Anyone want to venture a guess as to the cost of this lens when it comes available?

And, who plans to buy it.

[pentkon52]

I am planning to look at it when it comes out. Hopefully its a good lens and will buy it.

Concensous on another forum is $800-1000 something like that.

Dave

[Paul]

Pentax will have a winner if this lens will be as sharp as Canon's 70-200 F/4 IS. I might get this lens depending on how it performs.

[Kaimarx]

I dont think it'll be near as expensive as the large aperture zooms, as i understand it Canons 70 - 200 was set up as a very good 'cheap' zoom in the L range or at least the most affordable. Im guessing around $US 500 - 600.

[simonkit]

I'm keeping an interested eye on this one, going to be expensive in the UK probably. It will be very interesting to see how it compares to the 18-250 which is currently on my "potential list"

simon

[bymy141]

Depending upon test result, size and weight I'll get it.

- Bert

[egordon99]

It's on my watch list. I have the 50-135mm and figured that would be great for indoors/tight spaces/times I need f/2.8, and the 60-250mm would be great for outdoor candids/some close wildlife/etc/times I could live with f/4. I think they would make a nice pair

[Vulpix]

I'm just waiting for either the 200mm f2.8 prime or 60-250mm. Hopefully they are out before June...

[jeffkrol]

Anyone want to venture a guess as to the cost of this lens when it comes available?

And, who plans to buy it.

$1399...............
Want to.... but won't ........

[Finn]

This seems more like a complementary lens to the 16-45 f/4, rather than a DA*. Without f/2.8, I would hope it would be firmly down in the hundreds USD.

[egordon99]

Finn - As the focal length increases, the glass involved in keeping f/2.8 goes up quite a bit (remember - diameter of front element~=focal length/f-stop), so @250mm, an f/4 lens needs to be at least 62.5mm; not too bad, allows it to keep the 67mm filter thread, and keeps costs (and weight) down. 250mm f/2.8 would need ~89mm of glass up front, that's a BIG lens.
For some perspective - Sigma makes a 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom that runs about $2600, and their popular 100-300mm f/4.0 goes for ~$1000.

So you're dreaming if you think the lens would only be in the "hundreds USD"

In closing, there's a WORLD of difference in cost/size/weight between a 16-45mm f/4.0 and a 60-250mm f/4.0. Heck, look at the 400mm f/4.0 lenses! $6K!
That is all...

[lol101]

Anyone want to venture a guess as to the cost of this lens when it comes available?

And, who plans to buy it.

I'd really like it to be in the range (quality and price wise) of the 70-200f4L Canon... maybe a little bt pricier since the range is bigger but it HAS to be lower than $900 (Canon's is in the low $700 AFAIK).

[wlachan]

I think it would be $200-400 more expensive than the DA*50-135/2.8. Given the track record of Pentax zooms, I doubt it would be as sharp as the EF70-200/4L IS.

[txbonds]

Initial offering price:
$1,500 to $1,800 range

After a few months:
$1,300 to $1,500 range

[NaClH2O]

Hi Ed, I'm interested in it but have no idea how much, I'm guessing a bit more than the 50-135, maybe around 1G or so. If it's that much I'll have to pass. If it's in the the 7C to 8C range I'll be interested. If it's below 7C I'll get one if the IQ looks OK.

NaCl(terrible at figuring out pricing)H2O