Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-16-2018, 03:17 PM - 1 Like   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,801
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
But most people, I think, only want to carry one camera and one set of compatible lenses...
There are "some" silly people!

07-16-2018, 03:32 PM - 1 Like   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,236
QuoteOriginally posted by 08amczb Quote
Okey, so for those who has a K-1, but does not has a K-70/KP buying only a DFA28-105 is cheaper, then an APS-C body + a standard zoom. This is a point.

Altough I still think, a recent APS-C body + a standard zoom is more reasonable: you get a second body and it's more compact and light with aprroximetly the same IQ.
I am with you in principle. I have three models I shoot with for varying reasons- the KP (mostly), the K-5 IIs (usually for when I desire its control set), and the K-S2 (when I need smallest/lightest possible with smallest lenses). These serve my needs very well, and I've reached the conclusion that I really don't need a FF body, especially since now having the KP. I think that is essentially the nature of your question- why buy a FF outfit.

But as I mentioned, there are still some virtues the FF format offers. Just for example, take the very fine FA 43mm lens- it was designed for 35mm bodies (FF) to provide accurate "normal" perspective for scenes shot at "normal" distances. It will not do this when mounted on an APS-C body, although still a fine lens. To get the equivalent you have to go to a 28mm lens, but then you will not have f/1.9 capability, nor the quality of the Limited series. The same for the very fine FA 31mm Limited f/1.8- on APS-C it is no longer a wide angle FOV, and there is no equal of it for APS-C.

One vey good reason for buying a particular camera body is for the use of particular lenses. I have several such lenses. If I should decide to acquire the K-1 to employ the full benefits of having them, I would also include the D-FA 28-105mm DC WR zoom lens because it offers fine corner-to-corner sharpness, basically through its range, WR construction, and is compact for carrying, making the K-1 less of a bulky ensemble. In my case, for more tele range work, I'd then return to APS-C where I have some fine lenses for that at a much lower size/weight/price consideration.

When not wishing to shoot with the lenses I've bought the K-1 to use, I'd simply still go with the more compact APS-C equipment I have, which is very satisfying for my needs.
07-16-2018, 03:55 PM - 1 Like   #18
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durham, England
Posts: 10,348
QuoteOriginally posted by surfar Quote
There are "some" silly people!
I don't include myself in that group, of course. Heck, I'm the other end of the scale entirely
07-16-2018, 04:04 PM - 1 Like   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,968
QuoteOriginally posted by 08amczb Quote
While I know the lens is very good, I don't understand why would someone buy it.
We usually take the ILC concept to mean "same camera, different lenses",
but with the DFA 28-105, you can rethink ILC as "same lens, different cameras".

So if you go traveling with a DFA 28-105, and a K1 and a Q7/K2Q to back it up,
you've got the whole range from 28 mm to 450 mm covered,
with just a little "digital zoom" on the K1 for the 105 mm to 125 mm range.

07-16-2018, 04:08 PM - 3 Likes   #20
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,145
I enjoy my K-1 more than my KP. The ergonomics are better, the viewfinder is bigger, the files are better, and it gets the most out of my favourite lenses.

If I want to take my favourite camera out for the day with just one lens, the DFA28-105 is a pretty good option.

That's enough reason for me. Yes, I have the three f/2.8 zooms and heaps of quality primes too, but I don't always want to lug them around.
07-16-2018, 04:27 PM   #21
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,015
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Respectfully, Steve, I don't think the OP was trolling. But I do think it's sometimes rather easy to make assumptions that everyone has the same priorities and requirements from their gear, when the reality is wildly different. Hopefully, some of the answers in this thread, as well as the obvious popularity of the lens with K-1 & K-1II users, will demonstrate that
I removed the offensive language. It will be interesting to see uses other than family vacation photos.


Steve
07-16-2018, 04:38 PM - 4 Likes   #22
Pentaxian
mcgregni's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 2,412
QuoteOriginally posted by 08amczb Quote
While I know the lens is very good, I don't understand why would someone buy it

QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
It will be interesting to see uses other than family vacation photos.
Its fits nicely on the K7 .....



Last edited by mcgregni; 07-16-2018 at 04:44 PM.
07-16-2018, 04:41 PM   #23
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,015
QuoteOriginally posted by 08amczb Quote
Altough I still think, a recent APS-C body + a standard zoom is more reasonable: you get a second body and it's more compact and light with aprroximetly the same IQ.
Or perhaps somewhat better if comparing a K-1 crop capture to your camera's output, both at moderate ISO. Of course, for travel photos of the family either would be gross overkill.


Steve

07-16-2018, 04:55 PM - 2 Likes   #24
Junior Member




Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 45
QuoteOriginally posted by 08amczb Quote
While I know the lens is very good, I don't understand why would someone buy it. If I would like to travel light/make family memories then the KP + DA 16-85/DA17-70 is much more compact, lighter and cheaper. I think the full frame camera is for the maximal image quality, so I prefer primes on the K-1, or the professional F2.8 zooms. Tele zooms are another story. At 105mm F5.6 I get a similar background blur as 70mm F4 on APS-C, so again, the full frame does not have advantage with the 28-105. The KP has a similar ISO performance, only one stop worse, but I can gain that one stop when I open the sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 to one more stop. (I also get the same DoF then.) Okey, I get 36MP insted of 24MP, but if I would like to make large prints, then the better lens would help a lot.
With the option of modern APS-C cameras I really not see the purpose of the consumer standard zooms on full frame.
The D FA 28-105 is optically fine and it is probably hard to tell the difference between a photo taken with it and most Pentax prime lenses (at least when you correct for vignetting which is its only real weakness, but that is easily dealt with in post-processing). It has WR, a practical zoom range and is not all that bulky. So, if one does not need the wider apertures that primes can offer I see no reason not to buy and use this zoom lens on a K-1. I use it quite a bit and if I am only taking one lens with me it is quite likely my choice. Replacing it with several primes to cover a similar range is just not very practical in many cases - and for that matter, Pentax does not currently offer any prime lens that is wider than 31 mm (and that lens is 17 years old) so to get to 28 mm one would need a third party lens or a discontinued Pentax lens. That said, an APS-c body with a comparable zoom lens will be considerably smaller and lighter. The K-1 (both versions) with a battery and the the D FA 28-105 is close to 1.5 kg, a KP with the 17-70 is about 400 g less (and of course also costs less). So, the APS-c option has some advantages over the full frame option while the latter wins on image quality - although the KP and other recent APS-c Pentax camera will certainly deliver excellent images as well and probably good enough for most purposes. The compactness of many Pentax primes (certainly not the new D FA 50 though!) is not a huge advantage when the camera itself weighs 1 kg so for that reason primes may even be a better match for the smaller and lighter APS-c bodies than the K-1.
07-16-2018, 05:14 PM - 1 Like   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,426
QuoteOriginally posted by 08amczb Quote
While I know the lens is very good, I don't understand why would someone buy it. If I would like to travel light/make family memories then the KP + DA 16-85/DA17-70 is much more compact, lighter and cheaper. I think the full frame camera is for the maximal image quality, so I prefer primes on the K-1, or the professional F2.8 zooms. Tele zooms are another story. At 105mm F5.6 I get a similar background blur as 70mm F4 on APS-C, so again, the full frame does not have advantage with the 28-105. The KP has a similar ISO performance, only one stop worse, but I can gain that one stop when I open the sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 to one more stop. (I also get the same DoF then.) Okey, I get 36MP insted of 24MP, but if I would like to make large prints, then the better lens would help a lot.
With the option of modern APS-C cameras I really not see the purpose of the consumer standard zooms on full frame.
I tend to agree, 08amczb, that putting an f4 zoom or a superzoom on a expensive FF flagship instead of the pro f2.8 zooms just surrenders the advantage over APS-C. From a formal point of view, you're running on the same spot for all the extra cash you've put out.

But these are IQ compromises people are willing to take in order to carry the body/lenses package, and for a compromise, the DFA 28-105 is pretty amazing.

I've tested the Sigma 85mm f1.4 I got as an eBay purchase over the last couple of weekends (pics below) but it's huge and if I had to walk everywhere, it's going to be with my FA77 Limited. It can do most of that for much smaller, another amazing compromise.

Pentax Forum - Camera & Photography Community - PentaxForums.com

Last edited by clackers; 07-16-2018 at 09:13 PM.
07-16-2018, 05:16 PM - 2 Likes   #26
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,005
I originally bought the 28-105 as my ‘kit’ lens when I bought my K-1. It is very light, compact and produces 90% of the 24-70 IQ when I don’t need f/2.8. Frankly, I rarely start wider than f/5.6 anyway, so why do I need the 24-70?

The 28-105 is such a good value for IQ to price that I started carrying it with the KP when I just want to carry a camera over my shoulder (no bag with 21-40-70 along) and be opportunistic. I can do almost anything from grab shots to carefully exposed portraits with a single lens. I don’t feel the need to buy a DA zoom for the KP. The 28-105 covers my needs.
07-16-2018, 05:17 PM - 5 Likes   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Scorpio71GR's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,401
This is why.

07-16-2018, 05:20 PM - 1 Like   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Scorpio71GR's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,401
The 16-85 has a 72mm filter thread while the 28-105 has a 62mm filter thread. My K-1 and 28-105 is more compact than my K3 with the 16-85. The 28-105 is one of the very, very few lenses I can find no fault with. The only thing I wish were different is 24 versus 28mm.
07-16-2018, 06:17 PM - 2 Likes   #29
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,145
QuoteOriginally posted by gylfimag Quote
That said, an APS-c body with a comparable zoom lens will be considerably smaller and lighter.
The DFA28-105 is about the same size and weight as the DA18-135 (I have both) and considerably smaller than the DA16-85, so the difference is not as great as you might think.
07-16-2018, 06:26 PM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Chicago Illinois
Photos: Albums
Posts: 98
I have both lenses. the 28-105 I bought when I purchased my first K1 the main reasons Cost, Weight and reach. The 24-70 is a wonderful lens but it has some heft to it. it stays on one of my K1's all the time but if I am walking about ouside I will put the 28-105 on a body.
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!
apertures, aps-c, corner, dfa 28-105, edge, equality, fa, frame, full frame, image quality, k-mount, kp, lens, lenses, pentax lens, post, primes, quickshift, shots, slr lens, technologies
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Got a DFA28-105 ! biz-engineer Pentax K-1 24 02-03-2017 12:02 PM
Somebody Buy This, Put Me Out Of My Misery, PLEASE... magkelly Pentax Price Watch 19 12-01-2013 05:47 PM
Somebody Needs To Buy This.... magkelly Pentax Film SLR Discussion 5 07-15-2011 10:31 PM
Did somebody buy from Atlantiv.com ? huqedato Photographic Technique 7 04-19-2009 05:47 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:24 PM. | 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