28-105 is generally not as useful in that format. The IQ is very similar. However, for future-proofing, the 28-105 is a good choice.

[normhead]

I'm waiting on you to get the DFA 150-450. I am seriously looking for a good "walk around" lens for my K1. The 24-70 I have is great, but I find I want more reach at times.

I was using the 35-80, so I'm better on both ends.

Man , those are beautiful clean shots that you share with us.

Thanks

For me, the 28-105 is an excellent walk-around WR zoom. It is clean and crisp across the frame. Variable aperture is a price I'm willing to pay for compactness and convenience. I agree with your assessment Norm.

That's how I think, for me it's always about weight. I carried it today on snow shoes for 5 km. If it's not light, it doesn't come.

If I could get a constant f/4 24-105, 24-120 or 24-135 I'd love it, with the longer the range the better. Heck, I'd even settle for a good 24-135 variable aperture.

Norm,

When I got my K1 I was 2,200 mile form home. Like an idiot I did not have any lenses with me that covered the shorter focal lengths. I did for my K3 and K5-IIs but they don't translate well to full frame and I did not want to use the K1 in crop mode. They had a D FA 28-105 at the store so I got it. Since there is no sales tax in Montana I saved almost half the cost of the lens by purchasing everything there rather than in good old New York state.

Other that some slight vignetting, this lens is a very good performer.. 24-105 would have been better, but I am really happy with this lens. I am looking for something wider in a prime, but that is for some time next year,

Right now my 20+ year old Polar (Samyang) 18-28mm zoom is filling that role. I got it in the duty free shop in Kimpo Airport in South Korea for $120. It actually does okay on the K1. Much better than I thought it would. It also surprised me on my film cameras too when I got it. Wobbly front element group and all.

The problem of the ultra wide rears it's ugly head. I'm in the same bind at the moment.

Me too. I've only had the K-1 + 28-105 for a couple of weeks, but I've already shot a couple of scenes in wide open spaces that might have looked better if wider.
I took ~1k shots on a trip to the Eastern Sierra and Utah in October with my K3 + 16-85, and was a bit surprised to see how many were at 16mm (24 mm E). Even in Death Valley I used 16mm a lot. Compared to the 16-85, the 28-105 seems to benefit more from a circular polarizer, but I've been trying to push the 28-105 to its the limits. When used in less challenging situations (and not pixel-peeping), the IQ of these two lenses seem comparable.

For serious landscape shoots, as opposed to just wandering around, I'll try carrying both the K-1 with 28-105 and K3 with DA12-24. I do a lot of hiking and running for conditioning; I don't think the weight will bother me.

I have a Sigma 8-16 for the K-3, there's nothin similar for the K-1.

Nice shots Norm. I picked one of these up too from Amazon for less than sell used. I'm still using it on the K3 but when I get a K1 at least I will have a decent full frame walkaround lens to mount on it. So far I have been very pleased with. I was surprised by the fact that it was only a little bigger than the 18-135.

After looking at my images today, I'm thinking the K-3 and 18-135 might be my walk camera, more than half my photos were crops, and smaller than an APS-c sensor. I brought the 200 and TC, but it is such a pain to change lenses on snow shoes. And for pseudo macro, it's not as good as the 18-135 or 16-85.

[Paul the Sunman]

The problem of the ultra wide rears it's ugly head. I'm in the same bind at the moment.

I was twiddling my thumbs over the same conundrum since buying the K-1 in June. Eventually I couldn't stand it; a good price came up and I bought the DFA 15-30 (which by the way is 10-20 equivalent on APS-C, so not too dissimilar to the Sigma 8-16). It's big and heavy (actually width is my main concern with this lens rather than length or weight; it's really difficult to fit in a bag). After a week or two getting used to it, I'm now really enjoying the images it produces. Pity about the size.

In most circumstances I can carry the 28-105 and the 15-30, but not much else. Still, that's a very useful combination.

[noelpolar]

I was wonderng how you ended up with the 28-1.. Nice to see you are getting good shots with it.... will probally get one as a weather sealed light weight option some time soon as well. I'm a big fan of the small Voigtlander 20/3.5 which would go well with it.... posted a shot yesterday in K-1 thread with it out in the canoe.

Also, the price of the K-1 kit does get scary.... best not for to add it up...... just like the cost of children. I was shooting on the water yesterday with a friend.... we had $12k plus of gear in a $1k canoe.

[monochrome]

I was wonderng how you ended up with the 28-1.. Nice to see you are getting good shots with it.... will probally get one as a weather sealed light weight option some time soon as well. I'm a big fan of the small Voigtlander 20/3.5 which would go well with it.

Also, the price of the K-1 kit does get scary.... best not for to add it up...... just like the cost of children. I was shooting on the water yesterday with a friend.... we had $12k plus of gear in a $1k canoe.

$1K is an expensive canoe!!!

[noelpolar]

$1K is an expensive canoe!!!

It's special....gota hold a couple of old fat fellows....

[bobbotron]

$1K is an expensive canoe!!!

$1k really doesn't buy you much canoe these days!

[monochrome]

$1k really doesn't buy you much canoe these days!

Yikes! Been quite a while since I looked - <$1K for a Kevlar Expedition Grade flatwater canoe with portage yoke is now over 4 Grand

[Paul the Sunman]

Also, the price of the K-1 kit does get scary.... best not for to add it up...... just like the cost of children. I was shooting on the water yesterday with a friend.... we had $12k plus of gear in a $1k canoe.

$12k photo gear, $1k canoe, 10c hole. The hole wins.

[noelpolar]

$12k photo gear, $1k canoe, 10c hole. The hole wins.

Yeah...gave that some thought and spent $600 on floaties for it.... so can't sink now.... http://www.kaptenboatcollar.com/allan-b.html

[MrB1]

Nice shots Norm. I picked one of these up too from Amazon for less than sell used. I'm still using it on the K3 but when I get a K1 at least I will have a decent full frame walkaround lens to mount on it. So far I have been very pleased with. I was surprised by the fact that it was only a little bigger than the 18-135.

I find this lens outstanding across the frame on APS-C. It was a deliberate purchase with the K-70, bought at a great bargain offer price, as I mostly use focal lengths within that range, so it stays on the camera most of the time. I also carry the very light kit 18-50 WR, just in case a wider view is required, but find it is hardly ever used.

Philip