[JimJohnson]

It would definitely be better, but I somehow don't miss 24 as much as I thought... when 28 isn't wide enough, normally the 20mm is needed already . I'm actually happy they didn't force 24, if the price would be optical compromises or a significantly heavier weight.

Agreed.

When I picked up a used K-1 I went with the DFA 28-105 as my primary lens [hoping it turns out to be as good and useful in the long run as the DA 18-135 on my K-3]. I can't afford the DFA lenses above and below the 28-105 range, so I filled in with a F 20-35 and a Sigma APO DG 70-300. I really like having the small overlap on focal lengths. It often allows me to keep shooting with my current lens rather than stopping to swap at the junction point.

I have other good glass with primes, but when push comes to shove for space in my bag, 20-300 in only three decent lenses is a great compromise.

[5ks]

Apparently one has to ask him/herself, what is the main purpose of any lens to be purchased. Only then can the specs be rated good (suitable) or bad (unsuitable).

Here we discuss a general purpose zoom - right? Whatever you expect from it, it's a game of compromises. It starts with kit lenses that are very cheap but may lack the best sharpness, reach and/or large aperture. Adding more to the price, you'll get more e.g. optical quality and wider aperture, up to DFA 24-70.

So DFA 28-105 is a compromise, and I find it a very good example of a successful compromise. Yes, it starts from 28 (not 24), and has no constant aperture, being kind of slow especially in the long end. But the zoom reach is still quite reasonable for walk-around usage. It's well built and compact in size and weight, having also has DC auto focus (good enough for me) and WR. Not bad for a compromise.

Let me compare this to APS-C lenses. I have used the "classic" kit lens DA 18-55 II /WR (very good in its class), DA 16-45, DA 17-70 and finally DA 16-85, which I rate the best of these. All are good, though, but of course all of these are also kind of compromise lenses with at least some characteristic not quite ideal.

Now I find DA 16-85 for APS-C and DFA 28-105 for FF like close cousins. They are very much alike considering the overall usability and optical quality. The reach of DA 16-85 is better (~5x), resulting in bigger size. So DFA 28-105 looses in reach (~3x) but wins in compactness. There's a difference, yes. Both are still very good and suitable for their purpose. Should you want to add something like more reach or wider aperture - you lose in size and price. But for me, this level of compromise is pretty close to perfect. I have them both and I use them both a lot (while shooting both FF and APS-C).

[MXLX]

I wonder how the DFA 28-105 compares to the tamron 28-75 2.8. I got a good deal on the tamron, you may be able to as well.

Bumping the discussion; I'd wonder about the same comparison.

[mbukal]

if an f2.8 aperture is needed for any reason then Tamron is irreplaceable, I have a Tokina ATX 28-70 / 2.8 and a Pentax DFA28-105 / 3.5-5.6 and I only use a Tokina when I am limited by aperture, for everything else Pentax DFA 28-105 / 3.5-5.6 is better for "all in one where I used Tokina before"

[mikesbike]

Bumping the discussion; I'd wonder about the same comparison.

I have my olde but goodie Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 ATX Pro II which is great, but I still got the FDA 28-105mm prepackaged kit lens with my K-1 II. I only use the much heavier fast zoom lens when I will need that faster aperture, otherwise, I take the DFA 28-105mm for its WR (which makes a lot of sense with this fine WR camera), greater zoom range, lighter weight, fine imaging, and quiet AF.

[robgski]

I have a very nice SMC Pentax-FA 24-90mm F3.5-4.5 AL [IF]

Great lens, I travelled extensively using only that lens on my K-1, and I was very pleased with the results.

[OldChE]

Great lens, I travelled extensively using only that lens on my K-1, and I was very pleased with the results.

Now that I've had the K-1M2 and the 28-105 for a while, I'm quite glad I was convinced (by discussion in this thread) to get the 28-105 when I purchased the camera (and the grip too). The lens is indeed as good and as useful as people suggested, and I use it most of the time on my K-1M2, just as I've used the 18-135 on my K-70. Of course, I got the three FA Limited lenses recently, so for the past week or so I've had only them on my K-1M2 and the K-70.

I've not used the 24-90 much. I'm going to give it a good trial on the K-1M2 as well.

---------- Post added 04-03-22 at 12:35 PM ----------

Agreed.

When I picked up a used K-1 I went with the DFA 28-105 as my primary lens [hoping it turns out to be as good and useful in the long run as the DA 18-135 on my K-3]. I can't afford the DFA lenses above and below the 28-105 range, so I filled in with a F 20-35 and a Sigma APO DG 70-300. I really like having the small overlap on focal lengths. It often allows me to keep shooting with my current lens rather than stopping to swap at the junction point.

I have other good glass with primes, but when push comes to shove for space in my bag, 20-300 in only three decent lenses is a great compromise.

Thanks for this comment. I'm going to check out those other two lenses too. I have that Sigma -y II MF 21-35mm F/3.5-4.2, which I intended for my wide angle zoom on the K-1, but it would be nice to have AF. I have two Tamron AF lenses, an 80-210 and a 70-300, which are OK for a longer zoom, though they do have a bit of CA.