Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-30-2017, 04:12 AM   #16
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 51,558
I'm sure well eventually see a 24-105 or 24-120, whether it be from Pentax, Sigma, or someone else. Until then, then 24-70mm covers the basics while the 28-105mm is a versatile option for those who bakue compactness.


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:
04-30-2017, 04:36 AM   #17
Veteran Member
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,186
Pentax has their reasons.
Seems like a great lens, so you can probably afford to lose the wide 4mm. You can fill those with a 24mm prime (FA 24mm, Samyang 24mm,..) or a zoom (DFA 15-30mm, one of the 24-70mm zooms from Pentax Sigma and Tamron)

I think Pentax is doing strategic lens releases. They don't have sony money to throw out boatloads of cameras and lenses every year. Sure there are lenses that other brands have that we would also like to see, but you can't have it all. And we still have plenty!
04-30-2017, 05:42 AM   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Spodeworld's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New Joisey
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,370
Original Poster
I hope we do. I'll be more inclined to get the K1 or its successor then. I don't want to have to buy a second lens to get the additional few mm that I've grown to really appreciate on my crop 16-85 that seems to be readily available from the other manufacturers. The convenience to me would be worth a few hundred more.


QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
I'm sure well eventually see a 24-105 or 24-120, whether it be from Pentax, Sigma, or someone else. Until then, then 24-70mm covers the basics while the 28-105mm is a versatile option for those who bakue compactness.
04-30-2017, 05:47 AM   #19
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
I understand your point of view from not having used a DFA28-105. From specs, yes you are right.
Now, once again Pentax does unconventional things; with the 28-105 is weird product: 1) it's sharper than the 24-70 2.8. / 2) It's way smaller than any 24-something / 3) It's faster to focus / 3) But higher priced than a kit lens.
It's not comparable.
Actually, many slow zooms seem to be sharper wide-open than their faster and bigger counterparts (sometimes even when stopped down). So that doesn't seem so strange to me. There's more to a lens than just sharpness though.

But, as you mentioned, I haven't used the 28-105 myself.

04-30-2017, 06:06 AM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,145
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
There's more to a lens than just sharpness though.
I prefer the rending of the DFA24-70, but it has a 82mm front filter thread, which means all of my ND and ND grad filter sets purchased for apsc don't fit, I'd need to buy again Pro 100mm filters to use on the newer DFA glass.
The exception is the DFA28-105, it has 62mm front filter, it's weather sealed, it's perfect for landscape I can use all of apsc filters. I can nearly have that DFA28-105 in a pocket, that + the K1 + box of ND grad fit in the same bag I used for the K3. Next time I go for waterfalls in spring time, it's going to be with the 28-105, the 24-70 will stay at home.
04-30-2017, 06:32 AM   #21
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
I complained for a long time about the 28-105 not being 24. Then I bought the lens and pretty much forgot about it. At this point I'd like a lightweight variable aperture 15-30 to go with it. After all, I have my Sigma 8-16 for my K-3.

Personally, I don't think even 24 saves you form needing an UWA lens. That's my reason for not considering the 16-85, I'd still need my Sigma 8-16, so why switch from my 18-135?
04-30-2017, 07:25 AM   #22
Emperor and Senpai
Loyal Site Supporter
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mishawaka IN area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,124
I'd have loved a 24-135 f/4 WR. Now that would be my walk around lens. As it is I am using the Tamron 24-135 as a walk around on the K1.

04-30-2017, 10:28 AM   #23
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,542
It's all about price. 28-105 is a slower and cheaper lens than the 24-70 for a third to half the price depending on where and when you buy it. Making it a 24 - 105 would likely cut into 24-70 sales at the current price point although that extra couple of mm would likely have raised the price another hundred bucks which would also generate complaints. The idea here is to make a lens that is optically good and sell it at a good price point and still turn a decent profit.

28-70 and 28-105 were popular budget lenses back in the film days and Pentax and Sigma as well as others made a lot of them so it's no surprise to see an updated 28-105 now that Pentax is making a FF body
04-30-2017, 10:44 AM   #24
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,276
The semi-budget kit zoom for the MZ-S was the SMC PENTAX-FA 24~90 f/3.5~4.5 AL [IF]. Like the D FA28~105 it was (and remains) a great value in terms of IQ / price. It is especially sharp from 28-70 but has a bit of barrel distortion @24. I sold mine when I got the 28~105..

I think you lose some range on one end or the other - and endure the variable aperture - to get the lower price.

Last edited by monochrome; 04-30-2017 at 06:25 PM.
04-30-2017, 02:39 PM   #25
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
mgvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: MD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,029
Like @VoiceofReason said, try to find the Tamron 24-135 f3.5-5.6. It's to full-frame what the DA 18-135 is to APS-C, and in my comparisons, it's a bit better.
04-30-2017, 04:33 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 4,501
Pentax made a 35mm film based (FF) FA 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5, which is faster than the D-FA 28-105mm, and it was lighter in weight. They also made an FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5mm AL IF which was even smaller and lighter. Both received favorable reviews.

Many of us take along both a K-1, and an APS-C body because each has certain advantages, depending on use conditions, portability, and subject matter. I think it would be a good idea for Pentax to do a redesign of that 24-90mm concept, with an optical update, having WR and a DC quiet AF system, since it would be a compact, faster than average zoom lens with a wide FL range, and the 24mm still provides wide angle on an APS-C body. Such a lens would serve well on either camera.
04-30-2017, 04:34 PM   #27
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
I prefer the rending of the DFA24-70, but it has a 82mm front filter thread, which means all of my ND and ND grad filter sets purchased for apsc don't fit, I'd need to buy again Pro 100mm filters to use on the newer DFA glass.
I agree that's a pain. I have standardized on 77mm filters and wouldn't want to go bigger either. In fact sometimes I'm thinking of going smaller, to 67mm. But most wide angle zooms are 77mm so that's still a no-go. (though I think you are talking about something like a Lee system?)

QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
The exception is the DFA28-105, it has 62mm front filter, it's weather sealed, it's perfect for landscape I can use all of apsc filters. I can nearly have that DFA28-105 in a pocket, that + the K1 + box of ND grad fit in the same bag I used for the K3. Next time I go for waterfalls in spring time, it's going to be with the 28-105, the 24-70 will stay at home.
For landscapes, I personally still want to go wider. Sometimes I left my 12-24 at home because I didn't want to bring too many lenses and my 16-50 could get me wide enough as well. But yeah, I can relate to that filter predicament.

OTOH I've also shot more distant landscapes with the 17-70. I love the versatility of that lens.
04-30-2017, 05:47 PM   #28
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
I agree that's a pain. I have standardized on 77mm filters and wouldn't want to go bigger either. In fact sometimes I'm thinking of going smaller, to 67mm. But most wide angle zooms are 77mm so that's still a no-go. (though I think you are talking about something like a Lee system?)



For landscapes, I personally still want to go wider. Sometimes I left my 12-24 at home because I didn't want to bring too many lenses and my 16-50 could get me wide enough as well. But yeah, I can relate to that filter predicament.

OTOH I've also shot more distant landscapes with the 17-70. I love the versatility of that lens.
Bring both your 12-24 and 28-105 with your K-1 when hiking.

The DA covers 18-24 very well and uses the 77mm filter you've already got.
05-01-2017, 02:38 AM   #29
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,119
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Bring both your 12-24 and 28-105 with your K-1 when hiking.

The DA covers 18-24 very well and uses the 77mm filter you've already got.
I think you misunderstood. I don't have a K-1. Too expensive for me.
05-01-2017, 05:00 AM   #30
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
I think you misunderstood. I don't have a K-1. Too expensive for me.
?

We're talking about the K-1 ... check the OP.

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24-70mm, 28mm, 77mm, and/or, consideration, da, dfa, f/4, f2.8, f4, fa, ff, filters, future, hope, k-mount, k1, landscapes, lens, lenses, pentax, pentax lens, pentax-a, pity, reach, slr lens, wildlife
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pntax 24-90, 28-105, 100-300/4.7..., Tamron 28-300, Sigma 70-300...and new 15-30 jeffreybehr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 10-19-2016 04:26 AM
Not one, not two, not three, not four, but a wedding where half attendees are bob. LeDave Photographic Industry and Professionals 12 05-16-2016 03:40 AM
What different between SMC K 24/2.8, SMC K 24/3.5 and Takumar SMC 24/3.5 mdmitriy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 07-18-2009 02:02 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:40 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top