Re: Are the lenses really that good?

>Only three film-era 28-105's? >From what I gathered, there's the PZ, the rebadged Tamron, and the later f3.2. >Anyway, I have the FA28-105/4-5.6, bought new with my PZ-1p, >probably the first generation of this lens type. Tried it recently on the K-1. Does not work well, >unless you like

Re: Are the lenses really that good?

Collin B wrote: I read a good review on the D FA 28-105. But $500? While I appreciate Pentax, ok Ricoh, apparently pulling a Sony and going largely pro-sumer with some quality glass, I need to be able to afford it. :-) I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality. It has become my

Re: Are the lenses really that good?

Sent from my iPad > On Nov 18, 2016, at 5:55 AM, P.J. Alling wrote: > > I don't know from first hand experience the quality of the Pentax 28-105mm, > but I think you're asking the wrong question. > > Whether the D FA 28-105 is that good or not is irrelevant.

Re: Are the lenses really that good?

I don't know from first hand experience the quality of the Pentax 28-105mm, but I think you're asking the wrong question. Whether the D FA 28-105 is that good or not is irrelevant. Look at the prices for equivalent lenses from other manufactures that offer cameras with FF sensors. I

Are the lenses really that good?

I read a good review on the D FA 28-105. But $500? While I appreciate Pentax, ok Ricoh, apparently pulling a Sony and going largely pro-sumer with some quality glass, I need to be able to afford it. :-) Has anyone compared the three film 28-105 lenses to the D FA? Also, I've put the FA50/2.8