[normhead]

I hardly ever use the battery grip on my K-1. Personally, I would save the money for another lens.

I would agree with Norm that the DA* 55/1.4 is probably the best relatively cheap fast fifty for the K-1. In my experience it is not *quite* perfectly FF compatible, but in practice it's as near as dammit. Interestingly, I don't find the hood makes any noticeable difference.

Even my third party lens hood gets in the way if I don' have it adjusted just right. My wife wants to know why I just said "Huh?"

[Kevin B123]

It looks like the DFA 28-105 is typically $400 incremental more when bought with the body - is that a good deal?

That sounds reasonable to me. I would add, that as your likely most used lens the cost amortised over the next few years will look small.

I forget what I paid for my 18-135 back in 2013, but is still a cracking good everyday lens when I use it and I've tens of thousands of shots with it. The 28-105 is in the same category. You won't regret it.

[stevebrot]

It looks like the DFA 28-105 is typically $400 incremental more when bought with the body - is that a good deal?

Street price in the U.S. is about $496.99 USD, which is very competitive pricing IMHO.

Street price of the K-1ii body only: $1796.95 USD

Street price of a K-1ii/D FA 18-105 bundle: $2196.95 ($400 more than body only)

So buying bundle saves $96.99.


Steve

[Walkingwolf]

Well I’ve followed this thread with great interest, originally feeling sure I’d stick with my A35-105 f3.5 - the one described as “a stack of primes”. Now I’m not so sure. Is the DFA28-105 optically that much better? I know, my 35-105 has no AF, no recent coatings, no weather sealing, etc., BUT, isn’t it as good optically? I was at peace with my decision till I read this thread- now you have all got me thinking....

[OldChE]

Well I’ve followed this thread with great interest, originally feeling sure I’d stick with my A35-105 f3.5 - the one described as “a stack of primes”. Now I’m not so sure. Is the DFA28-105 optically that much better? I know, my 35-105 has no AF, no recent coatings, no weather sealing, etc., BUT, isn’t it as good optically? I was at peace with my decision till I read this thread- now you have all got me thinking....

I have the SMC Pentax-F Zoom 1:4-5.6 35-105mm (1988), is that similar to your A 35-105? It is a very nice lens.

---------- Post added 02-18-21 at 12:25 AM ----------

Everyone - thanks very much for the advice! Now I just have to wait to see what my funding situation looks like.

[normhead]

Well I’ve followed this thread with great interest, originally feeling sure I’d stick with my A35-105 f3.5 - the one described as “a stack of primes”. Now I’m not so sure. Is the DFA28-105 optically that much better? I know, my 35-105 has no AF, no recent coatings, no weather sealing, etc., BUT, isn’t it as good optically? I was at peace with my decision till I read this thread- now you have all got me thinking....

The one place you can be sure it's better is 28-35mm.... that's a lens change waiting to happen.

[RICHARD L.]

The DFA 28-105 mm HD is the best zoom lens for landscape photography !

---

Last edited by RICHARD L.; 04-21-2021 at 02:30 PM.

[normhead]

The DFA 28-105 mm HD is the best zoom lens for landscape photography !

I tend to agree.

When I cruise the park, I have the K-3 set up for wildlife and birds, and the K-1 with the 28-105 for landscape.

[OldChE]

The DFA 28-105 mm HD is the best zoom lens for landscape photography !

Wow! Great pics, thanks for the examples.

---------- Post added 02-18-21 at 10:03 AM ----------

I tend to agree.

When I cruise the park, I have the K-3 set up for wildlife and birds, and the K-1 with the 28-105 for landscape.

Also thanks for these pics, beautiful.

[Walkingwolf]

I have the SMC Pentax-F Zoom 1:4-5.6 35-105mm (1988), is that similar to your A 35-105? It is a very nice lens.

---------- Post added 02-18-21 at 12:25 AM ----------

Everyone - thanks very much for the advice! Now I just have to wait to see what my funding situation looks like.

Sorry I can’t answer your question as I haven’t any experience with the F version, but one difference that I do know is that the A version has constant f3.5 aperture.

---------- Post added 02-18-21 at 07:45 PM ----------

The one place you can be sure it's better is 28-35mm.... that's a lens change waiting to happen.

Yeah, I know I would appreciate those extra 7 mm! Many a time I wished for a little extra width. Any thoughts on the optical difference, if any? Thanks.

[dbs]

Hi Wolf

My copy of the F 35 - 105 is ok but I suspect the new one is better.( only have a K5 ii though )

The A is a different design from the F.
The new kid on the block would be a compliment to your lens collection

[RICHARD L.]

[gaweidert]

When I got my K1 in May of 2016 I was on the road and had no lens in that range with me for it. So I got the D FA 28-105 along with it. A decision I have never regretted. A sample from a drive in the country last autumn.

[thespindoctor]

Get the 28-105 lens and you will not regret it. At its best at around 35mm and 90mm. Unbelievable quality even at night time.

[OldChE]

Get the 28-105 lens and you will not regret it. At its best at around 35mm and 90mm. Unbelievable quality even at night time.

Thanks. I did get the 28-105, and I got the battery grip as well. The only negative I see with the 28-105 is that it is a bit heavy. It is about 100g heavier than my SMC Pentax-FA 24-90mm F3.5-4.5 AL [IF] (2001), for example. In fact, the camera with the 28-105 mounted will tip forward when placed on the table, but will keep upright with the 24-90. However, the 28-105 focuses much more reliably and faster than the 24-90, and of course it is weather sealed. So the 24-90 just has the advantages of weight and a wider angle (there is a significant difference between 24 and 28mm). I don't know yet about image quality differences between those two lenses, though the 24-90 is a fine lens.