Intermediate zoom

[mggm59]

<p>I have already posted in the past on the subject, but reached no firm conclusions, so here I am again, pondering what to do now that I have some real alternatives and not just theoretical ones.<br>

I own a Pentax 28-70 f2.8FA* and I consider it not perfectly suited to complement the 12-24. Apart from its weight and having f2.8 aperture, I see little benefit in keeping it vs either a 24-90 or a 17-70. Should I need the thin depth of field I can use the 50 f1.4, so nothing really lost here, I am not too much into portrait anyway. And I also have the 70 mm f2.8 of the Sigma 70-200, if needed, so the only area which would not be covered is the wide angle side, where thin depth of field is less relevant, particularly on digital.<br>

The new fact is that I have a possible offer to swap the 28-70 with a 24-90 plus 400€ (about 520$, how do you rate this offer?)<br>

I tested 28-70's performance, and at f5.6 or 8 it does not seem to be much better (except maybe a little less contrast in color rendition) than the humble but much more modern kit 18-55 II. <br>

I could not find instead a comparison with the 24-90 or the 17-70. From the few reviews (with real tests, not subjective ones) I found I could gather that the 24-90 is very good, but how much in comparison with the 28-70? And the 17-70 seems also relatively good (but I have the impression a bit less than both previous ones), but it would benefit from the in camera processing applied by the K5, while I doubt the 24-90 would (any ideas about this?). I see the benefits of this processing on the 12-24, 18-55 and 18-135, and I have in principle the intention of bringing gradually all my lenses to the standard needed to benefit from it.<br>

Any experience is welcome, thanks in advance.</p>

 

[stemked]

<p>Maurizio,<br>

While I cannot compare them, I can say though that I have been VERY pleased with my 24-90, both optically and build quality. It is my basic walk around town lens. It seems superior (although heavier) than my Pentax 28-135mm f3.2-4.5. The lens feels great, a little more robust than most of my other zooms in that range. Being it is an FA of course it's a full-frame lens. I got rid of a decent Pentax FA 28-70mm f4 because I preferred the 24-90 lens.<br>

One point, when the lens first came out, there seemed to be a lot of quality control issues at least judging by complaints here at photo.net. I have NEVER had any issues with mine and I have used it heavily for at least 5 years.<br>

Hope this is helpful.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>None of the ordinary Pentax-FA lenses are going to hold a candle to your Pentax-FA* 28-70 lens, which is commonly regarded as superb.<br>

If you want something comparable to that lens, you should consider the Pentax-DA* 16-50. The FA* is more valuable, so you should get change back if you trade. It will get you equal speed, sharpness, and a far more useful focal length range on a APS-C crop-sensor camera.<br>

The Pentax-FA 24-90 isn't the worst of the Pentax-FA zooms, but the FA* 28-70 is so hard to find and valuable that I wouldn't consider that downgrade.<br>

This all assumes your DLSR is SDM-compatible.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Maurizio,<br>

I hesitate to recommend anything without knowing more about your needs. What will you be shooting with a zoom? To me the difference between a zoom with f2.8 and one that does not is quite significant, but it depends on your requirements.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[michellemandat]

<p>What is your camera, Maurizio?<br>

For all kinds of shots I have 18/55 and 16/45 Pentax plus a Sigma 17/70. For more specifical work a Samyang 14mm and a 55/300 Pentax plus old K, M and A lenses.<br>

I think that best complement for 28/70 is 16/45. In fact you have a "hole" which needs to change your lens in most interesting range for you between something like 20/40.<br>

Gear combo 16/45 and K5 is very good and you find this lens for 200€ here in France</p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I own both. I did a fairly careful comparison at 70mm between these and numerous other lenses. First, the DA 70/2.4 Limited stomped all the zooms. The FA24-90 was the best of the rest, followed by the DA17-70. These three bested numerous other lenses - both longer ends of older short zooms and short ends of longer zooms.</p>

<p>So, I'm one to believe that the FA 24-90 is one of Pentax's best, optically -- and it makes sense, considering its one of their last pre-digital releases. I didn't do a careful comparison at shorter focal lengths, so can't really say how well it compares at, say 24mm vs. alternatives. I think this is a case where it's pretty good optically and benefits from the APS-C crop sweet spot.</p>

<p>Construction wise, the story isn't quite as good. I don't think it's quite the piece of junk that some reviews imply but the DA17-70/4 is much nicer. It lacks quickshift focus override, and the hood is optimized for film. The DA17-70/4 focuses a bit closer too -- I think it offers something like 0.31x magnification (nearly 3:1) while the FA is 0x19x (not quite 5:1), but this isn't too bad, and previous generation lenses might have needed to resort to their funky trick macro modes to approach that. Another thing I really like about the 24-90 is its size -- it seems to look & feel 'just right' on every Pentax body I've mounted it on -- from a ZX-L to a K20D -- while the 17-70 is a bit bulkier.</p>

<p>One other lens I've considered for general-purpose use is the Sigma 24-60/2.8 EX. While this lens is pretty good, well-constructed, and relatively inexpensive and compact for a f/2.8 standard zoom, it still takes 77mm filters, and the focusing and zoom rings spin 'the wrong way' vs. Pentax lenses. Also, I find its hood annoyingly difficult to mount, and optically at matching apertures I think the FA24-90 is a bit better.</p>

<p>You're probably right, I don't think that Pentax hasn't updated their camera firmware for automatic correction of FA zooms. To be honest, I don't much care for the in-camera correction in general because the instant review on LCD becomes no longer 'instant'. I really wish that Pentax would do that extra processing in idle time rather than delay the review where I really only want to see exposure, composition, and things like facial expressions and closed eyes immediately.</p>

<p> </p>

[snik75]

<p>This is all good news to me, as I just got myself an FA 24-90 for Christmas, and am excited to try it out. If it can match or exceed the F35-70, with the longer range, I will be quite happy. At some point I will have to test it against the FA 20-35 too, as that is a great lens as well.</p>

<p>The performance described for the FA* 28-70 sounds much worse than I would expect. Maybe something is wrong with it? I have never used one, but from the OP's description I would think an FA 24-90 plus a big chunk of change would be a good swap.</p>

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>Nick, it's interesting that you mention the FA 20-35 f4... I've been thinking about this rare lens recently. I normally don't like zoom lenses, but it would be a nice addition for the <1% of the time I need something that wide. I've considered the DA21 due to how highly everyone speaks of it, but the 20-35 is certainly an interesting choice.</p>

<p> </p>

[stemked]

<p>I concur about the 20-35mm lens-magnificent lens. Mine somehow survived a two story fall in Costa Rica, I can only say it was dumb luck that it wasn't damaged.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Have you considered the fact that you have a great WR camera, so having top quality WR lens might be worth considering? You mention the 18-55mm kit lens. Is that the WR version? It would be good enough to serve WR needs, but not in the same quality league as the DA* 16-50mm, which also provides exceptional wide angle without always needing to change to the 12-24mm. Your FA* 28-70mm is a great lens, but you are right, it has no actual wide angle to match well with the 12-24mm. I don't know how much it could be expected to sell for these days, nor the value of the FA 24-90mm, so I cannot comment on the swap offer.</p>

<p>The DA 17-70mm appears to be a very nice lens, though not WR.</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 24-60mm EX DG, and my copy has proven to be excellent. Mates well with my DA 12-24mm, is sharp even wide open at f/2.8- which I often use, is very compact, and I guess being used to it I have no trouble fixing on the lens hood quickly. It does just snug on now instead of snap on like it once did. Yes, the zoom does turn the opposite way from Pentax zooms, but you already have the Sigma 70-200mm. Trouble is, being discontinued, might be difficult to find a good one. One of my most used lenses.</p>

[mggm59]

<p>@MlM, normally I go around with two bodies, so today they are:<br>

k5 with 12-24 for higher resolution and distortion correction<br>

k20 with 28-80 (to be replaced? by 24-90 or 17-70) sometimes swapped with the 80-200<br>

I did not know about the Sigma, but the additional 30mm seem to me more important than f2.8.</p>

<p>@MK, I just sold the 18-55 exactly because it isn't WR. And I am selling the 18-135, it's not my type of lens, I ended up not using it much, probably I'll look for a 18-55WR for wet occasions</p>

<p>@ME, about the use, I do mostly travel photos (plus some aircraft photos at airshows since I am also an aviation buff), but not much of people because I have a sort of block in taking unauthorized pics.</p>

<p>@AG, thanks for the info, looks like the 24-90 is a good candidate indeed, and being much cheaper than the 17-70 it looks like a no brainer, So the real competition remains the 28-80... listening also to JS. It is a fact that 400€ on top make it easier to swallow... Ideally I should have both lenses for a couple of days, but I think the swap (if the guy decides, he did not answer yet) will not allow enough time, as I would need to do it while traveling through Luxembourg with 7 more hours to drive in front of me (and my wife, which is worse).</p>

[andrewg_ny]

I would bear in mind that If you change your mind, reacquiring a FA* 28-70 might not be very easy or cheap. Some of

your concerns about the FA 24-90 will likely be answered by just handling it, in terms of build & size. When I bought my

24-90 a few years ago they were rare as hens' teeth because NOS examples had just about dried up and nobody was

selling theirs. After a long search I stumbled upon what must have been one of the last new-in-box examples in the US

and happily plunked down $400 for it. (my FA 20-35 quest was remarkably similar). Now I see them relatively often on

eBay for more like $300.