[builttospill]

Funny how your perception of these lenses changes when you do bit of research.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. My research comes from actual real-world use of the lens, not reading others' reviews based on charts.

Go out and take some pictures. Take a deep breath. No one is putting you on the defense here. The FA Limited lenses perform much better with real-world use than photographing charts too, as do most lenses. The 28-105 looks like an incredible lens due to images I've seen from it, but I can't speak with personal experience of this lens. With Canon's 24-105, I can.

[Andrea K]

That would be great. Much more useful than 24-70.

I hope in an "à la Pentax" interpretation... not an huge 24-105 f/4 but a more compact 24-90 f/4

[Jean Poitiers]

Just FYI ... DA 55-300 WR @ 300 & f/8 on K-1 ... cropped for 5x7 ...




DA 55-300 WR on K-1 @ 300 & f/5.6 with a heavier crop for the close-up ...

[normhead]

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. My research comes from actual real-world use of the lens, not reading others' reviews based on charts.

Go out and take some pictures. Take a deep breath. No one is putting you on the defense here. The FA Limited lenses perform much better with real-world use than photographing charts too, as do most lenses. The 28-105 looks like an incredible lens due to images I've seen from it, but I can't speak with personal experience of this lens. With Canon's 24-105, I can.

No pictures? It didn't happen. And I shoot every day there's sun, without any prompting from yourself.
Raving about a Canon 24-105 should maybe go in an off brand thread. Just a suggestion.

---

Last edited by normhead; 05-06-2019 at 07:13 AM.

[sbh]

I hope in an "à la Pentax" interpretation... not an huge 24-105 f/4 but a more compact 24-90 f/4

Compact is very welcome, but I hope it is longer than 90mm. On my K-5 I used to use the 17-70 as my favorite lens. I often used the long end at 70mm (105mm equiv.) and find the 24-70 on the K-1 way too short in many situations.

[Paul the Sunman]

Compact is very welcome, but I hope it is longer than 90mm. On my K-5 I used to use the 17-70 as my favorite lens. I often used the long end at 70mm (105mm equiv.) and find the 24-70 on the K-1 way too short in many situations.

I find the 28-105 just about perfect as a walk-around zoom on the K1, especially in urban environments. I take something longer if I'm looking at photographing details, but in general 105 is enough. A FF 60-300 would be wonderful for that "detail".

[biz-engineer]

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. My research comes from actual real-world use of the lens, not reading others' reviews based on charts.

With Canon's 24-105, I can.

No defending Pentax at all. The Canon 24-105 is certainly a good lens, as the Pentax 28-105, but they all are design tradeoffs based on similar goal in terms of target use, price and quality. There is much less difference between those two zooms and a prime or getting a camera with a larger sensor. I would personally never trade a Pentax lens for a Canon (or Nikon et al) equivalent, simply because the improvement I'd get wouldn't be worth the money. I would however trade an apsc lens for a FF lens, or FF lens trade for a MF lens, because in that case I'd spend the money but at list I'd be able to enjoy the difference in image output.

[normhead]

I find the 28-105 just about perfect as a walk-around zoom on the K1, especially in urban environments. I take something longer if I'm looking at photographing details, but in general 105 is enough. A FF 60-300 would be wonderful for that "detail".

DA 55-300 PLM on my K-1. I still haven't checked to see where the vignetting starts, but I took an image at 230mm and it was fine.

---------- Post added 05-06-19 at 04:14 PM ----------

I find the 28-105 just about perfect as a walk-around zoom on the K1, especially in urban environments. I take something longer if I'm looking at photographing details, but in general 105 is enough. A FF 60-300 would be wonderful for that "detail".

DA 55-300 PLM on my K-1. I still haven't checked to see where the vignetting starts, but I took an image at 230mm and it was fine.



OK, it vignettes pretty bad at 100, so not a perfect match for the 28-105.

[SteveinSLC]

Honestly, if they were able to make a FF 55-300 lens that was as good as the PLM, even variable aperture and 50% bigger, I'd still buy it. Even at 50% bigger, it would still be smaller than the 60-250, and much smaller than the 70-200.

[Not a Number]

Thread moved to Photographic Industry and Professionals as per:
Speculative threads belong elsewhere! - PentaxForums.com

[Dan Rentea]

No pictures? It didn't happen. And I shoot every day there's sun, without any prompting from yourself.
Raving about a Canon 24-105 should maybe go in an off brand thread. Just a suggestion.

Canon 24-105mm f4L II is not necessary a lens to rave about, but is a very good all around lens. It's an f4 lens so you need enough light if you shoot indoor, but used properly and with the high ISO of modern cameras, you can get good results with this lens. It's not very sharp wide open (f4) at 105mm f4, but from f5.6 it's more than ok. I've tested the lens but in the end I opted for 16-35mm f4L IS which is more useful to me (it's also better optically) when I travel and along with the 85mm f1.8 or with 70-200mm f4L IS makes a good travel kit (light and small).

Here are some images taken with 24-105mm f4L IS II, resized to 2048px. If the images don't look good, maybe downloaded looks better. The program I use to upload images here is not that good.

105mm, f5.6, ISO 100, 1/100s



105mm, f4, ISO 400, 1/100s



105mm, f4, ISO 100, 1/400s

[normhead]

So what were saying is, it's not as bad as it's predecessor in the Canon world, and maybe that's why people are raving about it?

Incidentally, in case someone thinks I'm just totally anti-Canon, there is a Canon 24mm prime that is worth raving about, both from the reports of owners and the test charts. (I've actually never seen a lens that did well on both user reports and the test charts that wasn't great lens. ) But it's priced higher than the Pentax DFA 50 1.4. To a certain degree, you get what you pay for, even across brands.

[Dan Rentea]

So what were saying is, it's not as bad as it's predecessor in the Canon world, and maybe that's why people are raving about it?

Maybe...who knows?! It's probably the most used lens by enthusiastic photographers that buy their first full frame lens. If you are used shooting with 18-55mm on a Canon APS-C camera (which on a full frame means 29-88mm due to 1.6x crop factor), moving to a full frame and having a lens that has:
- 24mm instead of 28mm
-105mm instead of 88mm
- a fixed f4 aperture

means more versatility for the photographer. Some professional photographers use this lens also at outdoor events. I would probably have bought it but I need a wider focal lenght when I travel and 16-35mm f4L IS was the lens I needed/wanted.

Incidentally, in case someone thinks I'm just totally anti-Canon, there is a Canon 24mm prime that is worth raving about, both from the reports of owners and the test charts. (I've actually never seen a lens that did well on both user reports and the test charts that wasn't great lens. ) But it's priced higher than the Pentax DFA 50 1.4. To a certain degree, you get what you pay for, even across brands.

The 24mm f1.4L II lens is a very good lens, but 35mm f1.4L II is a better lens optically and in terms of focusing. I'm talking from user perspective because I don't put too much attention to test charts.

[normhead]

Maybe...who knows?! It's probably the most used lens by enthusiastic photographers that buy their first full frame lens. If you are used shooting with 18-55mm on a Canon APS-C camera (which on a full frame means 29-88mm due to 1.6x crop factor), moving to a full frame and having a lens that has:
- 24mm instead of 28mm
-105mm instead of 88mm
- a fixed f4 aperture

means more versatility for the photographer. Some professional photographers use this lens also at outdoor events. I would probably have bought it but I need a wider focal lenght when I travel and 16-35mm f4L IS was the lens I needed/wanted.

And currently, you can get more resolution out of the Canon on a 30 MP sensor than you can on any K-1 with any Pentax lens if test charts are to be believed. When people trash Canon's dynamic range, they tend to forget that Canon seems to be able to squeeze more resolution out of the same MP than other manufacturers on a regular basis.




The 24mm f1.4L II lens is a very good lens, but 35mm f1.4L II is a better lens optically and in terms of focusing. I'm talking from user perspective because I don't put too much attention to test charts.

I mention the 24 because there really is no Pentax equivalent, now or in the future where as I believe Pentax has a 35 1.4 on the road map. Just a general observation, people tend to trash Canon for it's dynamic range, which holds it's DxO ratings down, but Canon seems to be able to squeeze more resolution out of it's 30 MP sensor than Pentax does out of a 36, and with that 24, its not even close. Personally I tend to favour the more dynamic range. But it makes a difference in very few instances. Just in the instances where I'm more likely to be to sell a print.

Everybody in the craft market looks at all your artistic shots, to convince themselves you're a real photographer, then they buy a wildlife or a sunset.
In my case I get more sunset opportunities than wildlife opportunities so going for dynamic range makes more sense.

As for my favourite photography, birds, nobody buys those.

[Dan Rentea]

I mention the 24 because there really is no Pentax equivalent, now or in the future where as I believe Pentax has a 35 1.4 on the road map.

As I said in many occasions, I enjoy shooting with anything that I can put my hands on (except film cameras and film era lenses ) as long as I have the lenses I want/need. Pentax filled the important holes in the system with the new full frame lenses, but there are a few holes that need to be filled and some of them are on the roadmap (f4 zoom lenses and some primes lenses like 35mm and the much awaited 85mm), which is a good thing.

Just a general observation, people tend to trash Canon for it's dynamic range, which holds it's DxO ratings down, but Canon seems to be able to squeeze more resolution out of it's 30 MP sensor than Pentax does out of a 36, and with that 24, its not even close.

1. I don't care what DXO and charts have to say.
2. I don't even care about practical tests done in ideal conditions by users who don't have experience in shooting with other cameras other than the cameras they own. I needed a week to be able to figure out how to shoot with a Sony A7 III in real conditions and I still wasn't sure that I choosed the right settings for the images that I took with that camera. Imagine that I needed a few weeks to make my 5D Mark IV work as I wanted and I was familiar with Canon bodies because I used 6D and 7D Mark II quite a while before upgrading to Mark IV.
3. I don't care about paid reviews done by Tony Northrup, DPReview, etc.

I do my own tests by:
1. showing images taken with different cameras to my clients or to my friends (if they guess 7-8 images out of 20 taken with 2 different cameras, then I know that is not a coincidence and I start to look more closely at the files taken with the wining camera).
2. looking on forums or on internet for user opinions because I find a lot more informations from them. I specifically look for what problems they have with af, dynamic range, flash system, etc. so that I can start my own tests from there.

Personally I tend to favour the more dynamic range. But it makes a difference in very few instances. Just in the instances where I'm more likely to be to sell a print.

Everybody in the craft market looks at all your artistic shots, to convince themselves you're a real photographer, then they buy a wildlife or a sunset.
In my case I get more sunset opportunities than wildlife opportunities so going for dynamic range makes more sense.

That's understandable because when needed, K1 has also Pixel shift that can further improves the quality of the files.

Looking at these new lenses like Pentax 28-105mm, Canon 24-105mm which are (at least I think so) optimised also for high mp cameras, I can understand why people like these zoom lenses and I understand why so many may be attracted to a new Pentax 55-300mm lens, hoping to get a tele lens affordable and at least similar in terms of af and IQ to Pentax 28-105mm. For the casual wildlife shooters who have a K3 or a KP, a good 55-300mm lens will probably be the much awaited lens. With 28-105 and 55-300mm you can cover pretty much anything if you know the basics...