[snpsht]

Ok....I am looking for a good WR generalist zoom for my new K-1.

I prefer primes and have the three amigos, a 50 or two that'll be fine on the K-1, the Tamron 90 macro, and the smc 135 2.5.

Nothing WR in my FF line-up as yet, though, and need to rectify that. I like the DA* 50-135's versatility and WR on my K-3, but prefer a wider FoV for landscapes, architecture etc.

I am starting to realise I also enjoy street photography, but I think my lovely little FA43 might be my first choice for that, as it is so nice on the K-1.

So do I go for 24-70mm and not worry about having a zoom that covers off what I already have covered by primes?

Am I focusing too much on the wide end?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

[pathdoc]

If I were going to buy any ONE new, currently-existing D-FA lens for the K-1 (when I get it), it would be the 28-105. Maximum punch for the money in terms of FL range, WR, pics I've seen are pretty spectacular at their best.

The D-FA 24-70 - especially what I've seen of it in Rondec's hands - is certainly the more spectacular lens, and would cover your wide end, but the cost is $$$$$$ more and I can't justify that to myself.

(I'm not concerned about overlap of primes and zooms because I have separate philosophies of use for both. The primes are for when I have a specific task in mind and can move about to suit the shot, or when compactness is the order of the day; the zooms are for when I need ultimate flexibility where I stand, in the immediacy of the moment. I took an 18-250 and a 50mm prime on our last family holiday (I added a 28mm SMC Tak on the trip) and all found their niche at one time or another.

[VoiceOfReason]

I may eventually add the DFA 24-70 to my lineup since the DA*60-250 is supposed to be FF compatible and the DFA 150-450 certainly is, but if I had no WR I'd likely get the 28-105 as a good WR walk around.

[G and T]

I bought a D FA 24-70 especially to use with my K1 with the thought that the 28-105 would be closer to the DA 18-135 which I used as my WR lens with my APSC bodies and was a little underwhelmed with it. I can tell you that the 24-70 doesn't disappoint , its focusing is fast , decisive and oh so quiet and the IQ is phenomenal for a zoom. I was initally disappointed with it because of its size and weight and it does focus breathe, but when I saw what it could out-put and the confidence its focusing inspires I forgave it its faults. It's good on APSC but it's even better on its native format.

Glenn

[robjmitchell]

You have enough fast primes that you don't need a 24-70/2.8 unless you are into event shooting. I would go the 28-105 as a versatile WR travel lens. Of course a lot of people would like something wider than 28, for which there is cheap (samyang 14 and 24) or expensive (15-30/2.8) options available now plus more on the road map.

[snpsht]

Thanks - you have all given me different things to think about.

Gut goes strongly with the 24-70 after seeing some shots from it on the K-1, as it does go wider than I currently have and covers all of my most liked range, but it IS expensive.

I'll have to do some research on the 28-105, but I didn't enjoy the 18-135 on APSC and so am a bit hesitant to go for a similar range on FF.

The Australian launch is next week and they'll have the lenses there to handle and try on the K-1, so it might be worth the trip to Sydney to help decide.