Pentax 24-70 vs 28-105

Eyewanders · 05-30-2016, 11:39 PM

I would try the FA 24-90mm F/3.5-4.5 - extremely well-liked and far less costly.

I had it for a few months as part of another purchase and really enjoyed it.
I didn't keep because I just rarely use zooms these days but I was quite impressed by it.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FA-24-90mm-F3.5-4.5-Zoom-Lens.html

**Schraubstock** · 05-31-2016, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by chickentender

I would try the FA 24-90mm F/3.5-4.5 - extremely well-liked and far less costly.

I own this lens and indeed it is very good optically and considered a classic. The only problem, it is very sought after. Which means it is hard to find because, as I understand it, not many were made and when you do find one it is not cheap. I paid for mine some three years ago, if I remember correctly, approx. Au$450.00.,

Cheers

Eyewanders · 05-31-2016, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Schraubstock

I own this lens and indeed it is very good optically and considered a classic. The only problem, it is very sought after. Which means it is hard to find because, as I understand it, not many were made and when you do find one it is not cheap. I paid for mine some three years ago, if I remember correctly, approx. Au$450.00.,

Cheers

Yes, I think that's true - but they can be found. There's a Japanese seller with one on Ebay now. I found mine on Ebay as well - it came with another camera. I sold it locally - cant' recall precisely but I think believe for just over USD 200. At any rate, something to keep an eye out for.

normhead · 05-31-2016, 09:17 AM

I have had my FA 35-80 work very well in tests against other lenses. I don't consider it a pro quality lens because of the build. There is a world of difference between the build of my DA*200 or DA*60-250 and the FA 35-80. And I'm convinced, with no weather sealing and a flimsy feeling plastic barrel, it wouldn't hold up to every day use. But optically I have no issue with it. And to me that's the difference between pro gear, and consumer gear. Pro gear is built to take a beating in the field, be it weather, dust, cold or bumps and grinds. and keep on chugging. Consumer, not so much.

After my tests, I wouldn't be surprised if any consumer zoom that hasn't been banged around didn't perform close to par with any pro zoom.The new 28-105 has many pro qualities. Shooting at ƒ5.6, which is my favourite overall focal length (ƒ8 on a K-1) I'm not really sure what it's downside would be.

weaponx525 · 06-21-2016, 12:48 PM

Can someone provide examples an real world pictures of the 28-105 vs. a prime like the 35 mm or 70 mm? Ideally it would be on a older camera body. I have a K5II and am seriously considering the 28-105 as it is more versatile than a single prime. I already own a FA50mm f1.4 and the 35 and 70 mm prime were also on my consideration. Thank you in advance.

TroutHunterJohn · 06-22-2016, 03:31 PM

I have both the 28-105 and the 24-70. I use the former for my travel kit, when I have to travel light and can only bring one lens.

I use the 24-70 paired with my 15-30 and 70-200 when I'm doing "serious photography". The shallower dof of teh 24-70 is nice at 2.8. I like both quite well. I am wow'd by the colors and sharpness of the 28-105.

If you can't decide, buy both :-)

PhilRich · 06-22-2016, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by TroutHunterJohn

I have both the 28-105 and the 24-70. I use the former for my travel kit, when I have to travel light and can only bring one lens.

I use the 24-70 paired with my 15-30 and 70-200 when I'm doing "serious photography". The shallower dof of teh 24-70 is nice at 2.8. I like both quite well. I am wow'd by the colors and sharpness of the 28-105.

If you can't decide, buy both :-)

Would you say that the 28-105 is sharper then the 24-70?

TroutHunterJohn · 06-22-2016, 10:11 PM

When I shot a brick wall the 24-70 was sharper at wide aperatures. The were about equal stopped down. Both are quite good.

tomO2013 · 06-23-2016, 04:19 PM

Shot both - kept the 24-70. Wide open it is as sharp or sharper than the 28-105 at F4, definitely in the center and about the same in the corners.

By F8, the differences are hard to tell - pixel peeping both and there is an improvement to the 24-70 but it also comes at a heavier weight and price tag.

TroutHunterJohn · 06-23-2016, 09:59 PM

I am not a big fan of variable aperatures like the 28-105. But I am keeping the lens..

janneman · 09-08-2016, 02:44 AM

I got the K-1 with the 28-105 and the 15-30. Main reason being that 28 on FF might not be wide enough for important parts of my shooting (mainly Carnaval ..

) (for example, on APS I like the ability to go to 16 mm better than 18mm, the only reason I did NOT get me the 16-85 was the arrival of the K-1).
So far I have noticed that indeed the 28mm is often not wide enough.. 15-30 is a very lovely lens BUT, it is heavy and bulky an there is no possibility for a filter... (working on that but that might cost me some wide angle mm)
The thought of getting me the 24-70 for wider angle, lower f and less bulky than 15-30 and the possibility to add a filter(very usefull for carnaval ( although when you rinse and thoroughly clean your lens each day I have noticed (on other lenses) that water, beer, mayonaise and other dirty stuff does not do much harm to modern lens coatings) is strongly rooted in a small part of my brain.

ronniemac · 12-20-2017, 12:00 PM

The 28-105 lives on my K-1, I am happy with this lens because it gives good photographs and relative to all other D FA zooms, is light as a feather. (which is to say the others are indeed heavy). I have always been tempted by the 24-70, but it's so difficult to justify the extra cost for the advantages that f2.8 offers; shutter speed and softer bokeh. For the extra dosh, I would be looking for other advantages, perhaps even better sharpness wide open and less vignetting and barrel distortion.

Its not a well kept secret that the 24-70 is derived from a Tamron lens, and I was interested to see that in June this year Tamron launched the G2 version of their SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD. Logically perhaps a Pentax version of this will eventually replace the current model - it seems to offer more accurate and faster focus, improved coatings, better build and a different lens stabilization configuration (not required in Pentax), but as far as I can gather the optical formula remains the same.

It would be interesting to know if any of our non Pentax colleagues have upgraded to the G2, and if so, how these two compare. If the G2 is a noticeable improvement, then I will be happy to wait until it is dressed up in Pentax attire, and for the foreseeable future carry on enjoying the amazing D FA 28-105.

**SteveinSLC** · 12-20-2017, 07:13 PM

I can't compare the 24-70, but the 28-105 is great. Image quality is high, and it's light. A perfect choice for hiking and travel. Wish it was a tiny bit wider, but that's about it. Even if were more expensive, it would still be a great choice.

awscreo · 06-04-2018, 09:15 AM - **1 Like**

I like the 28-105 optically, but my K-1 & 28-105 suffer from shutter shock effect throughout a massive range (1/30 to 1/200), and I see myself upgrading to 24-70 in future just to get rid of that annoying effect.

sylvainp · 07-23-2018, 08:49 PM

I had both for a short period of time and I would systematically go for the 24-70mm where I prefer the iq, bokeh, constant aperture, the 24mm instead of 28mm. It's true that stopped down the difference is not that big but my go to kit is the classic 24-70 and 70-200mm.

I have another system when hiking or traveling light so the 28-105mm didn't get any use but I was still really impressed by the quality of the lens for the price. I would had kept it otherwise but I will replace it with a 100mm macro wr soon.

I'm really impressed by my pentax 24-70mm. I sold my canon 24-70mm f2.8 some time ago and while the canon was a great lens I generally get better results from the pentax (specially wide open on the extremes) while getting a more satisfactory feeling when using it been a solid piece of glass.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ePhotozine reviews 28-105 and 24-70	FantasticMrFox	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	05-18-2016 02:57 PM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron SP 24-135; Pentax Fa 28-105 PZ	xinanbei	Sold Items	4	01-20-2015 10:00 AM
Sigma 24-70 vs Sigma 28-70 vs Tamron 28-75	CarlCanary	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	03-11-2008 08:02 AM
Sigma 17-70 vs 24-70 vs Tamron 28-75	synnyster	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	01-20-2008 03:31 PM

05-30-2016, 11:39 PM	#16
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343	I would try the FA 24-90mm F/3.5-4.5 - extremely well-liked and far less costly. I had it for a few months as part of another purchase and really enjoyed it. I didn't keep because I just rarely use zooms these days but I was quite impressed by it. https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FA-24-90mm-F3.5-4.5-Zoom-Lens.html

05-31-2016, 02:47 AM	#17
Schraubstock Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,386	Originally posted by chickentender I would try the FA 24-90mm F/3.5-4.5 - extremely well-liked and far less costly. I own this lens and indeed it is very good optically and considered a classic. The only problem, it is very sought after. Which means it is hard to find because, as I understand it, not many were made and when you do find one it is not cheap. I paid for mine some three years ago, if I remember correctly, approx. Au$450.00., Cheers

05-31-2016, 08:59 AM	#18
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343	Originally posted by Schraubstock I own this lens and indeed it is very good optically and considered a classic. The only problem, it is very sought after. Which means it is hard to find because, as I understand it, not many were made and when you do find one it is not cheap. I paid for mine some three years ago, if I remember correctly, approx. Au$450.00., Cheers Yes, I think that's true - but they can be found. There's a Japanese seller with one on Ebay now. I found mine on Ebay as well - it came with another camera. I sold it locally - cant' recall precisely but I think believe for just over USD 200. At any rate, something to keep an eye out for.

05-31-2016, 09:17 AM	#19
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I have had my FA 35-80 work very well in tests against other lenses. I don't consider it a pro quality lens because of the build. There is a world of difference between the build of my DA200 or DA60-250 and the FA 35-80. And I'm convinced, with no weather sealing and a flimsy feeling plastic barrel, it wouldn't hold up to every day use. But optically I have no issue with it. And to me that's the difference between pro gear, and consumer gear. Pro gear is built to take a beating in the field, be it weather, dust, cold or bumps and grinds. and keep on chugging. Consumer, not so much. After my tests, I wouldn't be surprised if any consumer zoom that hasn't been banged around didn't perform close to par with any pro zoom.The new 28-105 has many pro qualities. Shooting at ƒ5.6, which is my favourite overall focal length (ƒ8 on a K-1) I'm not really sure what it's downside would be.

06-21-2016, 12:48 PM	#20
weaponx525 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 138	Can someone provide examples an real world pictures of the 28-105 vs. a prime like the 35 mm or 70 mm? Ideally it would be on a older camera body. I have a K5II and am seriously considering the 28-105 as it is more versatile than a single prime. I already own a FA50mm f1.4 and the 35 and 70 mm prime were also on my consideration. Thank you in advance.

06-22-2016, 03:31 PM	#21
TroutHunterJohn Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Olympia, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 352	I have both the 28-105 and the 24-70. I use the former for my travel kit, when I have to travel light and can only bring one lens. I use the 24-70 paired with my 15-30 and 70-200 when I'm doing "serious photography". The shallower dof of teh 24-70 is nice at 2.8. I like both quite well. I am wow'd by the colors and sharpness of the 28-105. If you can't decide, buy both :-)

06-22-2016, 08:48 PM	#22
PhilRich Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Western Washington Posts: 204	Originally posted by TroutHunterJohn I have both the 28-105 and the 24-70. I use the former for my travel kit, when I have to travel light and can only bring one lens. I use the 24-70 paired with my 15-30 and 70-200 when I'm doing "serious photography". The shallower dof of teh 24-70 is nice at 2.8. I like both quite well. I am wow'd by the colors and sharpness of the 28-105. If you can't decide, buy both :-) Would you say that the 28-105 is sharper then the 24-70?

06-22-2016, 10:11 PM	#23
TroutHunterJohn Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Olympia, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 352	When I shot a brick wall the 24-70 was sharper at wide aperatures. The were about equal stopped down. Both are quite good.

06-23-2016, 04:19 PM	#24
tomO2013 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 155	Shot both - kept the 24-70. Wide open it is as sharp or sharper than the 28-105 at F4, definitely in the center and about the same in the corners. By F8, the differences are hard to tell - pixel peeping both and there is an improvement to the 24-70 but it also comes at a heavier weight and price tag.

06-23-2016, 09:59 PM	#25
TroutHunterJohn Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Olympia, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 352	I am not a big fan of variable aperatures like the 28-105. But I am keeping the lens..

09-08-2016, 02:44 AM	#26
janneman Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 908	I got the K-1 with the 28-105 and the 15-30. Main reason being that 28 on FF might not be wide enough for important parts of my shooting (mainly Carnaval .. ) (for example, on APS I like the ability to go to 16 mm better than 18mm, the only reason I did NOT get me the 16-85 was the arrival of the K-1). So far I have noticed that indeed the 28mm is often not wide enough.. 15-30 is a very lovely lens BUT, it is heavy and bulky an there is no possibility for a filter... (working on that but that might cost me some wide angle mm) The thought of getting me the 24-70 for wider angle, lower f and less bulky than 15-30 and the possibility to add a filter(very usefull for carnaval ( although when you rinse and thoroughly clean your lens each day I have noticed (on other lenses) that water, beer, mayonaise and other dirty stuff does not do much harm to modern lens coatings) is strongly rooted in a small part of my brain.

12-20-2017, 12:00 PM	#27
ronniemac Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Oxford Photos: Albums Posts: 244	The 28-105 lives on my K-1, I am happy with this lens because it gives good photographs and relative to all other D FA zooms, is light as a feather. (which is to say the others are indeed heavy). I have always been tempted by the 24-70, but it's so difficult to justify the extra cost for the advantages that f2.8 offers; shutter speed and softer bokeh. For the extra dosh, I would be looking for other advantages, perhaps even better sharpness wide open and less vignetting and barrel distortion. Its not a well kept secret that the 24-70 is derived from a Tamron lens, and I was interested to see that in June this year Tamron launched the G2 version of their SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD. Logically perhaps a Pentax version of this will eventually replace the current model - it seems to offer more accurate and faster focus, improved coatings, better build and a different lens stabilization configuration (not required in Pentax), but as far as I can gather the optical formula remains the same. It would be interesting to know if any of our non Pentax colleagues have upgraded to the G2, and if so, how these two compare. If the G2 is a noticeable improvement, then I will be happy to wait until it is dressed up in Pentax attire, and for the foreseeable future carry on enjoying the amazing D FA 28-105.

12-20-2017, 07:13 PM	#28
SteveinSLC Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2017 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 568	I can't compare the 24-70, but the 28-105 is great. Image quality is high, and it's light. A perfect choice for hiking and travel. Wish it was a tiny bit wider, but that's about it. Even if were more expensive, it would still be a great choice.

06-04-2018, 09:15 AM - 1 Like	#29
awscreo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,722	I like the 28-105 optically, but my K-1 & 28-105 suffer from shutter shock effect throughout a massive range (1/30 to 1/200), and I see myself upgrading to 24-70 in future just to get rid of that annoying effect.

07-23-2018, 08:49 PM	#30
sylvainp Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2018 Location: Montreal Canada Posts: 48	I had both for a short period of time and I would systematically go for the 24-70mm where I prefer the iq, bokeh, constant aperture, the 24mm instead of 28mm. It's true that stopped down the difference is not that big but my go to kit is the classic 24-70 and 70-200mm. I have another system when hiking or traveling light so the 28-105mm didn't get any use but I was still really impressed by the quality of the lens for the price. I would had kept it otherwise but I will replace it with a 100mm macro wr soon. I'm really impressed by my pentax 24-70mm. I sold my canon 24-70mm f2.8 some time ago and while the canon was a great lens I generally get better results from the pentax (specially wide open on the extremes) while getting a more satisfactory feeling when using it been a solid piece of glass.