[Kingman]

Upon release my K1 was purchased with the D FA 24-70/2.8. I since purchased the D FA28-105 and love it because of it's less weight, but the best combination I love with the K1 is the FA77/1.8 Limited or the FA*85/1.4.

[TwoUptons]

I postponed buying the DFA 28-105 because I was saving pennies for the announced 70-200 f4 and I already had a FA 28-105 PZ.
Of course, the 70-200 has not come yet, and I was very disappointed in my results from a recent trip abroad (turns out there's some haze in the FA that didn't used to be there).

And then a copy of the DFA came up in the marketplace...

I shouldn't have waited... it's a really good lens. The fact that it won't work on my film bodies pales in comparison in the improvement in image quality.
And faster focus and WR are a well-appreciated bonus.

-Eric

[Kingman]

I postponed buying the DFA 28-105 because I was saving pennies for the announced 70-200 f4 and I already had a FA 28-105 PZ.
Of course, the 70-200 has not come yet, and I was very disappointed in my results from a recent trip abroad (turns out there's some haze in the FA that didn't used to be there).

And then a copy of the DFA came up in the marketplace...

I shouldn't have waited... it's a really good lens. The fact that it won't work on my film bodies pales in comparison in the improvement in image quality.
And faster focus and WR are a well-appreciated bonus.

-Eric

Yes, the D FA*70-200/2.8 is a very nice .While it’s a bit heavy the IQ is awesome, a f4.0 would be less of a pain after a full day of shooting.

[sculptor666]

the answer is the best lens you can afford.

[Walkingwolf]

So much support for the DFA 28-105, now I have a question...
If auto focus and weather sealing are NOT factors, then does this lens produce better results compared to the old A35-105? The A35-105 f3.5 has been touted as a stack of primes by many- so is the 28-105 only better in its coating and slight wider angle?
I have really enjoyed my A35-105 and am uncertain if I’d gain much by buying the DFA. Any advise would be appreciated. Thank you.
Sorry if I’m hijacking this thread but I thought the subject would be relevant.

[TwoUptons]

So much support for the DFA 28-105, now I have a question...
If auto focus and weather sealing are NOT factors, then does this lens produce better results compared to the old A35-105? The A35-105 f3.5 has been touted as a stack of primes by many- so is the 28-105 only better in its coating and slight wider angle?
I have really enjoyed my A35-105 and am uncertain if I’d gain much by buying the DFA. Any advise would be appreciated. Thank you.
Sorry if I’m hijacking this thread but I thought the subject would be relevant.

One of the reasons I don’t have the 35-105 is that I really like having a wide end as wide as possible...

But the 28-105 does pretty well in the context of older primes. It’s obviously nowhere near as fast, but apart from a little more distortion, at f5.6 there isn’t a huge gap.

Edit: I went and shot the DFA 28-105 against my 28mm primes. I have a 28mm f2.8 Vivitar in TX mount, SMC-A 28mm f2.8, and Super-Tak 28mm f3.5 (I forgot to shoot with my Super Lentar, but no great loss, its name and funky bokeh are the only real super things about it...). I used hoods.
The Vivitar is smeary wide open, especially in the corners, and has a low-contrast look, almost a haze about it, that won't go away. In terms of absolute resolution, it's not bad at f5.6 and f8, but it isn't up to the others.
I'm really impressed at the consistency in look from nearly 60 years of Pentax with the other three... at f5.6 I would never be able to tell the difference on a real photo without the Exif.
That said, the SMC-A, which is not highly regarded, holds its own with the Super-Tak, and the extra third of a stop doesn't cost it any quality compared to the Super-Tak at f3.5.
I'm not sure if that says more about the Super-Tak, since it is over 50 years old, or about the SMC-A, since it seems to be a "meh" lens in the reviews.
And the DFA 28-105 is a little worse, maybe, at f3.5 in the center, but better in the corners... that's a hard call... it's a very good lens.

-Eric

[Walkingwolf]

One of the reasons I don’t have the 35-105 is that I really like having a wide end as wide as possible...

But the 28-105 does pretty well in the context of older primes. It’s obviously nowhere near as fast, but apart from a little more distortion, at f5.6 there isn’t a huge gap.

Edit: I went and shot the DFA 28-105 against my 28mm primes. I have a 28mm f2.8 Vivitar in TX mount, SMC-A 28mm f2.8, and Super-Tak 28mm f3.5 (I forgot to shoot with my Super Lentar, but no great loss, its name and funky bokeh are the only real super things about it...). I used hoods.
The Vivitar is smeary wide open, especially in the corners, and has a low-contrast look, almost a haze about it, that won't go away. In terms of absolute resolution, it's not bad at f5.6 and f8, but it isn't up to the others.
I'm really impressed at the consistency in look from nearly 60 years of Pentax with the other three... at f5.6 I would never be able to tell the difference on a real photo without the Exif.
That said, the SMC-A, which is not highly regarded, holds its own with the Super-Tak, and the extra third of a stop doesn't cost it any quality compared to the Super-Tak at f3.5.
I'm not sure if that says more about the Super-Tak, since it is over 50 years old, or about the SMC-A, since it seems to be a "meh" lens in the reviews.
And the DFA 28-105 is a little worse, maybe, at f3.5 in the center, but better in the corners... that's a hard call... it's a very good lens.

-Eric

Thank you for your answer- I guess then that I will stick with my A35-105 f3.5, as it sounds like its results would be very similar.