HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm F2.8 Club

Jedi_Strings · 10-22-2015, 09:48 AM

Thanks for sharing your impression of the lens & nice pics! Would you say the color rendition is to your liking compared to some primes you have used?

**pathdoc** · 10-22-2015, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by lytrytyr

Significantly, Pentax/Ricoh only reveal MTF curves for the D FA 24-70 at the two extremes (24mm and 70mm).

If the Lenstip tests confirm the sour spot on the Pentax version, get back to us.

**Rondec** · 10-22-2015, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Jedi_Strings

Thanks for sharing your impression of the lens & nice pics! Would you say the color rendition is to your liking compared to some primes you have used?

It feels really similar to the DA * lenses, which is different from the FA limiteds, but still really nice, in my opinion. FA limiteds if anything have a little warmer rendition.

I mentioned it earlier, but I really did not see much purple fringing at all with this lens, whereas some of the Pentax lenses I have used (FA 77 and 31, DA *16-50 and 200) really fringe badly.

Driline · 10-22-2015, 10:22 AM

Rondec, do you see this lens replacing your DA*16-50? Reason I ask is you've taken so many great pictures with that lens, it's difficult to see you replacing it.

**shardulm** · 10-22-2015, 11:07 AM

Surprisingly I see very little PF on the images. 16-50 shows rampant PF on high contrast scenes and I am sure it would show up on some of your shots if used. The 24-70 seems a lot more tolerant.

zeitlos · 10-22-2015, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Driline

Rondec, do you see this lens replacing your DA*16-50? Reason I ask is you've taken so many great pictures with that lens, it's difficult to see you replacing it.

Obviously, I'm not rondec, however, I also love my 16-50mm and am interesting in the new 24-70mm.
In my opinion you cannot replace the 16-50 if you stick to APS-C Cameras. 16mm are really very versatile (at least when I go out to take pictures). Even the 20mm of my 20-40 Limited brought me to sell this lens again since I was missing the range between 16- and 19mm.

So I would say, on a FF-Body, it might well be a replacement (of course, you cannot really use the 16-50mm there, since it was constructed to work on APS-C only).

Still, I'm not sure about the weight (and size)...

**Rondec** · 10-22-2015, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Driline

Rondec, do you see this lens replacing your DA*16-50? Reason I ask is you've taken so many great pictures with that lens, it's difficult to see you replacing it.

The problem is that it isn't quite wide enough on APS-C. My wife shoots weddings and doesn't like the wide end of the 16-50 and thought this would be the perfect focal range, hence her pre-ordering it. I'll have to play with it some more and see what I think. The 16-50 is already good sized and this lens is half again as big as that lens. Sharpness is seldom an issue for me, since I'm shooting landscapes on a tripod and normally am stopped down quite a bit.

**clackers** · 10-22-2015, 12:00 PM

For a one lens setup I'm happy to use my Tammy 28-75 on the A7.

For Pentax with that same lens attached, a DA15 gets added to the bag - no bad thing. ☺

Thanks for your work on everyone's behalf, Vincent!

**Rondec** · 10-22-2015, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by clackers

For a one lens setup I'm happy to use my Tammy 28-75 on the A7.

For Pentax with that same lens attached, a DA15 gets added to the bag - no bad thing. ☺

Thanks for your work on everyone's behalf, Vincent!

Glad to share. I'll post more photos as I take them.

longbow · 10-22-2015, 05:52 PM - **5 Likes**

Here some quick pictures, minimally processed - corrected for exposure and cropped two. All four are wide open, as requested.

It is a big lens, but still balanced. Really noticed the difference when switched from the 20-40 that had been on the camera. The focus is quick and locks fast, a definite improvement from my other SDM lenses. Can't say much more, since I've only had a half hour with it, but it seems to be a good lens.

The last picture is a size comparison with a 16-85, 50-135 & a 20-40

Jedi_Strings · 10-22-2015, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by longbow

Here some quick pictures, minimally processed - corrected for exposure and cropped two. All four are wide open, as requested.

It is a big lens, but still balanced. Really noticed the difference when switched from the 20-40 that had been on the camera. The focus is quick and locks fast, a definite improvement from my other SDM lenses. Can't say much more, since I've only had a half hour with it, but it seems to be a good lens.

The last picture is a size comparison with a 16-85, 50-135 & a 20-40

Thanks for sharing your shots & seeing all the lenses together is great to get a grasp of the size.

mtux · 10-22-2015, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by longbow

The last picture is a size comparison with a 16-85, 50-135 & a 20-40

More size comparison photos please

Thanks

**Rondec** · 10-23-2015, 03:54 AM - **2 Likes**

A few more photos.

Elliot (70mm f2.8)

Sunset (24mm f8).

Tree (70mm f4.5)

Comparison photo 16-50 versus 24-70 at 34mm and f4.

24-70

16-50

Take this comparison with a grain of salt. For whatever reason, I was a stop darker with the 24-70 and so shutter speed was 1/2000 second versus 1/800 second. I couldn't brighten up the 24-70 image enough without adding a bunch of noise. Biggest thing I notice is the dark corners on the 16-50 image. Easy to fix, but obviously not present on the 24-70 image. Colors are definitely a little different, as these photos were edited exactly the same.

Driline · 10-23-2015, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by longbow

The last picture is a size comparison with a 16-85, 50-135 & a 20-40

How does it compare to the 16-85? Say using it as a quick travel lens? Are they similar in sharpness?

**pathdoc** · 10-23-2015, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by longbow

a size comparison with a 16-85, 50-135 & a 20-40

I don't own/haven't handled any of these - where might it sit with regard to an 18-135 or 18-250? I'm guessing about the same length but of course significantly wider. I guess that's worth it if you really need the f/2.8. I suspect we will see a constant f/4 or f/3/5 to 5.6 down the road in order to give the consumer market a somewhat less hefty option.

Pics are nice, from both of you (how close were the bird and flower pics?). If the corners hold up on full-frame, this combination will do really, really well.

10-22-2015, 05:52 PM - 5 Likes	#25
longbow Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: NW Oregon Posts: 905	Here some quick pictures, minimally processed - corrected for exposure and cropped two. All four are wide open, as requested. It is a big lens, but still balanced. Really noticed the difference when switched from the 20-40 that had been on the camera. The focus is quick and locks fast, a definite improvement from my other SDM lenses. Can't say much more, since I've only had a half hour with it, but it seems to be a good lens. The last picture is a size comparison with a 16-85, 50-135 & a 20-40 Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
D FA 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR Officially Announced	Adam	Pentax News and Rumors	557	02-25-2016 04:39 AM
ANYONE HAVE IT - HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm f/2.8ED SDM WR Lens	vievetrick	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	10-22-2015 03:45 AM
Why the new lens PENTAX D FA 24-70mm F2.8 is green and no red line?	Arturopentax	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	09-28-2015 06:33 AM
HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR Announced	PF Staff	Homepage & Official Pentax News	0	09-24-2015 03:00 PM
HD Pentax D-FA* 70-200 F2.8	starjedi	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	02-03-2015 10:53 AM

10-22-2015, 09:48 AM	#16
Jedi_Strings Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Bronx, NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 56	Thanks for sharing your impression of the lens & nice pics! Would you say the color rendition is to your liking compared to some primes you have used?

10-22-2015, 09:49 AM	#17
pathdoc Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by lytrytyr Significantly, Pentax/Ricoh only reveal MTF curves for the D FA 24-70 at the two extremes (24mm and 70mm). If the Lenstip tests confirm the sour spot on the Pentax version, get back to us.

10-22-2015, 09:59 AM	#18
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 26,040 Original Poster	Originally posted by Jedi_Strings Thanks for sharing your impression of the lens & nice pics! Would you say the color rendition is to your liking compared to some primes you have used? It feels really similar to the DA * lenses, which is different from the FA limiteds, but still really nice, in my opinion. FA limiteds if anything have a little warmer rendition. I mentioned it earlier, but I really did not see much purple fringing at all with this lens, whereas some of the Pentax lenses I have used (FA 77 and 31, DA *16-50 and 200) really fringe badly.

10-22-2015, 10:22 AM	#19
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,428	Rondec, do you see this lens replacing your DA*16-50? Reason I ask is you've taken so many great pictures with that lens, it's difficult to see you replacing it.

10-22-2015, 11:07 AM	#20
shardulm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Cumming, GA Posts: 793	Surprisingly I see very little PF on the images. 16-50 shows rampant PF on high contrast scenes and I am sure it would show up on some of your shots if used. The 24-70 seems a lot more tolerant.

10-22-2015, 11:12 AM	#21
zeitlos Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: In the middle of Bavaria - Germany Posts: 281	Originally posted by Driline Rondec, do you see this lens replacing your DA*16-50? Reason I ask is you've taken so many great pictures with that lens, it's difficult to see you replacing it. Obviously, I'm not rondec, however, I also love my 16-50mm and am interesting in the new 24-70mm. In my opinion you cannot replace the 16-50 if you stick to APS-C Cameras. 16mm are really very versatile (at least when I go out to take pictures). Even the 20mm of my 20-40 Limited brought me to sell this lens again since I was missing the range between 16- and 19mm. So I would say, on a FF-Body, it might well be a replacement (of course, you cannot really use the 16-50mm there, since it was constructed to work on APS-C only). Still, I'm not sure about the weight (and size)...

10-22-2015, 11:14 AM	#22
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 26,040 Original Poster	Originally posted by Driline Rondec, do you see this lens replacing your DA*16-50? Reason I ask is you've taken so many great pictures with that lens, it's difficult to see you replacing it. The problem is that it isn't quite wide enough on APS-C. My wife shoots weddings and doesn't like the wide end of the 16-50 and thought this would be the perfect focal range, hence her pre-ordering it. I'll have to play with it some more and see what I think. The 16-50 is already good sized and this lens is half again as big as that lens. Sharpness is seldom an issue for me, since I'm shooting landscapes on a tripod and normally am stopped down quite a bit.

10-22-2015, 12:00 PM	#23
clackers Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,128	For a one lens setup I'm happy to use my Tammy 28-75 on the A7. For Pentax with that same lens attached, a DA15 gets added to the bag - no bad thing. ☺ Thanks for your work on everyone's behalf, Vincent!

10-22-2015, 12:13 PM	#24
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 26,040 Original Poster	Originally posted by clackers For a one lens setup I'm happy to use my Tammy 28-75 on the A7. For Pentax with that same lens attached, a DA15 gets added to the bag - no bad thing. ☺ Thanks for your work on everyone's behalf, Vincent! Glad to share. I'll post more photos as I take them.

10-22-2015, 10:24 PM	#26
Jedi_Strings Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Bronx, NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 56	Originally posted by longbow Here some quick pictures, minimally processed - corrected for exposure and cropped two. All four are wide open, as requested. It is a big lens, but still balanced. Really noticed the difference when switched from the 20-40 that had been on the camera. The focus is quick and locks fast, a definite improvement from my other SDM lenses. Can't say much more, since I've only had a half hour with it, but it seems to be a good lens. The last picture is a size comparison with a 16-85, 50-135 & a 20-40 Thanks for sharing your shots & seeing all the lenses together is great to get a grasp of the size.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-22-2015, 10:58 PM	#27
mtux Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: the Netherlands Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,444	Originally posted by longbow The last picture is a size comparison with a 16-85, 50-135 & a 20-40 More size comparison photos please Thanks

10-23-2015, 03:54 AM - 2 Likes	#28
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 26,040 Original Poster	A few more photos. Elliot (70mm f2.8) Sunset (24mm f8). Tree (70mm f4.5) Comparison photo 16-50 versus 24-70 at 34mm and f4. 24-70 16-50 Take this comparison with a grain of salt. For whatever reason, I was a stop darker with the 24-70 and so shutter speed was 1/2000 second versus 1/800 second. I couldn't brighten up the 24-70 image enough without adding a bunch of noise. Biggest thing I notice is the dark corners on the 16-50 image. Easy to fix, but obviously not present on the 24-70 image. Colors are definitely a little different, as these photos were edited exactly the same.

10-23-2015, 05:25 AM	#29
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,428	Originally posted by longbow The last picture is a size comparison with a 16-85, 50-135 & a 20-40 How does it compare to the 16-85? Say using it as a quick travel lens? Are they similar in sharpness?

10-23-2015, 05:34 AM	#30
pathdoc Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by longbow a size comparison with a 16-85, 50-135 & a 20-40 I don't own/haven't handled any of these - where might it sit with regard to an 18-135 or 18-250? I'm guessing about the same length but of course significantly wider. I guess that's worth it if you really need the f/2.8. I suspect we will see a constant f/4 or f/3/5 to 5.6 down the road in order to give the consumer market a somewhat less hefty option. Pics are nice, from both of you (how close were the bird and flower pics?). If the corners hold up on full-frame, this combination will do really, really well.