rethinking my lenses

Here's what my 28-105 can do (not great shots- sorry.) Sell me on how the 24-105 can do better.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

I think your 28-105 looks fine, though I would need to see 100% crops to really judge it. There is the rub....most of the 'flaws' in these lenses are simply not going to show up in web sized images or smaller prints.

A 100% crop viewed on my monitor equates to about a 20 x 30 print. At that size I can probably tell the difference between a great prime and the 28-105, and I can quite possibly tell the difference between the 28-105 and the 24-105.

But printed at 8x10 maybe not so much. And viewed at 1000 pixels by 600 pixels on the monitor - no way.

100% crop

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

gardengirl13 wrote in post #6621181
100% crop

I do notice that with my 28-105 cropping will make it soft and not great detail, printing to 11x14 it's normally ok. I don't blow anything up that isn't a prime, normally.

Your 28-105 looks to be a very good performer. I don't know if I'd spend the money on a 24-105L if I was you unless you really want the f/4 and the IS.

That's what I'm thinking. People bash cheap lenses but this one when the light is right and I nail it, it's awesome!

I just gave away my 28-105 a while ago and it was a wonderful lens. Much better than the 28-135 I had. But neither compares to the 17-40, 24-70, 70-200 comparisons. My 24-70 is what I use for events and the 17-40 for landscapes is amazing.

OK so here's what I'm thinking keep the 28-105 for festivals and quick shooting. Go with the 17-40 and 70-200 for my day to day shooting. Keep the 35, 50 and 100 for my low light and macro stuff. I'm not really needing the 24 2.8 since it's too slow for low light and "too fast" for landscapes. Some day I may get the L, but not until I really feel a need for it. It's quite close to the 35 and 90% of my shots I can just step back a few paces.

While psychologically I feel like I'm "cheating" by going with zooms, I think they're becoming a need due to health reasons and not wanting to carry 5 lenses everywhere I go. Carrying just two somewhat lightweight lenses will be nice.

Tempting, no?

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

can't see the photo.

So I bit the bullet last night and ordered the 70-200. I'm waiting on WA for now and keeping my 24, only upgrading if I feel the need for it. The 70-200 is a must with the IS now even though I really don't want to sell my 200. Plus with my 28-105 I rarely feel the need to go wider and often feel the need to go longer so even if I bring the two zooms it should be fine for me for now.

My husband has another gig coming up in a very dark bar/restaurant so we'll see if they'll be a need for the faster 24.

The photo was of the three Pentax pancake primes...too late now!

if you like DOF effect with prime, then the only way to get it with zoom is to change your camera with bigger sensor.

luant16 now you're just trying to hurt my bank account! ha ha ha!

haha, try to see this if you want "real" hurt
http://forum.getdpi.co​m …thread.php?t=23​72&page=36

nah, no need to worry. I have a crappy little laptop that will explode if I have images from a MF! Plus they cost two times what my car is worth!

Now an old film MF would be great!

I hope you really enjoy the 70-200 (I think you will). Good shooting.