[jawats]

All,

I recently acquired a K-1, and am quite enjoying its use. Thankfully, many of my older lenses (e.g. 60-300 Adaptall and 500mm Vivitar) were designed for film, and work with the K-1 well. However, I have a Sigma 17-50 EX DC HSM which is meant for an APS-C. I was thinking about selling it and getting a similar focal length zoom, mostly for use for family events, landscape, etc. My budget would be whatever I could sell the Sigma for, which seems to be about $200 - $250. It has been used maybe on 15 occasions and is otherwise in perfect shape.

In looking around the reviews, the below seem to be lenses which are well-rated and have the approximate FoV I would like for events and landscape, etc. I have put lenses in the list which are probably out of my price range, but seem worthwhile if I can find a (tremendous) bargain. I know that they aren't a perfect match for FoV, but these have the wider angles I would like.

I tried to stick with those reviewed at 8.5 and above, but sometimes there are those in the 6s and 7s which are worthwhile. So, are there any others I should consider? Any I should definitely strike? [Edited to include approx eBay prices, if available][2nd Edit: Eliminated those above $400 w/ shipping and those without price knowledge]

• Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical - $195
• Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX Aspherical - $300
• Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro - $300
• Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 EX DG - $234
• Sigma 28-70mm F2.8-4 UC - $60
• Sigma -y II 21-35mm f3.5-4.2 (in AF version) - $150
• Sigma 28-105 2.8-4 DG - $130
• Sigma 28-135mm 1:3.8-5.6 Macro MF IF (in AF version) - $100
• Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 AF XR Di LD Macro SP - $200-$250
• Tamron SP AF 24-135mm F/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical - $135
• Tamron AF (IF) 79D/179D 28-105mm F4-5.6 (have a copy)
• Tokina AT-X 28-70 F2.8 - $15
• Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm F2.6-2.8 - $140
• SMC Pentax-FA* 28-70mm F2.8 AL - $35
• SMC Pentax-F 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 - $35
• SMC Pentax-F 35-105mm F4-5.6 - $60
• SMC Pentax-F 35-135mm F3.5-4.5 - $100
• Quantaray 28-90mm 1:3.5-5.6 MC Aspherical - $25
• Promaster 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 Spectrum 7 - $100
• Promaster 28-105mm f/4.0-5.6 - $20
• Vivitar Series 1 (Cosina; Phoenix) 19-35mm F3.5-4.5 - $50-$70
  

---

Last edited by jawats; 02-08-2020 at 08:13 AM.

[normhead]

For $200-$250 a lot of those will already be off the list.

[BigMackCam]

You should be able to find a good, used Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for that sort of money. I absolutely love this lens on APS-C, and like it on my full frame gear... though on the larger format, it does show its limitations in the borders. My full frame cameras have 24MP sensors, so I'd expect these limitations to be more noticeable on the K-1's 36MP sensor when viewing images at 100%. Still, it's a capable lens with nice rendering - plus, it's quite light and compact for a fast zoom in this focal length range.

[jawats]

You should be able to find a good, used Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for that sort of money. I absolutely love this lens on APS-C, and like it on my full frame gear... though on the larger format, it does show its limitations in the borders. My full frame cameras have 24MP sensors, so I'd expect these limitations to be more noticeable on the K-1's 36MP sensor when viewing images at 100%. Still, it's a capable lens with nice rendering - plus, it's quite light and compact for a fast zoom in this focal length range.

I suspect you're correct as to this particular lens. If you check my revised list, I think it's the best in terms of value for money.

[normhead]

I suspect you're correct as to this particular lens. If you check my revised list, I think it's the best in terms of value for money.

Modern lenses are designed for sensor densities like the 24 MP sensors, which equates to 51 MP FF. The larger sensor sites mean many of the older lenses perform very well on a K-1, which should do well on any lens designed for either film or the K-5. I can use my Tamron 300 2.8 with a 2x on my K-1, on my K-3 it's too soft. The K-1 is the perfect sensor to take advantage of older glass.

[jawats]

Modern lenses are designed for sensor densities like the 24 MP sensors, which equates to 51 MP FF. The larger sensor sites mean many of the older lenses perform very well on a K-1, which should do well on any lens designed for either film or the K-5. I can use my Tamron 300 2.8 with a 2x on my K-1, on my K-3 it's too soft. The K-1 is the perfect sensor to take advantage of older glass.

Well, I have a boatload of older glass, but none of it AF and none that is quality in this range. I have a copy of the Tamron 28-105, but it's a bit slow for indoors at F/4-5.6.

---------- Post added 02-08-20 at 08:46 AM ----------

You should be able to find a good, used Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for that sort of money. I absolutely love this lens on APS-C, and like it on my full frame gear... though on the larger format, it does show its limitations in the borders. My full frame cameras have 24MP sensors, so I'd expect these limitations to be more noticeable on the K-1's 36MP sensor when viewing images at 100%. Still, it's a capable lens with nice rendering - plus, it's quite light and compact for a fast zoom in this focal length range.

Also, it seems like both the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm and the Sigma 24-60mm F2.8 EX DG have a decent following and rating. Is price the major consideration when looking at the three of these?

[normhead]

Well, I have a boatload of older glass, but none of it AF and none that is quality in this range. I have a copy of the Tamron 28-105, but it's a bit slow for indoors at F/4-5.6.

None of it AF says it all. I said "older" not ancient.

FA 35-80 rated 8.26, cost me $79


This lens was sold in the year 2000, 20 years old now. That's how I would define "older".

Unless you are a pro and interested in maximum quality at maximum magnification many lenses will do. In fact I'd hazard guess, that at the 3840 by 2160 most of my images are viewed at, even your ancient glass would do fine. In one of the tests I did my 35 3.5 supertak did just fine when the images were rated by forum members. And it is ancient.

They won't stop you from wanting the DFA 28-105 at some point, but, it's hard to top a lens like that, that is designed for the future and to be relevant with higher sense densities in the future.

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-08-2020 at 09:11 AM.

[sansfin]

Perhaps the closest choice will be Tamron A09. This is pretty much same as the A16 but for FF. This will be a good everyday lens choice. You may miss the color of Sigma 17-50 though. As to Pentax, I think SMC Pentax-F 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 is a pretty much underrated lense, it's compact, sharp and versatile with macro.

[jawats]

None of it AF says it all. I said "older" not ancient.

FA 35-80 rated 8.26, cost me $79


This lens was sold in the year 2000, 20 years old now. That's how I would define "older".

Unless you are a pro and interested in maximum quality at maximum magnification many lenses will do. In fact I'd hazard guess, that at the 3840 by 2160 most of my images are viewed at, even your ancient glass would do fine. In one of the tests I did my 35 3.5 supertak did just fine when the images were rated by forum members. And it is ancient.

They won't stop you from wanting the DFA 28-105 at some point, but, it's hard to top a lens like that, that is designed for the future and to be relevant with higher sense densities in the future.

Well, right now I have these AF lenses, which are both rated in the 8s:

Tamron 179D - 28-105 F/4-5.6
SMC Pentax-F 35-70mm F3.5-4.5

And a Sigma 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 Macro, in the high 7s.

I didn't consider these as a replacement because of the slower speeds. With that said, does the ISO of the K-1 compensate for slower lenses inside?

[pres589]

Some of those prices are weird. And a lot of those lenses won't really give the same field of view that you're seeking if the goal is an approximation of what 17-50 on crop is on full frame.

I think you have four lenses to consider;

Tamron 28-75 f2.8, available new today
Pentax 24-70 f2.8, available new today
Pentax 28-105 variable max aperture, available new today
Sigma 24-70 HSM, available used only today

Tamron is relatively small, Pentax 24-70 is said to be quite good but large and costly, Pentax 28-105 is relatively small and gives excellent image quality but doesn't offer a fixed max aperture nor does it touch f2.8 anywhere, and the Sigma was supposed to be very nice but is still costly, not new, and not small. I would check reviews of those and make a decision. I know there's a Tokina 28-70 in various flavors on the used market but I think the above glass is another league above the Tokina's making it not worth consideration on a camera like the K-1.

My 2 cents.

[jawats]

Some of those prices are weird. And a lot of those lenses won't really give the same field of view that you're seeking if the goal is an approximation of what 17-50 on crop is on full frame.

I think you have four lenses to consider;

Tamron 28-75 f2.8, available new today
Pentax 24-70 f2.8, available new today
Pentax 28-105 variable max aperture, available new today
Sigma 24-70 HSM, available used only today

Tamron is relatively small, Pentax 24-70 is said to be quite good but large and costly, Pentax 28-105 is relatively small and gives excellent image quality but doesn't offer a fixed max aperture nor does it touch f2.8 anywhere, and the Sigma was supposed to be very nice but is still costly, not new, and not small. I would check reviews of those and make a decision. I know there's a Tokina 28-70 in various flavors on the used market but I think the above glass is another league above the Tokina's making it not worth consideration on a camera like the K-1.

My 2 cents.

After looking at all of those and the costs, new and used, I think the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 is the best balance of performance and cost. And, that seems to be a lens which almost everyone who has chimed in can recommend.

[twilhelm]

[IMG][/IMG]

This was shot with the Sigma 28-105 DG right before I sold it. It is a very sharp lens, but is prone to a lack of “contrast” when compared to the Pentax or Tamron equivalents. I used the lens for years on my K5 and for a while on my K-1. The corners were decent for the price of the lens. I purchased it new for around $215, and now, used they sell for $85 to $115.

I also had the Sigma 28-135 and 24-135. Neither had corner sharpness which were nearly as good as the 28-105, and the 24-135 had an unacceptable amount of distortion at 24 for me.

[jawats]

[/url][/IMG]

This was shot with the Sigma 28-105 DG right before I sold it. It is a very sharp lens, but is prone to a lack of “contrast” when compared to the Pentax or Tamron equivalents. I used the lens for years on my K5 and for a while on my K-1. The corners were decent for the price of the lens. I purchased it new for around $215, and now, used they sell for $85 to $115.

I also had the Sigma 28-135 and 24-135. Neither had corner sharpness which were nearly as good as the 28-105, and the 24-135 had an unacceptable amount of distortion at 24 for me.

Did you do any lower-light or indoors shooting with it?

[pres589]

[/url][/IMG]

This was shot with the Sigma 28-105 DG right before I sold it. It is a very sharp lens, but is prone to a lack of “contrast” when compared to the Pentax or Tamron equivalents. I used the lens for years on my K5 and for a while on my K-1. The corners were decent for the price of the lens. I purchased it new for around $215, and now, used they sell for $85 to $115.

I also had the Sigma 28-135 and 24-135. Neither had corner sharpness which were nearly as good as the 28-105, and the 24-135 had an unacceptable amount of distortion at 24 for me.

Is it me or are the edges of the image you shared extremely soft? And I would assume the lens was pretty well stopped down for that shot given the scene and apparent light level available.

[twilhelm]

Did you do any lower-light or indoors shooting with it?

I used it with the K5 when I was shooting weddings, before I got the DA 17-70. Being a screw drive lens, it was more consistent with autofocus than the 17-70. Once I upgraded to the K3, the DA17-70 became a different lens and I no longer needed the Sigma.

---------- Post added 02-08-20 at 04:07 PM ----------

Is it me or are the edges of the image you shared extremely soft? And I would assume the lens was pretty well stopped down for that shot given the scene and apparent light level available.

There was a storm moving in, so the shot was actually at f4.0. In my experience, the lens became optimal at f8.0, but was very acceptable at f5.6.