[lesmore49]

When Pentax introduced the K-1 full frame, I was quite interested in getting this camera and eventually did. I'm pleased with it, like it quite a lot.

I did think long and hard about getting the new Tamron based 24-70 , but when I checked some of the reviews of both the 28-105 and 24-70...the 28-105 seemed to be a lens that punched above it's weight class and the 24-70 reviews didn't impress me as much, given it's a lens that significantly pricier. I know wider angle , F 2.8, build quality ,etc. costs more and I'm not saying the Tamron 24-70 isn't worth it..but I wasn't drawn to the 24-70 and originally that was what I wanted...the focal lengths, the F 2.8, etc. Budget wise I could of handled the cost of the Tamron 24-70., but I chose the 28-105 for my everyday lens on the K1.

The 15-30 also a Tamron, had some very good reviews and I have considered that, but in my case a 24-28mm wide angle at full frame, seems to handle the kind of pics I like to take. I have read some stellar reviews of this lens, though.

Is the present 24-70 a placeholder ? I don't think so, I think it's here for awhile and my reasoning is in sync with other posters...ie; reasons of production, contracts, and the Pentax need to focus on other focal length lenses for both FF and ASP-C.

I think the Tamron 24-70 does fulfill the Pentax need to have a 'holy' trinity of lenses, as some say all 'serious' camera manufacturers need to have...the requisite 24-70 F 2.8, a 15-30 (wide-wide angle , fast zoom) and the 70-200 F 2.8 lens in it's repertoire.

The Tamron 24-70 checks the boxes and what more can you want. Well some say, maybe the new Tamron version...or a purebred Pentax 24-70...but that may not be a first priority as far as what needs to be introduced in the Pentax lens roadmap.

[BigMackCam]

The Tamron 24-70 checks the boxes and what more can you want. Well some say, maybe the new Tamron version...or a purebred Pentax 24-70...but that may not be a first priority as far as what needs to be introduced in the Pentax lens roadmap.

Great post.

Regarding the new version of the Tamron 24-70... there's always a desire among some folks to have the latest and "better" version of something, even though the improvements may not actually make any difference to their photography. A few years ago, I bought a Hasselblad HV, based on the Sony A99, and it came as a kit, supplied with the excellent Sony Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70 mm F2.8 ZA SSM... the original version, and not the later "SSM II". The later version certainly incorporated some optical and AF upgrades over the original, and it still sells for considerably more both new and used. Yet, I've never seen a photo where those upgrades actually mattered in terms of the end result.

Whatever else might be coming in the mid to distant future, I'd love to see if anyone will be able to demonstrate - in normal photography rather than test-bench conditions - a significant improvement in the quality of photos viewed at typical sizes and reproduction distances. It would take a very significantly better lens than the Tamron-based Pentax 24-70 f/2.8 to show any improvement in the vast majority of photos...

But, there's always a market for those who want "more" or "better", whether-or-not it actually makes a difference to their photography

[lesmore49]

Great post.

Regarding the new version of the Tamron 24-70... there's always a desire among some folks to have the latest and "better" version of something, even though the improvements may not actually make any difference to their photography. A few years ago, I bought a Hasselblad HV, based on the Sony A99, and it came as a kit, supplied with the excellent Sony Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70 mm F2.8 ZA SSM... the original version, and not the later "SSM II". The later version certainly incorporated some optical and AF upgrades over the original, and it still sells for considerably more both new and used. Yet, I've never seen a photo where those upgrades actually mattered in terms of the end result.

Whatever else might be coming in the mid to distant future, I'd love to see if anyone will be able to demonstrate - in normal photography rather than test-bench conditions - a significant improvement in the quality of photos viewed at typical sizes and reproduction distances. It would take a very significantly better lens than the Tamron-based Pentax 24-70 f/2.8 to show any improvement in the vast majority of photos...

But, there's always a market for those who want "more" or "better", whether-or-not it actually makes a difference to their photography

Thx, BigMackCam,

You make an interesting point about what we sometimes want and the reasons for that. As you say..." .. there's always a desire among some folks to have the latest and "better" version of something, even though the improvements may not actually make any difference to their photography. "

Back in the 1980's Leica had a promotion where a photographer (even an amateur like me ) could have...on loan..a selection of Leica lenses...if I remember correctly, it was a 28, 50 and 90 lens and the M4 rangefinder for a weekend. Back then I wanted a new Leica rangefinder badly. I had had my old (1951) Leica llf Rangefinder with Leitz Emar 50mm collapsible F 3.5 lens for a few years and really liked it..still have it, still love the little beat up and very capable camera .

I had it for the weekend..tried all three lenses, but also carried around my Pentax ES ll, with my 28, 50 and 135mm screwmount Takumars at the same time and did a little, unscientific photography comparos. The only scientific instrument I used was my eye and of course my eye is linked to my particular brain and any bias I might have about determining which camera equipment was better. I took some pictures with both the Leica and Pentax stuff at the same time of day, same light conditions, same F stop/ ASA/shutter speed. I also determined all settings for both camera, using my hand held Sekonic L-248 light meter, to ensure consistency from a metering standpoint. I also tried to more or less match the lens focal length..although a 90 and a 135 are not too close.

I developed a few photos to 5X7 and 8X10 size, from both the Leica and Pentax and to be honest I had trouble figuring out which was sharper, which was taken by my Pentax or the Leica.

It did make me think...is there were really discernible difference in photos, between quality equipment once you get to a certain level ? I suppose there could be, but my eye couldn't tell.

BTW, I never did get the M4, but I still lust for a new Leica Rangefinder.

[Reed]

Great post.

Regarding the new version of the Tamron 24-70... there's always a desire among some folks to have the latest and "better" version of something, even though the improvements may not actually make any difference to their photography. A few years ago, I bought a Hasselblad HV, based on the Sony A99, and it came as a kit, supplied with the excellent Sony Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70 mm F2.8 ZA SSM... the original version, and not the later "SSM II". The later version certainly incorporated some optical and AF upgrades over the original, and it still sells for considerably more both new and used. Yet, I've never seen a photo where those upgrades actually mattered in terms of the end result.

Whatever else might be coming in the mid to distant future, I'd love to see if anyone will be able to demonstrate - in normal photography rather than test-bench conditions - a significant improvement in the quality of photos viewed at typical sizes and reproduction distances. It would take a very significantly better lens than the Tamron-based Pentax 24-70 f/2.8 to show any improvement in the vast majority of photos...

But, there's always a market for those who want "more" or "better", whether-or-not it actually makes a difference to their photography

I get very attached to tools I use, and really don't like to make any changes. But after a bit with both new and old tammy 24-70(for Nikon) my friend use daily, then adjusting both for her, and then owning even older 28-75(Pentax mount) for few years myself, I can definitely tell the newer is the better and I would buy one if available for Pentax.

Not simply in terms of optics that are top of the class, and unchanged between the generations. But in terms of build quality,materials, and most of all pure daily use. When we ignore the changed features that don't have any relation to Pentax re branded version- OS and coatings, we still have to be aware that new one have new af drive, new electronics, and most of all something that for my usage is big helper- Tamron's configuration utility. Zoom ring is more damped, offers more smooth zoom change, and ruber provide better grip. Lens barrel seems more firm, don't wobble at all, even slightly. DFA Pentax(4 copies, new) and 1gen Tammy I've tried have a bit of play when pushed to the sides.

G2 is way faster in locking the focus- it does not hunt back and forth like the G1, but just drives to specified range and locks (compared in same conditions). And definitely faster because of the new drive. Only lens in Pentax range I find to operate that fast and "snappy" is 55-300PLM. You can see the difference here, my own experience is exact the same, old:

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

new: Tamron 24-70mm Di VC USD G2 - AF speed - YouTube

[Rondec]

Great post.

Regarding the new version of the Tamron 24-70... there's always a desire among some folks to have the latest and "better" version of something, even though the improvements may not actually make any difference to their photography. A few years ago, I bought a Hasselblad HV, based on the Sony A99, and it came as a kit, supplied with the excellent Sony Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70 mm F2.8 ZA SSM... the original version, and not the later "SSM II". The later version certainly incorporated some optical and AF upgrades over the original, and it still sells for considerably more both new and used. Yet, I've never seen a photo where those upgrades actually mattered in terms of the end result.

Whatever else might be coming in the mid to distant future, I'd love to see if anyone will be able to demonstrate - in normal photography rather than test-bench conditions - a significant improvement in the quality of photos viewed at typical sizes and reproduction distances. It would take a very significantly better lens than the Tamron-based Pentax 24-70 f/2.8 to show any improvement in the vast majority of photos...

But, there's always a market for those who want "more" or "better", whether-or-not it actually makes a difference to their photography

I think it would take a bigger lens to be better than the current 24-70. Its biggest weakness is its corners at 24mm and my guess is that to get the corners better you would need more glass.

But generally, this is the same sort of argument that people had between the DFA *50 and other 50mm lenses on the market. If you don't need wide open performance and top end edge performance, then you can probably get by with cheaper lenses. If that's what you want, it is going to take a bigger lens with more engineering and while that will please some, it will also turn off a whole lot of other people who think the current 24-70 f2.8 is too big already.

[normhead]

t will also turn off a whole lot of other people who think the current 24-70 f2.8 is too big already.

Over here, that's what I think, I vote for too big.

[sutherland]

Question: is the Pentax HD D-FA 24-70mm based on the G1 or G2 Tamron?

[monochrome]

Question: is the Pentax HD D-FA 24-70mm based on the G1 or G2 Tamron?

The Pentax 24-70 was released in spring 2015. The G2 Tamron is newer.

[pres589]

What will be interesting is what happens when stocks in the Pentax 24-70 runs out; will Tamron build all of the hardware required to create another batch? Will there be some other lens available by then? Really hard to know if you aren't in product planning at Ricoh.

[MikeyBugs95]

I don't really have an opinion either way on whether or not Pentax should make their own new versions of the 24-70 or 15-30 but I will say that the G2 versions of the Tamron lenses look BEAUTIFUL.

[monochrome]

What will be interesting is what happens when stocks in the Pentax 24-70 runs out; will Tamron build all of the hardware required to create another batch? Will there be some other lens available by then? Really hard to know if you aren't in product planning at Ricoh.

Who is to say Tamron isn’t making small batches of Pentax lenses now. It isn’t like they throw away the machines when they change a lens. They just set it upo and assemble a batch.

[beholder3]

Some discussion are like comedy.


The Tamron 24-70 G2 is optically the exact same thing as the old one. They only charge more money for newer coatings (the Pentax already has the top end of coatings and therefore would not copy the newer Tamron stuff anyway even it the latter comes closer now) and a new faster processing chip for AF and IS (IS is already best of breed on the Pentax cameras). So it comes down the the question if someone actually is able to get meaningfully better images with a tiny improvement of AF processing in the lens (which will not change the key AF processing in the camera).
The Tamron G2 might now be on par with the Pentax 24-70 - before it was not.


The G2 version is less of an upgrade than the HD FA 32/2 versus the smc 32/2. The difference is: Pentax lowered the price. Tamron raised it.

[Rondec]

Some discussion are like comedy.


The Tamron 24-70 G2 is optically the exact same thing as the old one. They only charge more money for newer coatings (the Pentax already has the top end of coatings and therefore would not copy the newer Tamron stuff anyway even it the latter comes closer now) and a new faster processing chip for AF and IS (IS is already best of breed on the Pentax cameras). So it comes down the the question if someone actually is able to get meaningfully better images with a tiny improvement of AF processing in the lens (which will not change the key AF processing in the camera).
The Tamron G2 might now be on par with the Pentax 24-70 - before it was not.


The G2 version is less of an upgrade than the HD FA 32/2 versus the smc 32/2. The difference is: Pentax lowered the price. Tamron raised it.

Exactly. The G2 version is 1199 right now (version with warranty) while the Pentax 24-70 is under a thousand. According to Ricoh's web site, the 24-70 uses Pentax's own HD coating, which is a step above anything that Tamron is putting on their own lenses.

I still would like to see Pentax design their own 24-70 at some point, but there are enough "real" holes in the line up, that that project will be put for several years minimum.

[Reed]

Exactly. The G2 version is 1199 right now (version with warranty) while the Pentax 24-70 is under a thousand. According to Ricoh's web site, the 24-70 uses Pentax's own HD coating, which is a step above anything that Tamron is putting on their own lenses.

I still would like to see Pentax design their own 24-70 at some point, but there are enough "real" holes in the line up, that that project will be put for several years minimum.

Tamron 24-70/2.8 G2 is more than "just AF chip" upgrade. It has new Tamron AF motor, that is at leas twice as fast as the old one. There are also changes within lens assembly construction, especialy front barrel mechanism to prevent wobbling the older was known to get over time. Tamron took their lesson and made a very good lens into excellent one with G2 release.

[Rondec]

Tamron 24-70/2.8 G2 is more than "just AF chip" upgrade. It has new Tamron AF motor, that is at leas twice as fast as the old one. There are also changes within lens assembly construction, especialy front barrel mechanism to prevent wobbling the older was known to get over time. Tamron took their lesson and made a very good lens into excellent one with G2 release.

Maybe so. But the construction on the Pentax version seems to be quite good and I have had no quibbles with the auto focus at all. The only issues I have are with edge performance at f2.8 and by all accounts that is unchanged with the G2. That is what I would hope Pentax would fix if they released their own version, not put a faster motor in the lens (I'm saying I wouldn't pay for a faster motor, but I would for better f2.8 performance).