Opinion of D FA 28-105 v D FA 24-70

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

---

LennyBloke

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.

---

Best regards, John

I have both but to be honest the 28-105mm does everything I want from a "walkabout" lens and is more than capable in most situations. Would rather it was a 24-105mm f/4 but then it would probably cost as much as the 24-70mm.

Very rarely use the 24-70mm.

---

. My Flickr

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.

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

---

LennyBloke

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).

---

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

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

---

Daronl

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

I really should carry my FA 20-35mm more, I would make an ideal companion to the 28-105mm.

99.9% of my shooting is done with the 150-450mm though, I don't tend to carry anything else apart from sometimes the 100mm macro WR

---

. My Flickr

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

---

LennyBloke

That loadout looks superb. How does the size of the 70-210 compare with the 50-135?

---

All the gear with no idea

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

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

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