[felixkh]

Yes thanks, I looked further and realised my error, but thanks for pointing that out.

Is the Tamron being referred to above the 28-75 2.8 Di A09 ??

sharp.

I have not used the Tamron, so I cannot tell its full description.

I have used the FA*28-70/2.8 on the K1 and it is very sharp.

---

Last edited by felixkh; 10-23-2018 at 02:25 AM.

[robertordm]

Is the Tamron recommended above the 28-75 f2.8 XR Di Sp A09 ??
OR THE
28-75 f 2.8 AF XR [IF] Di LD

Not sure which one is the one being recommended
Cheers

[i_trax]

Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 AF XR Di LD Macro SP Lens Reviews - Tamron Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

the other value for money lens:
Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 EX DG Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
I purchased it and the above mentioned Tamron ( both used ) for under AUD200 each, like both , can not decide which one is better.I am not a pixel peeper.

[clickclick]

Is the Tamron recommended above the 28-75 f2.8 XR Di Sp A09 ??
OR THE
28-75 f 2.8 AF XR [IF] Di LD

Not sure which one is the one being recommended
Cheers

The one in my hand says:

"Aspherical LD XR Di SP Tamron AF 28-75mm F2.8 (IF) MACRO 67 A09

so I'm going to say it's the first of the two you listed above, and I believe it's this one at B&H:

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di Autofocus Lens for Pentax AF

[robertordm]

The one in my hand says:

"Aspherical LD XR Di SP Tamron AF 28-75mm F2.8 (IF) MACRO 67 A09

so I'm going to say it's the first of the two you listed above, and I believe it's this one at B&H:

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di Autofocus Lens for Pentax AF

Great! Thanks for that, I think that there are older and newer versions with slight name differences, I just wanted to be totally sure of which one. Appreciate that, it looks like a great lens, WR would be nice but at this stage this might be worth serious consideration.

[clickclick]

Great! Thanks for that

welcome! It is a solid performer. Wide open, pixel peeping in corner and edges will show it a little soft if you're really hard on it, but stop it down a hair, and it's really not an issue.

[robertordm]

I have had so many great suggestions, and I hope there are more to come, although I think what has been put forward represents more than enough to work on. It’s a case at this stage of waiting a bit and getting the 24-70, or more likely either getting the 28-105 and a prime/primes, or the Tamron and prime/primes. Weight is also a factor. But I’ve got a lot of lenses that you’ve all suggested to study and sift through. As I said I’m hoping for more ideas, but just wanted to say thanks for everything so far.

[amstel78]

I have both the D-FA 28-105mm and the D-FA 24-70mm. Honestly, the IQ from the 28-105mm is better and more even across the frame compared to the 24-70mm. Unless you feel like you need the low-light capabilities of the 24-70mm I think you are better off spending your hard earned dollars elsewhere. The 24-70 lens is big and heavy. Carrying it around all day on a K-1, especially with a battery grip, is a serious workout. I wouldn't recommend it as a general purpose lens. The 28-105mm is a better value overall in my opinion.

I had the 28-105 but got rid of it for the 24-70 because I needed the faster lens. My copy is sharp edge to edge and bokeh better than the 28-105. Yes, it's heavier but to me that's the only downside. To each their own though.

Here's a few shots using the 24-70 wide open. Corner sharpness is good.

[zapp]

You should make up your mind and figure out what you need and what you can afford. Do you need a zoom, do you need fixed focal length lenses...
Also figure out what you need before buying an expensive camera body. I used to do the same long time ago, put money on a nice camera..., tit makes much more sense to look at lenses beofre buying a camera. Not many ff options in Pentax land on the other hand. The 24-70 is nice, but FA35/50 may be a better start.

[TerryL]

I have had so many great suggestions, and I hope there are more to come, although I think what has been put forward represents more than enough to work on. It’s a case at this stage of waiting a bit and getting the 24-70, or more likely either getting the 28-105 and a prime/primes, or the Tamron and prime/primes. Weight is also a factor. But I’ve got a lot of lenses that you’ve all suggested to study and sift through. As I said I’m hoping for more ideas, but just wanted to say thanks for everything so far.

Waiting a bit is exactly what I would do. The K-1 and 24-70 go so well together. I absolutely love it! But, I prefer 24mm, and f2.8.
Terry

[normhead]

If you have the 28-105, just buy primes in the FL's you use most.

Of course the 24mm end is an issue, but it's wide enough one of the Rokinon primes could work. Wide angle on an ultra wide MF lens is not really an issue.

[cyberjunkie]

I personally tried some of the different options in (or around) the focal range the OP is interested in.
The word "tried" is carefully selected cause this is what I've done with some lenses. I didn't use them for a time long enough, and in different enough conditions, to have proper opinions. Just impressions.

There are FOUR (maybe five) versions of the Sigma 2.8/24-70mm AF, from the old Aspherical to the newest HSM IF.
I own what I believe is the penultimate version, the EX DG with HSM motor.
It's a great zoom. I have used it for long enough and I am sincerely impressed.
I prefer primes, and most of the times I use MF lenses, unless AF is absolutely required. Though this specific lens has been used many times, and I can say it's one of the best zooms I ever tried.
I shot under different conditions, wide open and stopped down. I guess (educated guess, not proven in any way by hard facts) that this specific version of the Sigma plays in the same league of the new D FA. I expect the Pentax/Tamron to be better, though at a certain level differences become quite subtle. Even flare is tamed - at Pentax level I'd say - better than with older Sigma's.
I don't know if the IF version is really that much better. In theory it should, at least at close range.

The Pentax-FA 24-90mm is not a bad lens considering the range. I didn't use it enough to expose its weaknesses, stopped down should be fine even on a high resolution full frame sensor. Vignetting and distortion can be fixed using the right profile in Lightroom.
If 24mm is not needed, there are a number of zooms that could satisfy most users, especially those who are fine with primes, and need AF only in specific circumstances.

When I used the Sigma EX DF (film times, successor to the Aspherical, and before the EX DG) I was quite skeptical at first.
It gave punchy contrasty images but it was very prone to vignetting, especially at the wide end.
Later on I brought it to the local repair center ("Sigma-certified") to be cleaned. I had used it in a very dusty environment and it really needed a good cleaning. I discovered that one of the sleeves, either the zoom or focus one, was slightly bent. Once the part was replaced and the objective cleaned the overall performance got much better. It still vignettes, but not in a disturbing way. Leaving out aberrations, this Sigma gives saturated, contrasty images, and even flare is rather well controlled. If you find one it should go for a very decent price, making it an interesting option, with a great price/performance ratio.

Recently I acquired a battered Tokina AT-X Pro 280 2.8/28-80mm. The build is great, as most Tokina AF lenses. I'd rank them No.1 in build quality. My example has crashed badly at some time during its life. The filter ring at the front is broken at the two sides, and manual focusing is not smooth at all. Despite the accident it sustained it's actually quite sharp. The main problems are lack of "punch" and rather muddy colours. It is possible to improve the pictures in PP, though even after PP they are not at the same level of a straight conversion from the Pentax-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5. Especially wide open the difference is huge.

The late "silver" FA's are impressive lenses. Plasticky, badly built (glued optical cells), somewhat wobbly, but optically outstanding, especially considering the price.
The 28-105mm shines more than the others. It's better than the previous "dark grey" FA (f/4-5.6), and I guess also better than the Pentax/Tamron with identical specs and internal focusing. Always used it with the original hood, and found that it shows a very good control of inter-reflections, high contrast, and incredible, punchy colours. In certain pictures the "pop" reminds me of the 77mm Limited.
I have seen a quick comparative test on this forum, where the old FA was pitted against the new D FA. Not a huge difference, I remember. If optical performance is the only consideration, I guess the late FA is the only similar Pentax zoom that plays in the same league. The new D FA has other qualities though, don't get me wrong. I just can't justify the expense for the new one considering what I'm getting from the old

Another Pentax lens more or less in the range is the 28-70mm f/4 AL. I have used it more than others, and I have been quite happy with its performance. The only problem is that I never used it on the K-1, not a single time, so my experience is limited to the crop format. If f/2.8 is not required, and a small form factor is welcomed, it could be the best option, price/performance wise. It's easy to find, cheap, and it's usually in great conditions. Not all the zooms of the same vintage are as easy to find in good conditions. Another very good zoom, the Pentax-F 70-210mm, has often problems ranging from fungus to separation of cemented groups.

I'd be happy to try the Pentax-F 24-50mm. It should be better than the FA 24-90mm cause it's way less extreme. I've read positive reviews on this site, and should be a lot cheaper. It should be considered, a pity is not a very common lens.

[robertordm]

I personally tried some of the different options in (or around) the focal range the OP is interested in.
The word "tried" is carefully selected cause this is what I've done with some lenses. I didn't use them for a time long enough, and in different enough conditions, to have proper opinions. Just impressions.

There are FOUR (maybe five) versions of the Sigma 2.8/24-70mm AF, from the old Aspherical to the newest HSM IF.
I own what I believe is the penultimate version, the EX DG with HSM motor.
It's a great zoom. I have used it for long enough and I am sincerely impressed.
I prefer primes, and most of the times I use MF lenses, unless AF is absolutely required. Though this specific lens has been used many times, and I can say it's one of the best zooms I ever tried.
I shot under different conditions, wide open and stopped down. I guess (educated guess, not proven in any way by hard facts) that this specific version of the Sigma plays in the same league of the new D FA. I expect the Pentax/Tamron to be better, though at a certain level differences become quite subtle. Even flare is tamed - at Pentax level I'd say - better than with older Sigma's.
I don't know if the IF version is really that much better. In theory it should, at least at close range.

The Pentax-FA 24-90mm is not a bad lens considering the range. I didn't use it enough to expose its weaknesses, stopped down should be fine even on a high resolution full frame sensor. Vignetting and distortion can be fixed using the right profile in Lightroom.
If 24mm is not needed, there are a number of zooms that could satisfy most users, especially those who are fine with primes, and need AF only in specific circumstances.

When I used the Sigma EX DF (film times, successor to the Aspherical, and before the EX DG) I was quite skeptical at first.
It gave punchy contrasty images but it was very prone to vignetting, especially at the wide end.
Later on I brought it to the local repair center ("Sigma-certified") to be cleaned. I had used it in a very dusty environment and it really needed a good cleaning. I discovered that one of the sleeves, either the zoom or focus one, was slightly bent. Once the part was replaced and the objective cleaned the overall performance got much better. It still vignettes, but not in a disturbing way. Leaving out aberrations, this Sigma gives saturated, contrasty images, and even flare is rather well controlled. If you find one it should go for a very decent price, making it an interesting option, with a great price/performance ratio.

Recently I acquired a battered Tokina AT-X Pro 280 2.8/28-80mm. The build is great, as most Tokina AF lenses. I'd rank them No.1 in build quality. My example has crashed badly at some time during its life. The filter ring at the front is broken at the two sides, and manual focusing is not smooth at all. Despite the accident it sustained it's actually quite sharp. The main problems are lack of "punch" and rather muddy colours. It is possible to improve the pictures in PP, though even after PP they are not at the same level of a straight conversion from the Pentax-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5. Especially wide open the difference is huge.

The late "silver" FA's are impressive lenses. Plasticky, badly built (glued optical cells), somewhat wobbly, but optically outstanding, especially considering the price.
The 28-105mm shines more than the others. It's better than the previous "dark grey" FA (f/4-5.6), and I guess also better than the Pentax/Tamron with identical specs and internal focusing. Always used it with the original hood, and found that it shows a very good control of inter-reflections, high contrast, and incredible, punchy colours. In certain pictures the "pop" reminds me of the 77mm Limited.
I have seen a quick comparative test on this forum, where the old FA was pitted against the new D FA. Not a huge difference, I remember. If optical performance is the only consideration, I guess the late FA is the only similar Pentax zoom that plays in the same league. The new D FA has other qualities though, don't get me wrong. I just can't justify the expense for the new one considering what I'm getting from the old

Another Pentax lens more or less in the range is the 28-70mm f/4 AL. I have used it more than others, and I have been quite happy with its performance. The only problem is that I never used it on the K-1, not a single time, so my experience is limited to the crop format. If f/2.8 is not required, and a small form factor is welcomed, it could be the best option, price/performance wise. It's easy to find, cheap, and it's usually in great conditions. Not all the zooms of the same vintage are as easy to find in good conditions. Another very good zoom, the Pentax-F 70-210mm, has often problems ranging from fungus to separation of cemented groups.

I'd be happy to try the Pentax-F 24-50mm. It should be better than the FA 24-90mm cause it's way less extreme. I've read positive reviews on this site, and should be a lot cheaper. It should be considered, a pity is not a very common lens.

Thank you so much for going into such detail, all comments are much appreciated but yours is very comprehensive, thank you for taking the time.

[robertordm]

Hello,
I thought I’d update this thread. After thinking hard about all the great advice, I decided that for the moment I would get the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I wanted one new but found one used in mint condition. It is an outstanding lens, and wouldn’t have arrived at its choice without all the help here.
I will now look for a couple of primes, definitely with WR for when those situations arise, but if I can’t find what I want I’ll probably look at getting the Pentax DFA 15-30.
Thanks again, but this thread is by no means dead if anyone has anything to add or discuss,
Cheers all!