[Ray Pulley]

I am returning to the forum after a long Hiatus, and also after having purchased a K-1 MkII.

I have been shooting Pentax for decades, so I have a decent complement of lenses, although most recent acquisitions were APS-C, for the most part, as I was shooting the K3 and the K3II.

I dusted off my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI (insert ridiculously long name remainder here) and have been shooting a bit with it. Most shots have been party pics and casual images with flash, but so far, it seems to hold up to the K-1 pretty well.

I have read the reviews of the Pentax 24-70 f2.8 and the lens seems quite average, at best, especially when one considers the price. I like the idea of the 28-105 (well, except for the variable maximum aperture, which I usually avoid), but reviews on that lens are decidedly mixed from what I have seen.

Has anyone here used the Tamron 28-75 on the K-1? I use this sort of lens as a general, always-on-the-camera lens that is a step up from a basic kit lens. I have a good prime selection for things like macro or landscape.

Thanks for any input.

Ray

[scottDee]

I trialed it out once. I suspect mine had an autofocus problem. Autofocus was fast but not accurate . I also didn't like the very short focus throw for manual focusing. Awkward vignette at 28mm f2.8. If your copy has good autofocus and you use profile corrections, it's a keeper. I was happy with the image quality especially at the longer focal lengths if I remember correctly (not even factoring in how affordable these are). I didn't test corner sharpness. The light weight is nice. Sounds perfect for your uses.

[Ray Pulley]

I trialed it out once. I suspect mine had an autofocus problem. Autofocus was fast but not accurate . I also didn't like the very short focus throw for manual focusing. Awkward vignette at 28mm f2.8. If your copy has good autofocus and you use profile corrections, it's a keeper. I was happy with the image quality especially at the longer focal lengths if I remember correctly (not even factoring in how affordable these are). I didn't test corner sharpness. The light weight is nice. Sounds perfect for your uses.

Thanks for the reply. I have not shot extensively with it or tested it on the K-1.

It is a screw drive AF, and it hunts a bit and struggles to lock in lower light. I do not MF with it at all, so I cannot comment about that. I did setup the lens align and tweaked the focus tune a bit. It did not need much. So far, the images seem sharp enough.

Ray

[termy]

i do use this Tammy lens quite regularly on my K-1.
Love the output.
Here is an example.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[i_trax]

Tamron SP 28-75 2.8 Macro A09 | Flickr
some photos

[scottDee]

Thanks for the reply. I have not shot extensively with it or tested it on the K-1.

It is a screw drive AF, and it hunts a bit and struggles to lock in lower light. I do not MF with it at all, so I cannot comment about that. I did setup the lens align and tweaked the focus tune a bit. It did not need much. So far, the images seem sharp enough.

Ray

As far as the focusing in low light, you might try it on single center point AF and Auto 9 point. I've had some lenses work significantly better on one setting over the other.

[grog85361]

I used this lens on my K-1. I am quite pleased with it.

[ventaxian]

I am very pleased with the tamron on my K-1. It is sharper than my 28-105 pentax lens.
Cheers, Ron

[wanderer2]

I am returning to the forum after a long Hiatus, and also after having purchased a K-1 MkII.

I have been shooting Pentax for decades, so I have a decent complement of lenses, although most recent acquisitions were APS-C, for the most part, as I was shooting the K3 and the K3II.

I dusted off my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 DI (insert ridiculously long name remainder here) and have been shooting a bit with it. Most shots have been party pics and casual images with flash, but so far, it seems to hold up to the K-1 pretty well.

I have read the reviews of the Pentax 24-70 f2.8 and the lens seems quite average, at best, especially when one considers the price. I like the idea of the 28-105 (well, except for the variable maximum aperture, which I usually avoid), but reviews on that lens are decidedly mixed from what I have seen.

Has anyone here used the Tamron 28-75 on the K-1? I use this sort of lens as a general, always-on-the-camera lens that is a step up from a basic kit lens. I have a good prime selection for things like macro or landscape.

Thanks for any input.

Ray

When I purchased my K-1 not long after it's introduction I purchased Tamron 28-75 and 70-200 lenses because of monetary issues. I have gradually added prime lenses since then. The great majority of my K-1 use is for landscapes and I prefer primes for that. However, I have consistently found the two Tamrons to be very useful and never sold them, as was my original plan. For a given landscape I usually prefer my FA 77 over either Tamron at 75mm, for example. However, the results with the zooms are very acceptable. I have been pleasantly surprised at the macro results I have gotten with the 28-75. I would suggest giving the 28-75 a thorough trial on your K-1 before making a change, if you do decide to do so. Hope this is of some help.

[universalfocus]

I bought that one and the 70-200mm 2.8 for my K-5 to got some basics in case I can buy a full frame camera. It was good on the K-5 which only used it´s middle part, but it´s an average lens on the K-1. It´s a good lens from 50mm onwards and usable for portraits, but for landscape I prefer an old manual Tokina 24 mm over it, because the edges on the tamron are far from sharp and the contrast isn´t very good either.


Tamron 28-75 at 28mm:

http://fav.me/dcberhe

Tokina 24mm :

http://fav.me/ddlczla

Both images are heavily postworked, but at the first image it was an "just try to make something out of it" approach, while the second was "it´s already good, but could still be a bit better".

I´m really thinking about getting the Pentax DFA 28mm-105mm, because it has the reputation of being very sharp and having rich contrast. Also the weather sealing and greater range are advantages.

[Ray Pulley]

Tamron SP 28-75 2.8 Macro A09 | Flickr
some photos

Thanks for the link. The lens certainly seems to deliver very reasonable results for general use. Frankly, considering the price these sell for and the fact that they are much smaller and lighter than the other f2.8 options, I can't see why anyone would buy the Pentax 24-70 or 28-105 unless you really needed the extra 24mm on the wide end or the extra 30mm on the long end.

I tend to be a bit of a purist and favor IQ over most other factors, and while I have been (and still am to some degree) tempted by the 28-105 for an all-rounder, the reviews and many images I have looked at are just not very good at the edges.

The 24-70 is better, but the IQ is not in line with it's price in my book. It does cost a lot less than the Canon/Nikon similar lenses, but still not a great value proposition in my opinion. It is also quite large.

I do think Pentax could design a great 24 or 28-70, as the FA* 28-70 of the film era was an exceptional lens for it's time. However, in the face of a declining market, they are not likely to do so. They have the typical wedding set (24/28-70 f2.8, 70/80-200 f2.8) covered, and designing a better 24-70 would not bring new sales.

Ray

---------- Post added 12-26-19 at 06:59 AM ----------

i do use this Tammy lens quite regularly on my K-1.
Love the output.
Here is an example.

A cat photo. Love it!

The transition to the background is quite smooth in that shot.

Ray

[Serkevan]

Eh, I have the 28-105. Really can't complain about the sharpness. The WR is a very welcome addition (this is just after the day cleared a bit).

[Lowell Goudge]

I’ve shot the Tammy since my K10. It had focusnissues on my *istD wapp here it would focus sharp then back off and be blurry. It was fine in the K10D didn’t play well on the K7 except with flash, and was fine in K5.

It is a great lens on the K1. It was meant for full frame.

I use it more now on the proper format.

One thing to note mine has an exposure problem, wide open it is half a stop under exposed and at f32 it over exposes by about 1/2 stop. The change is quite linear over the whole aperture range

[Snapppy]

That was my only autofocus lens for the K-1 for a while. As you can see, as with most lenses, it's mixed how much people like it. Good thing is you already own it so you can be the best judge of it

I thought it was plenty sharp in the center of the frame wide open, but (to be that dramatic and overly picky photographer) 'totally' unusable wide open when you needed the edges of the frame too. Of course that's typical lens behavior, but for some reason I felt it was way more than other lenses I have tried. In those sitations where I wanted corner sharpness and to utilize that open aperture, it just didn't deliver for me like other lenses. So, that was my main beef with it and why I sold it. You can see if that's the same for you or even matters for your style of shooting. I did think it was very versatile with that constant aperture and zoom range.

I even used it on my K1000 for some portraits and it was very nice

Happy snappin'.

[Ray Pulley]

Eh, I have the 28-105. Really can't complain about the sharpness. The WR is a very welcome addition (this is just after the day cleared a bit).

Yes, I am still tempted by the 28-105 for the extra reach and WR feature. I have seen images from the 28-105 that look pretty good and others that clearly have noticeably soft edges.

I do not mind soft edges for portraits that do not have a group of people as the subject as it is pretty much how human vision works anyway when we focus on a subject at a closer distance. The DA 15 is a bit like this, and as we know it has produced some excellent images and quite a cult following (yes, I own one).

Generally speaking I feel that Landscapes need to be as sharp as possible over the width of the frame. I shot a lot with the DA* 16-50 on APS and at the wide end, especially at wider apertures, it had a fair amount of distortion at the edges and was soft out there as well. The two were probably related.

If I follow my long term pattern, I will probably buy the 28-105 AND keep the 28-75. To borrow an acronym coined by a former Pentaxian on the other forums, I have consistently suffered from LBA over the years, an affliction I have not found a cure for...

Ray