[jawats]

All,

I have a fairly new D FA 28-105 "kit" lens, which I like a great deal on my K-1. It focuses nicely and it works well in most situations.

The exception is, with its 3.5-5.6 aperture, lower-light situations. Taking photos in school gyms and so forth results in the need for ISO 3200+, and therefore, noisy images.

I have a Tamron 70-200 2.8 and a Pentax 150-450, which work well in most longer situations. However, I am looking for a better lens for closeups and wide-angle in lower light.

Given that, I have been eyeing the below FF lenses, with latest used prices I can find. I tend to think the Tamron 28-75 is a superb value, given the current prices I'm seeing. What are y'all's thoughts?

• Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro - $425
  
• Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM - ?
  
• Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 AF XR Di LD Macro SP - $200
  
• HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm F2.8 - $1,196
  
• SMC Pentax-FA* 28-70mm F2.8 AL - $400
  
• Pentax HD 16-50mm F2.8 ED PLM - $1,092
  
  

---

Last edited by jawats; 02-12-2022 at 12:45 PM.

[Oldbayrunner]

Both the Sigma DC lens are Aps-c

[jawats]

Both the Sigma DC lens are Aps-c

Oops! Thank you!

Edited.

[Sidney Porter]

For sigma I thought dc was for a cropped sensor and dg was full frame. Unless you are planning on using it in cropped mode.

I have the sigma 17-50 2.8. I like it but I use it on a KP and k3

[Jeff]

All,

I have a fairly new D FA 28-105 "kit" lens, which I like a great deal on my K-1. It focuses nicely and it works well in most situations.

The exception is, with its 3.5-5.6 aperture, lower-light situations. Taking photos in school gyms and so forth results in the need for ISO 3200+, and therefore, noisy images.

I have a Tamron 70-200 2.8 and a Pentax 150-450, which work well in most longer situations. However, I am looking for a better lens for closeups and wide-angle in lower light.

Given that, I have been eyeing the below FF lenses, with latest used prices I can find. I tend to think the Tamron 28-75 is a superb value, given the current prices I'm seeing. What are y'all's thoughts?

• Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro - $425
  
• Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM - ?
  
• Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 AF XR Di LD Macro SP - $200
  
• HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm F2.8 - $1,196
  
• SMC Pentax-FA* 28-70mm F2.8 AL - $400
  
• Pentax HD 16-50mm F2.8 ED PLM - $1,092
  
  

For me it would have to be the Pentax 24-70 with its large f2.8 aperture. I have both lenses and although I love the 28-105 and use it a lot, there are times when it is hindered by its inherent slowness. For a fast and wide lens I'd go for the 24-70. It's big but manageable and gives very good IQ for most situations.

[jawats]

For me it would have to be the Pentax 24-70 with its large f2.8 aperture. I have both lenses and although I love the 28-105 and use it a lot, there are times when it is hindered by its inherent slowness. For a fast and wide lens I'd go for the 24-70. It's big but manageable and gives very good IQ for most situations.

Jeff,

Do you think it's twice the lens of the Tamron (re: price)? It has the same aperture. Have you used the Tamron at all?

[AlwaysAl]

Had/have the Tamron 28-75. A great lens in its day. A little disappointed with its performance on the K-1 and bought the Pentax 28-105, initially as a test. IMO, the latter is superior in performance and the 28-75 has been relegated to second string.

[jawats]

Had/have the Tamron 28-75. A great lens in its day. A little disappointed with its performance on the K-1 and bought the Pentax 28-105, initially as a test. IMO, the latter is superior in performance and the 28-75 has been relegated to second string.

Have you tried them both in lower light situations?

[texandrews]

I have the DFA 24-70 and use it frequently for what I need it for. It's fine, although I don't think it's as good as the 15-30. I've had the Tam 28-75 and it is one of the exceptional values in lenses.

But the one thing none of these lenses have is...105. I would think in a gym/auditorium that bit of extra reach would be handy. Handy enough to deal with the bit of extra noise and what that entails.

[jawats]

I have the DFA 24-70 and use it frequently for what I need it for. It's fine, although I don't think it's as good as the 15-30. I've had the Tam 28-75 and it is one of the exceptional values in lenses.

But the one thing none of these lenses have is...105. I would think in a gym/auditorium that bit of extra reach would be handy. Handy enough to deal with the bit of extra noise and what that entails.

Our school, for which I am frequently called to be an off-the-cuff photographer, has most of its major events in the gym. The light is very high and yellow and not very photography-friendly. When I take headshots and waist-up, they are frequently noisy.

It may be that I need a DFA 24-70 AND the 28-105...now I just have to convince my wife that this combination is needed. :P

[kiwi_jono]

You could consider bolstering the 28-105 with a good prime (which are faster and great IQ)?
For example my FA 43 f1.9 is so small it goes everywhere and in fact is most often on the camera.

[jawats]

You could consider bolstering the 28-105 with a good prime (which are faster and great IQ)?
For example my FA 43 f1.9 is so small it goes everywhere and in fact is most often on the camera.

This is an idea. I have the 50mm Pentax-F 1.7 which is good, but I could look into a better portrait prime for lower light. Thank you!

[Jeff]

Jeff,

Do you think it's twice the lens of the Tamron (re: price)? It has the same aperture. Have you used the Tamron at all?

I have not used the Tamron - I tend to buy Pentax where I can. I did have the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and it was a fine lens, just a little on the heavy side. For me the 24-70 Pentax is the only choice in low light for a zoom - unless you opt for some of the primes as mentioned below. The DFA* 50 or 85 would be fantastic but expensive and heavy - and I do have the DFA* 50 f1.4, which is the best lens I have ever used.
Of course, you could look at the 31/43/77 trio but that would entail changing lenses which is not ideal in your case, I suspect.

[jawats]

I have not used the Tamron - I tend to buy Pentax where I can. I did have the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and it was a fine lens, just a little on the heavy side. For me the 24-70 Pentax is the only choice in low light for a zoom - unless you opt for some of the primes as mentioned below. The DFA* 50 or 85 would be fantastic but expensive and heavy - and I do have the DFA* 50 f1.4, which is the best lens I have ever used.
Of course, you could look at the 31/43/77 trio but that would entail changing lenses which is not ideal in your case, I suspect.

When I'm working in lower light, I have the Tamron 70-200 2.8 for zoom, which I like. Therefore, something I could pocket or pouch on the prime end would indeed work.

[normhead]

You have a 70-200 2.8.?

Try a DA*55 1.4.... or 35 2.4. It doesn't matter what you do you have to change lenses if you need shorter than 70... Both of those lenses are better in low light than any 2.8 lens.... the 1.4 is two stops better.

But before you do that maybe give Topaz Denoise and 3200 ISO a try. I think you can download a trial version for free.