HD D-FA 28-105 leaked online

normhead · 03-03-2016, 07:59 AM

The is a very small review of the 28-105 lens here. (Click on the quote)

I'm not a particularly big fan of kit zooms, but this one was sharp and felt better-built than I'm used to. It goes without saying that the all-metal primes felt great, even if I had to stop them down a bit for optimal performance.

And a pic

It looks biggish for a 5.6 lens.

D1N0 · 03-03-2016, 08:18 AM

Couldn't really find equivalents the Nikon is APS-C and the Canon starts at 24 but both 3.5-5.6 and end at 105. It is quite a bit smaller than the Canon and a bit bigger than the nikon, but that only covers aps-c.

Compact Camera Meter

JPT · 03-03-2016, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by normhead

The is a very small review of the 28-105 lens here. (Click on the quote)

And a pic

It looks biggish for a 5.6 lens.

It's the same diameter as the DA18-135, just one centimetre longer and a fraction heavier. That makes it smaller and quite a bit lighter than the DA16-85. I have the DA18-135 now and when I tried the K-1, the DFA 28-105 felt so familiar that I completely forgot I was trying a new lens too.

normhead · 03-03-2016, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by JPT

It's the same diameter as the DA18-135, just one centimetre longer and a fraction heavier. That makes it smaller and quite a bit lighter than the DA16-85. I have the DA18-135 now and when I tried the K-1, the DFA 28-105 felt so familiar that I completely forgot I was trying a new lens too.

I must be totally over estimating how big the K-1 is.

bertwert · 03-03-2016, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I must be totally over estimating how big the K-1 is.

Apparently they don't have the 18-135 in camerasize... otherwise I would have put the 18-105 on the K-1 and the 18-135 on the K-3ii...

K-1 vs K-3ii

Zygonyx · 03-03-2016, 10:08 AM - **1 Like**

Same 62mm filter diameter, besides quality and reasonable price, size IS actually an argument in itself to put DFA 28-105mm on K-1...

JPT · 03-03-2016, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I must be totally over estimating how big the K-1 is.

Possibly. Almost all the size increase of the K-1 over the K-3 is in the height, so from that angle, it basically looks the same size. The PF lens database has the lens dimensions and both the DA18-135 and the DFA28-105 are shown as 73cm in diameter, with the DFA being 1cm longer at 86cm.

**THoog** · 03-03-2016, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by JPT

Possibly. Almost all the size increase of the K-1 over the K-3 is in the height, so from that angle, it basically looks the same size. The PF lens database has the lens dimensions and both the DA18-135 and the DFA28-105 are shown as 73cm in diameter, with the DFA being 1cm longer at 86cm.

They are very close - I had a hard time telling which was which in the "family photo" (right side, behind the DA 40 XS, 3rd & 4th from front - the 28-105 is the one with white text around the front barrel edge)

iudex · 03-04-2016, 05:57 AM - **4 Likes**

Originally posted by THoog

They are very close - I had a hard time telling which was which in the "family photo" (right side, behind the DA 40 XS, 3rd & 4th from front - the 28-105 is the one with white text around the front barrel edge)

Exactly. I downloaded the "lenses family portrait" and tried to identify all lenses and had hard times telling which one is the new kit zoom. But I identified it like this:

rawr · 03-04-2016, 09:20 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by iudex

I downloaded the "lenses family portrait" and tried to identify all lenses

Nice work!

But seeing numbers (eg 19) duplicated for different lenses, and the uncertain logic of the lens colour codes, confuses me. I think it would be clearer to just to have one number per lens, and simply colour code the number according to if a lens is FF compatible or APS-C only.

iudex · 03-07-2016, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by rawr

Nice work!

But seeing numbers (eg 19) duplicated for different lenses, and the uncertain logic of the lens colour codes, confuses me. I think it would be clearer to just to have one number per lens, and simply colour code the number according to if a lens is FF compatible or APS-C only.

You are right, it is a bit confusing. I wanted to differentiate zooms and primes. Zooms are marked green, primes are yellow, but I somewhow forgot to write descriptions in matching colours. I will redo it when I have some time.

yperion · 03-08-2016, 02:32 PM

About the quality of the 28-105 lens, from the samples in this link Sample Image? PENTAX K-1 | RICOH IMAGING I was amazed! The photos looks excellent. Studio photography (at f8 !) and landscape (at f4.5 !!) is very nice across the frame.
On the other hand, the 24-70 at f8, at the corners, is reminds me a little of my 16-45, with some issues.
If the samples of 28-105, from the users and testers, will be as good as those in the link above, then, the choice will be very difficult...
Comparing the two lenses for my use: When I am shooting landscapes I never use f2.8 and the extra 4mm is not that a difference. I very often use my fish-eye and I'm thinking of buying a fast wide angle prime, mostly for indoors.
For indoor and considering the high iso performance of k-1, if the 28-105 behavior at f3.5 is comparable with the 24-70 at f2.8, then.... ???

Additionally the 15-30 f2.8 seems to be nice, but why don't take a good wide angle prime? The zoom range is not that big.

6x7 · 03-09-2016, 04:18 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by yperion

About the quality of the 28-105 lens, from the samples in this link Sample Image? PENTAX K-1 | RICOH IMAGING I was amazed! The photos looks excellent.

Agreed, these pictures do look good. Looks like a nice outdoor lens.

gazonk · 03-09-2016, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by yperion

About the quality of the 28-105 lens, from the samples in this link Sample Image? PENTAX K-1 | RICOH IMAGING I was amazed! The photos looks excellent.

OMG the details in the woven fabric and the green-red hortensia flowers in the pixel shift version of the studio shot!!

FantasticMrFox · 03-09-2016, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by yperion

Additionally the 15-30 f2.8 seems to be nice, but why don't take a good wide angle prime? The zoom range is not that big.

The zoom range is ample - compare a shot taken at 15 mm with a shot of the same scene at 30 mm. For landscape photography that can make all the difference.

03-03-2016, 07:59 AM	#166
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	The is a very small review of the 28-105 lens here. (Click on the quote) Quote: I'm not a particularly big fan of kit zooms, but this one was sharp and felt better-built than I'm used to. It goes without saying that the all-metal primes felt great, even if I had to stop them down a bit for optimal performance. And a pic It looks biggish for a 5.6 lens.

03-04-2016, 05:57 AM - 4 Likes	#174
iudex Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 87	Originally posted by THoog They are very close - I had a hard time telling which was which in the "family photo" (right side, behind the DA 40 XS, 3rd & 4th from front - the 28-105 is the one with white text around the front barrel edge) Exactly. I downloaded the "lenses family portrait" and tried to identify all lenses and had hard times telling which one is the new kit zoom. But I identified it like this: Attached Images

03-08-2016, 02:32 PM	#177
yperion New Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Pireaus, Greece Photos: Gallery Posts: 18	28-105mm very good samples About the quality of the 28-105 lens, from the samples in this link Sample Image? PENTAX K-1 \| RICOH IMAGING I was amazed! The photos looks excellent. Studio photography (at f8 !) and landscape (at f4.5 !!) is very nice across the frame. On the other hand, the 24-70 at f8, at the corners, is reminds me a little of my 16-45, with some issues. If the samples of 28-105, from the users and testers, will be as good as those in the link above, then, the choice will be very difficult... Comparing the two lenses for my use: When I am shooting landscapes I never use f2.8 and the extra 4mm is not that a difference. I very often use my fish-eye and I'm thinking of buying a fast wide angle prime, mostly for indoors. For indoor and considering the high iso performance of k-1, if the 28-105 behavior at f3.5 is comparable with the 24-70 at f2.8, then.... ??? Additionally the 15-30 f2.8 seems to be nice, but why don't take a good wide angle prime? The zoom range is not that big.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax HD D-FA 500-2500 AL WaR	JimmyDranox	Photographic Industry and Professionals	29	04-12-2015 05:36 PM
new HD D-FA lenses with green ring?	shaolen	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	02-18-2015 06:56 AM
HD Pentax D-FA* 70-200 F2.8	starjedi	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	02-03-2015 10:53 AM

03-03-2016, 08:18 AM	#167
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Couldn't really find equivalents the Nikon is APS-C and the Canon starts at 24 but both 3.5-5.6 and end at 105. It is quite a bit smaller than the Canon and a bit bigger than the nikon, but that only covers aps-c. Compact Camera Meter

03-03-2016, 08:34 AM	#168
JPT Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,821	Originally posted by normhead The is a very small review of the 28-105 lens here. (Click on the quote) And a pic It looks biggish for a 5.6 lens. It's the same diameter as the DA18-135, just one centimetre longer and a fraction heavier. That makes it smaller and quite a bit lighter than the DA16-85. I have the DA18-135 now and when I tried the K-1, the DFA 28-105 felt so familiar that I completely forgot I was trying a new lens too.

03-03-2016, 09:57 AM	#169
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by JPT It's the same diameter as the DA18-135, just one centimetre longer and a fraction heavier. That makes it smaller and quite a bit lighter than the DA16-85. I have the DA18-135 now and when I tried the K-1, the DFA 28-105 felt so familiar that I completely forgot I was trying a new lens too. I must be totally over estimating how big the K-1 is.

03-03-2016, 10:05 AM	#170
bertwert Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Golden, BC Posts: 15,173	Originally posted by normhead I must be totally over estimating how big the K-1 is. Apparently they don't have the 18-135 in camerasize... otherwise I would have put the 18-105 on the K-1 and the 18-135 on the K-3ii... K-1 vs K-3ii

03-03-2016, 10:08 AM - 1 Like	#171
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	Same 62mm filter diameter, besides quality and reasonable price, size IS actually an argument in itself to put DFA 28-105mm on K-1...

03-03-2016, 07:17 PM	#172
JPT Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Tokyo Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,821	Originally posted by normhead I must be totally over estimating how big the K-1 is. Possibly. Almost all the size increase of the K-1 over the K-3 is in the height, so from that angle, it basically looks the same size. The PF lens database has the lens dimensions and both the DA18-135 and the DFA28-105 are shown as 73cm in diameter, with the DFA being 1cm longer at 86cm.

03-03-2016, 07:29 PM	#173
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by JPT Possibly. Almost all the size increase of the K-1 over the K-3 is in the height, so from that angle, it basically looks the same size. The PF lens database has the lens dimensions and both the DA18-135 and the DFA28-105 are shown as 73cm in diameter, with the DFA being 1cm longer at 86cm. They are very close - I had a hard time telling which was which in the "family photo" (right side, behind the DA 40 XS, 3rd & 4th from front - the 28-105 is the one with white text around the front barrel edge)

03-04-2016, 09:20 AM - 1 Like	#175
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by iudex I downloaded the "lenses family portrait" and tried to identify all lenses Nice work! But seeing numbers (eg 19) duplicated for different lenses, and the uncertain logic of the lens colour codes, confuses me. I think it would be clearer to just to have one number per lens, and simply colour code the number according to if a lens is FF compatible or APS-C only.

03-07-2016, 02:56 AM	#176
iudex Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 87	Originally posted by rawr Nice work! But seeing numbers (eg 19) duplicated for different lenses, and the uncertain logic of the lens colour codes, confuses me. I think it would be clearer to just to have one number per lens, and simply colour code the number according to if a lens is FF compatible or APS-C only. You are right, it is a bit confusing. I wanted to differentiate zooms and primes. Zooms are marked green, primes are yellow, but I somewhow forgot to write descriptions in matching colours. I will redo it when I have some time.

03-09-2016, 04:18 AM - 1 Like	#178
6x7 New Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 23	Originally posted by yperion About the quality of the 28-105 lens, from the samples in this link Sample Image? PENTAX K-1 \| RICOH IMAGING I was amazed! The photos looks excellent. Agreed, these pictures do look good. Looks like a nice outdoor lens.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-09-2016, 06:27 AM	#179
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by yperion About the quality of the 28-105 lens, from the samples in this link Sample Image? PENTAX K-1 \| RICOH IMAGING I was amazed! The photos looks excellent. OMG the details in the woven fabric and the green-red hortensia flowers in the pixel shift version of the studio shot!!

03-09-2016, 10:53 AM	#180
FantasticMrFox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Munich Posts: 2,339	Originally posted by yperion Additionally the 15-30 f2.8 seems to be nice, but why don't take a good wide angle prime? The zoom range is not that big. The zoom range is ample - compare a shot taken at 15 mm with a shot of the same scene at 30 mm. For landscape photography that can make all the difference.