Opinion of D FA 28-105 v D FA 24-70
Posted 18/07/2021 - 21:50
Link
I reviewed both of these for EPZ/PU and the 24-70mm is better optically, but the 28-105mm is less expensive, more compact and has a better telephoto reach.
I bought the 28-105mm and it serves very well.
I bought the 28-105mm and it serves very well.
Best regards, John
Posted 19/07/2021 - 07:47
Link
I am the opposite of Mike-P, the 24-70mm is probably my most widely used lens but then I am using it for assignment shoots where sharpness and depth of field control are paramount and I don’t have to walk far. If I want a bit more reach then I will also pack the 77mm Limited and 100mm macro as they are relatively small and light, although in reality I hardly ever change lenses in those situations. The weight and bulk is an issue though which put me off initially when I bought the K1 so got the 28-105mm which serves ok as a walkabout lens, although I often prefer a lightweight prime like the f2.8 50mm macro instead so it is probably my least used lens.
Having said all that, looking again at my first shots with the K1/28-105mm there are some pretty good ones so perhaps I am missing a trick.
Having said all that, looking again at my first shots with the K1/28-105mm there are some pretty good ones so perhaps I am missing a trick.
Posted 19/07/2021 - 14:23
Link
Thanks for the comments John, Mike and Rob - I've had the D FA 24-70 and had no criticisms of it optically, but it's quite a weighty & chunky lens and it's rare that I'm happy to take it out with me. The D FA 28-105 appeals for it's size and weight, and I'd probably have the FA 20-35 in the bag for most outings so the main question is will I be happy with it optically.
I've recently been through the same process with the D FA*70-200 and D FA 70-210 and I'm more than happy with the slower aperture lens
UPDATE: I've pulled the trigger on a mint, boxed copy for under £300
I've recently been through the same process with the D FA*70-200 and D FA 70-210 and I'm more than happy with the slower aperture lens
UPDATE: I've pulled the trigger on a mint, boxed copy for under £300
LennyBloke
Posted 19/07/2021 - 15:58
Link
If the 28-105 was an F4 lens then I would've been tempted - I have the Nikkor 24-120/4 and 24-70/2.8 (non-VR) but there is less of a size diffference between them and find myself using the 24-70 more. I waited for the f4 24-120 because of the faster aperture and that the older 3.5-5.6 was regarded as being a very poor lens.
I am only happy with f5.6 lenses if they are 400-500mm at the longest length and despair at the trend towards standard lenses (like the new Nikon Zs) having like a 16-50 f3.5-6.3....6.3 was bad enough on my Sigma 150-500 for light gathering and depth of field (too much even for a telephoto).
I am only happy with f5.6 lenses if they are 400-500mm at the longest length and despair at the trend towards standard lenses (like the new Nikon Zs) having like a 16-50 f3.5-6.3....6.3 was bad enough on my Sigma 150-500 for light gathering and depth of field (too much even for a telephoto).
Z-1p, K-1, P50
F50 1.7. SMC-FAs 24, 35, 50 1.4, 85, 135. HD-FA15-30, DFA24-70, D-FA*70-200. The SMC-FA Limited Trinity.
Metz 45 CL-4, AF500FTZ. AF540FGZ.
Some Mamiya and some Nikon
F50 1.7. SMC-FAs 24, 35, 50 1.4, 85, 135. HD-FA15-30, DFA24-70, D-FA*70-200. The SMC-FA Limited Trinity.
Metz 45 CL-4, AF500FTZ. AF540FGZ.
Some Mamiya and some Nikon
Posted 20/07/2021 - 22:35
Link
It's a pretty good lens. I keep mine in my bag even though it doesn't get used much simply because it's WR and versatile.
All the gear with no idea
Posted 21/07/2021 - 21:53
Link
LennyBloke wrote:
I'm interested to know the opinions of those of you who have owned both these lenses, particularly from the point of view of using as a "walkaround" or general use lens with a K1. Do you fell that the 24-70 is significantly better optically? How does the 28-105 perform wide open? Any other aspects that make one or the other a much better choice?
Thanks in advance
I'm interested to know the opinions of those of you who have owned both these lenses, particularly from the point of view of using as a "walkaround" or general use lens with a K1. Do you fell that the 24-70 is significantly better optically? How does the 28-105 perform wide open? Any other aspects that make one or the other a much better choice?
Thanks in advance
Daronl
Posted 21/07/2021 - 22:06
Link
LennyBloke wrote:
I'm interested to know the opinions of those of you who have owned both these lenses, particularly from the point of view of using as a "walkaround" or general use lens with a K1. Do you fell that the 24-70 is significantly better optically? How does the 28-105 perform wide open? Any other aspects that make one or the other a much better choice?
Thanks in advance
I'm interested to know the opinions of those of you who have owned both these lenses, particularly from the point of view of using as a "walkaround" or general use lens with a K1. Do you fell that the 24-70 is significantly better optically? How does the 28-105 perform wide open? Any other aspects that make one or the other a much better choice?
Thanks in advance
Daronl wrote:
LennyBloke wrote:
I'm interested to know the opinions of those of you who have owned both these lenses, particularly from the point of view of using as a "walkaround" or general use lens with a K1. Do you fell that the 24-70 is significantly better optically? How does the 28-105 perform wide open? Any other aspects that make one or the other a much better choice?
Thanks in advance
I'm interested to know the opinions of those of you who have owned both these lenses, particularly from the point of view of using as a "walkaround" or general use lens with a K1. Do you fell that the 24-70 is significantly better optically? How does the 28-105 perform wide open? Any other aspects that make one or the other a much better choice?
Thanks in advance
The 28-105 is a nice lens and in the optimum aperture range stands up against the 24-70 but the 24-70 is optically superb through the aperture range, Wide open it is superb and with a F2.8 is bright and clean.
In low light particularly indoors the 28-105 can be challenged optically and to use; I did a large event shoot over two days and found the 24-70 to be easy bright and pretty faultless.
But the difference in price doesn’t indicate a similar difference in IQ.
Without being unnecessarily pretentious;
In a nutshell the 28-105 is a very good lens but the 24-70 is a very good pro-lens that never seems to struggle and a joy to use
Daronl
Posted 22/07/2021 - 09:50
Link
Thanks for the additional comments and views - the prevailing view seems to be that the 24-70 is the better lens (optically) but not by that much particularly when stopped down slightly. I believe this will suit me better and my 3 lens outfit of 20-35, 28-105 & 70-210 should be ideal for travel, walking, hiking & holidays
I'm not sure I could lug a 150-450 around for any length of time Mike - but I guess it's the type of subjects we shoot that dictate our choices
I'm not sure I could lug a 150-450 around for any length of time Mike - but I guess it's the type of subjects we shoot that dictate our choices
LennyBloke
Posted 22/07/2021 - 11:39
Link
That loadout looks superb. How does the size of the 70-210 compare with the 50-135?
All the gear with no idea
Posted 22/07/2021 - 11:55
Link
The 70-210 is a little longer (1.5 inches) and weighs around 4oz more but you do get the extra reach and fast AF (at the expense of the Star designation and 1 aperture stop) - it feels so much easier than the 70-200/2.8 when you've walked a few miles
LennyBloke
Posted 04/11/2022 - 04:26
Link
Forgive a noob resurrecting an oldish thread, but I have the same interest in opinions between the "little lens that could" and the "filthy beast." I have the 28-105 and like it, but have a line on a 24-70 at a price that is very very tempting.
--
The magic is in the glass
The magic is in the glass
Posted 04/11/2022 - 09:08
Link
MXLX wrote:
Forgive a noob resurrecting an oldish thread, but I have the same interest in opinions between the "little lens that could" and the "filthy beast." I have the 28-105 and like it, but have a line on a 24-70 at a price that is very very tempting.
Forgive a noob resurrecting an oldish thread, but I have the same interest in opinions between the "little lens that could" and the "filthy beast." I have the 28-105 and like it, but have a line on a 24-70 at a price that is very very tempting.
Nothing much has changed from my point of view - I own both the 24-70 and 28-105, neither are in my "often used" category yet both are excellent lenses - the compact size and lower weight of the 28-105 means it is in the bag more often than the 24-70, in fact my 24-70 is so little used it is currently up for sale
My view of lenses is that if you can buy it for a fair price then do it! If it doesn't suit you the liklehood is that you can re-sell it for similar to what you paid - it's long been my mission to try as many Pentax lenses as I can (as some forum members will tell you )
LennyBloke
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
6893 posts
17 years
Worcestershire
Thanks in advance