Originally posted by PentaxMuc Thanks for your answers so far! It seems as if the consensus favors the DFA 28-105 clearly over the Sigma. If i go this way the saved money would also allow another used prime lens or sth like that...
One thing that makes the sigma very interesting is the superb optics and sharpness everyone talks about😅
But not sure if someone can see a difference in normal prints?
Astro: well it would be nice to have the opportunity trying it out a little bit. But no major decision point.
The 24-70 is also interesting, yet another price class. Is 2.8 vs 3.5 worth it?
I have the 24-70 and Sigma 35. The Sigma is a very solid and heavy lens. It feels good on the K-1, but over time I've become more sensitive to long periods of carrying equipment and the weight adding up, and for the weight of this lens, you have only one lens. For the weight, you could trade it for the versatility of the "fast" 24-70/2.8, or cut the weight with the 28-105.Starting with the 28-105, if you add a prime like the 43 Limited, you're probably about the same as just the Sigma.on the K-1. From this angle alone, I think the 28-105 has lots of appeal. I used to think I didn't care about weight and would take all I wanted. Not so much anymore. I find I use the Sigma for very specific things. It is brilliantly sharp and has lovely bokeh. As a result, I use it a lot chasing flowers in the neighbor's garden. Not so much as a general shooting lens on full frame - too wide for portraits, but seems not wide enough for interior, architecture, landscape etc - yes, there are always exceptions, but that's kinda where I have landed. So I'd lean towards starting with one of the modern zooms and see what you are trending to for focal lengths and style, and then perhaps the right prime(s) to supplement will start falling into place, and you may or may not find the Sigma is one of them.