[AyeYo]

After a bunch of shooting with a Canon L series 24-70 f2.8 on a 7DII, I realized how incredibly useful this focal range and speed is for just about any "I'm actually getting paid for this" event type shooting, even on APS-C. I've shot for two different people that have given me this combo to use (other was a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 on a D7200) and loved it both times.

So, naturally, I went looking for something equivalent for my own collection... and it doesn't exist. Why does this universally recognized workhorse combo not exist for Pentax? What does Pentax have against f2.8 lenses?

From what I can tell, my options are...

1. The discontinued, heavy, difficult to find in good condition used, but great image rendering FA* 28-70 f2.8, still lacks a little on the wide end, but I'd take it if I could buy it new.

2. The DA* 16-50 f2.8, which, while it's supposed to be the "crop factor 24-70", doesn't nearly hit the mark on reach for using an actual 24-70 on APS-C and has many bad reviews, backed up by a large selection of photos that make it look like a kit lens.

3. The DA* 50-135 f2.8, looks to produce great images and has reach, but has no wide end.

4. So maybe, in fairness, it does exist (since the Canikon lenses are both FF also): The huge FA 24-70 f2.8, but it doesn't render photos nearly on par with its price, certainly not on par with the Canon L series, and not even on par with the old FA*. It basically looks like the flat Sigma/Tamron rendering. Zero pixie dust there. So it's not really an acceptable option.


Everything else in this focal range is a kit lens or an expensive and slow lens (HD 16-85). Why is Pentax so f2.8 averse? Are people really getting by with incredibly slow variable aperture lenses? Are there other options I'm missing?

I've been mostly getting by with the comically under-priced, plastic fantastic SMC-F 35-70 f3.5-4.5, which renders worlds above its price range (when fitted with a deep hood), but is really limiting on the wide end and is a bit on the slow side for indoor shooting. I'd be willing to continue to tolerate the slowness to get more range. Does the F 28-80 f3.5-4.5 maintain the same rendering or does the additional range ruin it? There aren't enough example shots I've seen floating around to really make that judgement. Then the other issue is actually finding one.

---

Last edited by AyeYo; 01-29-2018 at 12:33 PM.

[CarlJF]

Well, if the D-FA* 24-70 2.8 isn't good enough for you, just go and buy a Canon or Nikon that pleases you...Have you even seriously tried or own the lens before discarding it ?BTW, this "huge" lens by your standard is still smaller than the Canon or Nikon you encensed...

[savoche]

HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR Reviews - D FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Not quite as costly as the L 2.8, I believe, but otherwise roughly in the same leage, I think...

[AyeYo]

Well, if the D-FA* 24-70 2.8 isn't good enough for you, just go and buy a Canon or Nikon that pleases you...Have you even seriously tried or own the lens before discarding it ?

Why would I switch systems because one Pentax lens isn't worth the money? Why would I spend $1300 on a lens which has a clear body of work that I don't like the rendering of? I suppose I could rent it for a couple days to decide, but I'm not sure I even want to drop $100-200 just to confirm my not wanting it.

I did find the plastic fantastic's brother on EBay for only $28 in supposedly good optical condition. That's more of a disposable amount of money, so when it finally gets here we'll see what that one does.

[monochrome]

Pentax Cameras: K-S2.

[savoche]

The D-FA* 24-70 is not the FA* 28-70. Just sayin'.

[pschlute]

The DA* 16-50 f2.8, which, while it's supposed to be the "crop factor 24-70", doesn't nearly hit the mark on reach for using an actual 24-70 on APS-C and has many bad reviews, backed up by a large selection of photos that make it look like a kit lens.


The huge FA 24-70 f2.8, but it doesn't render photos nearly on par with its price, certainly not on par with the Canon L series, and not even on par with the old FA*. It basically looks like the flat Sigma/Tamron rendering. Zero pixie dust there. So it's not really an acceptable option.

The DA 16-50 2.8 is an excellent lens. I used it for many years on crop sensor.

The D-FA 24-70 2.8 is also an excellent lens and is well deserving of it's price tag. Yes it is a borrowed Tamron design but with Pentax coatings. Certainly not the first lens in history to have had a makeover.

I don't know where you are looking to see only poor examples of these lenses, perhaps you should tell us. At the same time perhaps you should tell us exactly what kind of shooting you do and a link to your photos, then we may have a better idea why these lenses which are plenty good enough for the rest of us are not sufficient for your high exacting standards.

---

Last edited by pschlute; 01-29-2018 at 01:08 PM.

[D1N0]

You ask question to which you already know the answer. The DA* 16-50 is fine and not a kit lens. It's just that Sigma and Tamron also make (or used to make) very good lenses in that range and F2.8at lower prices. Then there are The 17-70's F2.8-4(.5) from Sigma that are excellent. It all makes the DA* 16-50 look a bit bleak and expensive, but it still is a good en weather sealed lens.

[CarlJF]

Why would I switch systems because one Pentax lens isn't worth the money? Why would I spend $1300 on a lens which has a clear body of work that I don't like the rendering of? I suppose I could rent it for a couple days to decide, but I'm not sure I even want to drop $100-200 just to confirm my not wanting it.

But, how can you tell you don't like the rendering of a lens you've never used ? If you begin assuming that Pentax lenses are crap and not worth your time or money before even just touching them, it might be time to jump ship...

[jatrax]

Where is the DA version of the FA* 28-70 f2.8?

The DA version or 'crop' version would be the excellent DA*16-50. It gets a lot of bad reviews because of SDM failures but since maybe 2012 or so that has been corrected. No issues on anything new.

If you want more of a FF range then the new DFA 24-70 is going to be the Pentax solution. Simply amazing lens although it is a bit heavy for me. The Tamron version is generally rated better than the OEM lenses from others. I'm certainly very happy with mine.

[BigMackCam]

The huge FA 24-70 f2.8, but it doesn't render photos nearly on par with its price, certainly not on par with the Canon L series, and not even on par with the old FA*. It basically looks like the flat Sigma/Tamron rendering. Zero pixie dust there. So it's not really an acceptable option.

Just to clarify, there is not - in my view - a characteristic rendering from Sigma and Tamron that is necessarily worse or better than other brand lenses across the entire model range. You need to consider this on a model by model basis, and bear in mind that your perception is both personal and subjective.

I shoot the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 on my crop bodies, and whilst it's not known to be the sharpest lens wide open, it's one of my favourite zoom lenses in terms of rendering (less so on full frame). I also shoot the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 USD on my A-mount and E-mount kit... it's widely regarded as a superb lens, and rightly so. It's sharp, and the rendering is top-notch (at least, it is to me). So we can't say that Tamron has "flat" rendering... only that you may or may not like the images produced by a particular model of lens.

If you haven't tried the D FA 24-70 f/2.8, you need to rent it and decide for yourself if it does what you want. Don't depend on reviews and other user's opinions... There will be a great deal of variance, and a large number of people who are just listening to, and copying, other people's conclusions. You could find yourself missing out on a great lens by listening too closely to others

[Kozlok]

Canon’s L is both heavier and more expensive than the DFA*, but if you like the rendering, buy a Canon. Pentax is much more an outdoor, adventure brand. If I made money shooting weddings and such, I’d probably shoot Canon.

[TwoUptons]

I have the 16-50, and it’s the only lens I miss on the K1.

It’s big for an APS lens, but it’s plenty sharp and a huge step up from the kit lens.

In my fiddling around, the FA 28-80 is nowhere near as good as the F35-70, not even close (though the 35-80 I looked at wasn’t terrible)

As much as I like it, I never use the 35-70 on APS because I have the 16-50 and it’s that much more useful.

I will admit that most of the photos I’ve shot with my 16-50 have been snapshots, but that’s more a testament to how much I use it rather than an optical failing...

-Eric

[Adam]

If you want to avoid the big and heavy lenses, why not take the K-70 or KP for a spin (if you aren't already using one of these bodies). The noise performance at higher ISOs easily gives you an extra half to full stop of flexibility compared to earlier bodies.

Also, the D FA 24-70mm is way better than the FA lens. I know people hate on it because it's a rebrand, but it's sure way better than NOT having a fast walkaround lens for FF

[AyeYo]

Canon’s L is both heavier and more expensive than the DFA*, but if you like the rendering, buy a Canon. Pentax is much more an outdoor, adventure brand. If I made money shooting weddings and such, I’d probably shoot Canon.

From the photos I've seen, the DFA* rendering looks quite similar to the Canon. They just aren't easy to find. There's one in the marketplace that I think the seller rated as "fair", but if I'm going to drop that much money on a "fair" used lens, I'll just drop more to get one new. Obviously it's not available new though.