Pentax 24-70 vs 28-105

**K(s)evin** · 07-26-2018, 01:29 AM

I had the K-1 with the 24-70 together for a few months exclusively. Great lens, still own it. It just got to be heavy. I had read several glowing reviews and references here on the forum about the 28-105. Picked one up second hand in the marketplace. It is much smaller (size and weight) than the 24-70. Makes hauling the K-1 much more enjoyable. Plus, the images with the 28-105 have been great! The K-1 is a remarkable camera and delivers great images, independent of almost any lens you attach to it.

bass3587 · 07-28-2018, 02:08 PM

It's on my list of lenses to try if I get the K-1

Brumtaffy · 07-29-2018, 12:20 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Gyroscope

I think both of these lenses are available now so hopefully someone has had a chance to test both. The 28-105 seems a little old fashioned, slow and consumer oriented but is not really that cheap - is it a high quality lens? And by that I mean will it be as sharp and good quality as the 24-70 at apertures between f8 & f16 for landscape photography purposes?

I have almost made up my mind to get a K-1 as backup and complimentary body to my 645z but need to decide on a suitable lens. Maybe the 28-105 might better suit my purposes but there is not much info out there about it yet.

I do love my 24-70 D FA, but I must confess I had lost the plot with respect to WR vs. AW and took this one (WR) plus my 70-200 D FA* AW out into the Skye rain last March. Result - had to put my 24-70 in a bag with dried rice to dry it out... Pentax: when you make a landscape lens, make it AW... every time

**mhsp1948** · 08-10-2020, 07:03 PM - **2 Likes**

I love my 28-105mm and use it more now than my 24-70mm. Here are three photos and the first two are wide open at 28mm and the last one is 105mm

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

View Picture EXIF

lesmore49 · 08-10-2020, 11:37 PM - **2 Likes**

I have both lenses. I like both of 'em.

The 24-70 is heavier and faster @ F 2.8, the 28-105 lighter and cheaper. Both are good, but I prefer the 24-70 due, mostly to the F 2.8.

**gaweidert** · 08-15-2020, 10:30 AM - **2 Likes**

My K1 was an impulse purchase while on my way to Yellowstone in June 2016. Since I had no FF zoom with me in the lower ranges a I got the D FA 28-105 lens to go with it. I have not regretted that decision at all. My K1 and 28-105 lens suffers from shutter shock but my K1-II with that same lens does not so I cannot justify spending almost $1,300 USD on the D FA 24-70.

During my almost annual trips to Yellowstone the D FA 28-105 and D FA 150-450 lenses are the most used.

This from last Autumn. A black walnut tree in my yard.

**RICHARD L.** · 09-02-2020, 05:21 AM - **1 Like**

**mirocal** · 09-22-2020, 10:28 AM - **1 Like**

DFA 28-105mm, while excellent optically on K1II, is an air pump. I often shoot in rainy (think Napali, Kauai) or dusty (like Mount Rainier volcano) conditions, and zooming out sucks in efficiently water and dust. After having the K1 serviced for internal corrosion, and having to clean the sensor way too often, I switched to using in the field a combo of FA 20-35/4 and DFA 70-210/4. The wide angle is not waterproof but its zooming volume displacement is minimal, while the tele zoom is exceptionally well sealed with internal zoom and focus. Now the DFA 28-105 is relegated to standard travel lens.

**clackers** · 09-23-2020, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by mirocal

DFA 28-105mm, while excellent optically on K1II, is an air pump. I often shoot in rainy (think Napali, Kauai) or dusty (like Mount Rainier volcano) conditions, and zooming out sucks in efficiently water and dust. After having the K1 serviced for internal corrosion, and having to clean the sensor way too often, I switched to using in the field a combo of FA 20-35/4 and DFA 70-210/4. The wide angle is not waterproof but its zooming volume displacement is minimal, while the tele zoom is exceptionally well sealed with internal zoom and focus. Now the DFA 28-105 is relegated to standard travel lens.

I have the 20-35, Mirocal, and there just is no gasket at all on it. My opinion, use the DFA28-105 in rainy/dusty conditions!

**RobA_Oz** · 09-23-2020, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by mirocal

DFA 28-105mm, while excellent optically on K1II, is an air pump. I often shoot in rainy (think Napali, Kauai) or dusty (like Mount Rainier volcano) conditions, and zooming out sucks in efficiently water and dust. After having the K1 serviced for internal corrosion, and having to clean the sensor way too often, I switched to using in the field a combo of FA 20-35/4 and DFA 70-210/4. The wide angle is not waterproof but its zooming volume displacement is minimal, while the tele zoom is exceptionally well sealed with internal zoom and focus. Now the DFA 28-105 is relegated to standard travel lens.

Interesting observation. Having a lens purported to be weather-sealed or something like it tends to make one perhaps over-confident in the absolute truth of the description. Thinking about the body-lens combination (which I have), if the seals on the lens are good, zooming in and out should displace air drawn from (/through) the body, which is also sealed. Nature abhoring a vacuum means that there must be a vent somewhere, putting aside the possibility of the air resulting displacement simply lowering and raising the air pressure in the assembly. Have to think further on that one.

**clackers** · 09-23-2020, 06:31 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

Interesting observation. Having a lens purported to be weather-sealed or something like it tends to make one perhaps over-confident in the absolute truth of the description. Thinking about the body-lens combination (which I have), if the seals on the lens are good, zooming in and out should displace air drawn from (/through) the body, which is also sealed. Nature abhoring a vacuum means that there must be a vent somewhere, putting aside the possibility of the air resulting displacement simply lowering and raising the air pressure in the assembly. Have to think further on that one.

A lens that changes its length can never be airtight. Change focal length when under cover or surrounded by your jacket or whatever, that's just a shooting skill.

A lens like the DA*50-135 doesn't change its length, so that's more rugged, but on the other hand, all such lenses suffer from more focus breathing, too. Only at infinity do you enjoy the whole focal length.

**RobA_Oz** · 09-23-2020, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by clackers

A lens that changes its length can never be airtight. Change focal length when under cover or surrounded by your jacket or whatever, that's just a shooting skill.

A lens like the DA*50-135 doesn't change its length, so that's more rugged, but on the other hand, all such lenses suffer from more focus breathing, too. Only at infinity do you enjoy the whole focal length.

The amount of air displaced won’t necessarily be so big, anyway, depending on how far you zoom and if it’s drawn through the body, there aren’t many places where there aren’t seals – water wouldn’t be as much of an issue as fine dust, or maybe aerosols but they don’t contain a lot of liquid. Fortunately, dust isn’t often an issue where I live, but I take your advice.

**clackers** · 09-23-2020, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

The amount of air displaced won’t necessarily be so big, anyway, depending on how far you zoom and if it’s drawn through the body, there aren’t many places where there aren’t seals – water wouldn’t be as much of an issue as fine dust, or maybe aerosols but they don’t contain a lot of liquid. Fortunately, dust isn’t often an issue where I live, but I take your advice.

Yeah, but it actually sucks air/water in from the surrounds, which Mirocal found to be a problem. I also have the DFA 100mm Macro and DA 55-300 PLM, both WR rated but they extend outwards a lot - neither are air tight. Again shows the difference between 'weather resistant' and 'waterproof' (which Pentax never claim).

MegaPower · 09-24-2020, 08:13 PM

I will take 24-70 as 24 is more useful than 105 for me.

TerryL · 09-28-2020, 01:13 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by MegaPower

I will take 24-70 as 24 is more useful than 105 for me.

Same here.

09-02-2020, 05:21 AM - 1 Like	#37
RICHARD L. Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Location: Quebec City, Quebec Posts: 6,565	I have the DFA 28-105 mm HD and don't feel limited by it on a K1.

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

07-26-2018, 01:29 AM	#31
K(s)evin Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 476	I had the K-1 with the 24-70 together for a few months exclusively. Great lens, still own it. It just got to be heavy. I had read several glowing reviews and references here on the forum about the 28-105. Picked one up second hand in the marketplace. It is much smaller (size and weight) than the 24-70. Makes hauling the K-1 much more enjoyable. Plus, the images with the 28-105 have been great! The K-1 is a remarkable camera and delivers great images, independent of almost any lens you attach to it.

07-28-2018, 02:08 PM	#32
bass3587 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 517	It's on my list of lenses to try if I get the K-1

07-29-2018, 12:20 PM - 1 Like	#33
Brumtaffy Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2017 Photos: Gallery Posts: 73	Originally posted by Gyroscope I think both of these lenses are available now so hopefully someone has had a chance to test both. The 28-105 seems a little old fashioned, slow and consumer oriented but is not really that cheap - is it a high quality lens? And by that I mean will it be as sharp and good quality as the 24-70 at apertures between f8 & f16 for landscape photography purposes? I have almost made up my mind to get a K-1 as backup and complimentary body to my 645z but need to decide on a suitable lens. Maybe the 28-105 might better suit my purposes but there is not much info out there about it yet. I do love my 24-70 D FA, but I must confess I had lost the plot with respect to WR vs. AW and took this one (WR) plus my 70-200 D FA* AW out into the Skye rain last March. Result - had to put my 24-70 in a bag with dried rice to dry it out... Pentax: when you make a landscape lens, make it AW... every time

08-10-2020, 11:37 PM - 2 Likes	#35
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,325	I have both lenses. I like both of 'em. The 24-70 is heavier and faster @ F 2.8, the 28-105 lighter and cheaper. Both are good, but I prefer the 24-70 due, mostly to the F 2.8.

09-22-2020, 10:28 AM - 1 Like	#38
mirocal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Washington, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 85	DFA 28-105mm, while excellent optically on K1II, is an air pump. I often shoot in rainy (think Napali, Kauai) or dusty (like Mount Rainier volcano) conditions, and zooming out sucks in efficiently water and dust. After having the K1 serviced for internal corrosion, and having to clean the sensor way too often, I switched to using in the field a combo of FA 20-35/4 and DFA 70-210/4. The wide angle is not waterproof but its zooming volume displacement is minimal, while the tele zoom is exceptionally well sealed with internal zoom and focus. Now the DFA 28-105 is relegated to standard travel lens.

09-23-2020, 04:30 PM	#39
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by mirocal DFA 28-105mm, while excellent optically on K1II, is an air pump. I often shoot in rainy (think Napali, Kauai) or dusty (like Mount Rainier volcano) conditions, and zooming out sucks in efficiently water and dust. After having the K1 serviced for internal corrosion, and having to clean the sensor way too often, I switched to using in the field a combo of FA 20-35/4 and DFA 70-210/4. The wide angle is not waterproof but its zooming volume displacement is minimal, while the tele zoom is exceptionally well sealed with internal zoom and focus. Now the DFA 28-105 is relegated to standard travel lens. I have the 20-35, Mirocal, and there just is no gasket at all on it. My opinion, use the DFA28-105 in rainy/dusty conditions!

09-23-2020, 05:14 PM	#40
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,191	Originally posted by mirocal DFA 28-105mm, while excellent optically on K1II, is an air pump. I often shoot in rainy (think Napali, Kauai) or dusty (like Mount Rainier volcano) conditions, and zooming out sucks in efficiently water and dust. After having the K1 serviced for internal corrosion, and having to clean the sensor way too often, I switched to using in the field a combo of FA 20-35/4 and DFA 70-210/4. The wide angle is not waterproof but its zooming volume displacement is minimal, while the tele zoom is exceptionally well sealed with internal zoom and focus. Now the DFA 28-105 is relegated to standard travel lens. Interesting observation. Having a lens purported to be weather-sealed or something like it tends to make one perhaps over-confident in the absolute truth of the description. Thinking about the body-lens combination (which I have), if the seals on the lens are good, zooming in and out should displace air drawn from (/through) the body, which is also sealed. Nature abhoring a vacuum means that there must be a vent somewhere, putting aside the possibility of the air resulting displacement simply lowering and raising the air pressure in the assembly. Have to think further on that one.

09-23-2020, 06:31 PM - 1 Like	#41
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by RobA_Oz Interesting observation. Having a lens purported to be weather-sealed or something like it tends to make one perhaps over-confident in the absolute truth of the description. Thinking about the body-lens combination (which I have), if the seals on the lens are good, zooming in and out should displace air drawn from (/through) the body, which is also sealed. Nature abhoring a vacuum means that there must be a vent somewhere, putting aside the possibility of the air resulting displacement simply lowering and raising the air pressure in the assembly. Have to think further on that one. A lens that changes its length can never be airtight. Change focal length when under cover or surrounded by your jacket or whatever, that's just a shooting skill. A lens like the DA*50-135 doesn't change its length, so that's more rugged, but on the other hand, all such lenses suffer from more focus breathing, too. Only at infinity do you enjoy the whole focal length.

09-23-2020, 09:10 PM	#42
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,191	Originally posted by clackers A lens that changes its length can never be airtight. Change focal length when under cover or surrounded by your jacket or whatever, that's just a shooting skill. A lens like the DA*50-135 doesn't change its length, so that's more rugged, but on the other hand, all such lenses suffer from more focus breathing, too. Only at infinity do you enjoy the whole focal length. The amount of air displaced won’t necessarily be so big, anyway, depending on how far you zoom and if it’s drawn through the body, there aren’t many places where there aren’t seals – water wouldn’t be as much of an issue as fine dust, or maybe aerosols but they don’t contain a lot of liquid. Fortunately, dust isn’t often an issue where I live, but I take your advice.

09-23-2020, 11:00 PM	#43
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by RobA_Oz The amount of air displaced won’t necessarily be so big, anyway, depending on how far you zoom and if it’s drawn through the body, there aren’t many places where there aren’t seals – water wouldn’t be as much of an issue as fine dust, or maybe aerosols but they don’t contain a lot of liquid. Fortunately, dust isn’t often an issue where I live, but I take your advice. Yeah, but it actually sucks air/water in from the surrounds, which Mirocal found to be a problem. I also have the DFA 100mm Macro and DA 55-300 PLM, both WR rated but they extend outwards a lot - neither are air tight. Again shows the difference between 'weather resistant' and 'waterproof' (which Pentax never claim).

09-24-2020, 08:13 PM	#44
MegaPower Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Hong Kong / Irvine, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 636	I will take 24-70 as 24 is more useful than 105 for me.

09-28-2020, 01:13 PM - 1 Like	#45
TerryL Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2018 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 850	Originally posted by MegaPower I will take 24-70 as 24 is more useful than 105 for me. Same here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search