Replacement for FA 24-90mm

My copy of this lens has died, RIP, it was a great lens but not up to the rigours of travel I put it through; eventually the whole barrel came loose. I will still try and get it fixed at some point, but meanwhile I'm looking for a replacement. The FA 24-90 is great optically, but the build quality of it is, quite frankly, appallingly bad. I'm actually surprised it lasted as long as it did.

At the moment I'm using a Sigma 24-60mm f2.8, which is a great lens but doesn't have enough reach. I'd prefer a lens that I don't have to keep swapping with a longer one. I'm considering the Pentax 18-135, Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM , Sigma 18-125 f3.8-5.6 and the Pentax 18-270.

However, I'd prefer another fastish, sharp, A/F, 24-something lens, but their don't seem to be many options available. 24mm is as long as I want to go on the short end, and I want 90mm or longer at the long end.

Does anyone have any recommendations, or failing that, opinions on the lenses I have mentioned?

18-135mm is excellent and adds WR. The 18-270mm is even more versatile for travel, but lacks WR.

I know it's not on your list, but the DA17-70 performed magnificently in comparison to the FA24-90. A touch shorter on the long end, nicely wide though, and almost as sharp as the FA50/1.4!

I've found that I generally prefer the rendition of the 8 or 9 aperture blade lenses from Pentax

As John says, the 18-135 would be a good WR option though

Matt

The DA 17-70 is one I had considered, but it's not long enough at the long end, and only gives me an extra 10mm on the 24-60mm I already have. Plus I've got a Sigma 10-20, a 15mm Ltd and the 16-45, so wide-angle is not a priority; the main use I will be putting the lens to (aerial photography) I don't really need anything wider than 24mm. The Pentax 18-135mm is tempting, but it's very expensive considering it's really just a kit lens with a longer range.

I had the previous version of the Sigma 18-250mm, but IQ was a tad lacking at some focal lengths.

Strictly speaking, you're right, but it's a very good kit lens! I've definitely found mine to be much better value for money that I thought it would be. I got it to have a decent wet-weather lens, but am happy using it in a much wider range of situations, and that's with some excellent glass sitting on the shelf beside it.

If you can find one ... A Tamron AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 SP AD Aspherical (IF) .

Not a bad lens at all, I had one in Pentax mount years ago but it got knocked off a table and never recovered.

Thanks, Mike, that sounds like the sort of thing I am looking for. The only one I can find though is $435. Same sort of price as the Pentax 18-135mm. I'll keep looking.

I would prefer a full-frame lens, as, call me an eternal optimist, but I'm still hoping for a Pentax FF camera soon, and I'd rather build up my collection of FF glass than buy too many DA lenses.

How about replacing it with another Pentax 24-90?

There is one currently on ebay attached to an MZ - S - seller states there are no scratches or fungus I know because I was tempted myself so emailed him.

The only reason I have not bought it is I am trying not to spend at the moment, He is asking £255 - I reckon you could easily sell the MZ S for £200 and get yourself a 24-90 for £50!!!

Can't get it to link for some reason - item number is 251304663603

watch the stampede....

Carl

Thanks, Carl, I saw that, but didn't realise the MZ-S was worth that much.
The one thing that worries me about the lens is it's so flimsy, which is probably what saw the demise of mine. If I can sell the camera for 200 quid it might be worth a punt though....

To be honest - £200 is giveaway price - I sold both of mine last year for £400 each - on ebay currently there is somebody virtually giving away a mint boxed one for £245 and the other 2 available are at £369 and £449! Although I do think they have dropped a bit this year

That one looks in good condition and is not boxed - so priced against the £245 mint boxed one - a give away bargain at £200!

If the S is mint - I would stick it on at £295 after the one for £245 sells.

You could make a profit but I genuinely think that if you consider it worth £200 you can not lose. The 24-90 is going for about £150 if you can find one.

My interest was in the camera as I regret selling mine - I intended selling the lens for £150 and keeping the camera!

Carl

If you are prepared to consider MF then the Pentax A 35-105 f3.5 is excellent - and built like a tank

The FA24-90 is my favourite walkabout/travel lens and I'm not sure what I'd replace it with either; another 24-90, probably. Optically I think it is slightly better than the DA17-70, which I use for city walkabout. I agree the lens body isn't brilliant (my copy is about on a par with the DA16-45, which I also used to own) but I've had mine 3 years now with no problems.

The Pentax lens 'road map' from a couple of years ago showed a DA* lens in the 18-85 range that was due out this year, but I've not seen any further reference to it and wonder if it has been dropped.

My A 24-90 is still going strong. It has done several trips to Africa, Australia, Singapore, Japan, USA, and all round Britain. It does not feel as robust as some but never a problem for me.

I have one of these, a great lens, but I want AF.

I've just bought that MZ-S with the FA 24-90mm. I'll probably try out the camera for a while then flog it.