[kh1234567890]

FWIW, Pentax used to offer the quite nice DA 16-45/4 as a higher priced alternative to the 18-55. The DA 16-45 was offered as a kit lens option with all flagship bodies through the K-7.

I'm a great fan of the now sadly discontinued DA16-45, but it is not WR and the mechanical design - extending at the 16mm end - is not exactly friendly for a beginner trying to use a camera flash. The DA18-55WR is one of those lenses with a nice balance of compromises. Also remember that it was meant to be paired up with the DA50-200WR. My feeling is that lenses such as the DA16-85 are overdesigned with too many elements.

[pjalves]

Dear Norm, I don't wish to turn this into an argument. My point and that of the pictures I've posted is to show how back in the "old film days" Pentax managed to produce a "FF" 28-105 standard-to-long zoom with moderately bright maximum apertures that's actually more compact than the "shorter and slower" DA 18-55 (27-82.5 equivalent) kit lenses made for their digital SLR's. That's a fact. They did it. And they could do it again, but chose not to, thus - to my eyes - being "lazy", which btw isn't such a nasty epithet if we look at the sluggish rate by which they update their lens line-up and technology.

[stevebrot]

That's a fact. They did it. And they could do it again, but chose not to...

Well, that is an interesting statement. I assume you have some internal memos or patent records? Let's assume you are correct. Why would Pentax choose to not offer a wider-range zoom as kit for its digital cameras. Here might be a short list:

• Convention...On 35mm FF the 28-80 range was already well established as the common kit zoom with the FA 28-80/3.5-5.6 being the functional ancestor to the DA 18-55/3.5-5.6
• Marketing...Pentax was able to offer lenses such as the DA 17-70/4 at a premium price point for users interested in the longer reach to pair with camera purchased body-only. Why make and sell something cheap when you can actually make money at a much higher price point? The absence of a kit offerings in the 18-70mm (or similar) range for Nikon and Canon APS cameras might be some support for that line of reasoning.
• Technical...The assumption is that the size and weight of the 28-105 could have been accomplished for a similar zoom range for APS-C. The current DA 16-85/3.5-5.6 and similar Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 seem to indicate otherwise. Neither is particularly small or light. Nikon does not offer an APS-C lens in this range.

Steve

[boriscleto]

Dear Norm, I don't wish to turn this into an argument. My point and that of the pictures I've posted is to show how back in the "old film days" Pentax managed to produce a "FF" 28-105 standard-to-long zoom with moderately bright maximum apertures that's actually more compact than the "shorter and slower" DA 18-55 (27-82.5 equivalent) kit lenses made for their digital SLR's. That's a fact. They did it. And they could do it again, but chose not to, thus - to my eyes - being "lazy", which btw isn't such a nasty epithet if we look at the sluggish rate by which they update their lens line-up and technology.

It also constantly rates lower than the earlier power zoom 28-105 and the mediocre rebadged Tamron that preceded it.

[SpecialK]

28 is not wide enough on APS-C.

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

For a question that popped into my mind around 4am this sure is getting quite a bit of interesting discussion.

[pjalves]

Wow. Tough crowd... So, crucify me for demanding a little more from the brand that I admire and that I see fading away in the midst of eternal promises (the FF) and failed opportunities (the 16-85, etc). These are just my opinions. Pentax (Ricoh) produces some of the best dSLRs around, if not the best. My K-5 is an excellent piece of equipment and it more than suits my needs. But when it comes to the lens line-up, that's a whole other story. I have no interest in overpriced slow primes (DA-LTDs), overpriced fast zooms (DA*), overpriced film-day primes (FA-LTDs/FA), and I will never be able to afford the FF system and D-FA* lenses. Is it so unreasonable to ask for a moderately priced standard-to-long zoom, like a 17-70 f/2.8-4? Sigma makes and sells those for ~400 Euro, if Nikon 1000+ price offends you so much... Constant f/4 is very limiting. I had a FA 28-70 f/4 and I can assure you of that. I also once owned a "SMC Shift 28mm f/3.5" that I used for architectural photography, which I later sold because on APS-C it was no longer an wide-angle. Never again has Pentax made such a lens available. I also had and sold a DA 55-300, because of lack of tripod ring, poor overall IQ, and specially for the crappy "screw-drive" focusing. There's now a WR/HD version of the 55-300, but come on... still no DC focusing? Another failed opportunity. If Ricoh is so concerned about profitability, why don't they just sell all or some of their Pentax patents and liquidate the whole Pentax operation, and maybe make a few billion Yen while at it! I might be raving, but sometimes, being a Pentaxian feels like a trap, cleverly conceived and mantained by some greedy and twisted japanese corporate masterminds...
To finish:
- I never said 28-105 is a good zoom range for APS-C. What I did say is that its equivalent (16~17-70~80 f/2.8-4) would be a good range;
- I never said a 17-70 f/2.8-4 should be made as a cheap kit lens. I'm actually against the idea of cheap kit lenses.
- I never said the 28-105 is a flawless lens. At 28mm it's mediocre (although @105 it's great), the lens build quality could be sturdier (barrel-wise) and it develops zoom creep. But... What I did say is that if Pentax, 14 years ago, managed to create such a compact lens, covering "FF" and all of those focal lengths, it certainly could do it again now.

[6BQ5]

It also constantly rates lower than the earlier power zoom 28-105 and the mediocre rebadged Tamron that preceded it.

I have a FA 28-105mm f/3.2 lens. After correcting for front/back focus, this lens is very, very good. I wouldn't say it's in prime territory but it holds up pretty well against today's DA zooms. It was my #1 zoom until I got the DA 18-135 for its wider zoom range. Still, for $90 the FA 28-105mm is excellent.

[normhead]

I have an FA 35-80 which I also finds stacks up very well against current tech is very light and short....so my guess would be is, it's easier to produce a light weight short lens in that focal length 28-100 than it is to produce a short a 18-55. But then I never engage in this kind of speculation so I'm not saying that.

Pentax did come out with an 18-50 that collapses to be very short, shorter than any of the old kit lenses. So the they weren't lazy, in fact they were innovative, creative and energetic. It's all those companies that didn't produce a collapsing kit lens that are snoozing, resting on their laurels. So if you look at "pentax is lazy" or "Everyone else is lazy" it all depends on what angle you're taking. There's enough leery out there, not every one has to do everything. I'm sure the Pentax guys turn up for work every day working on new designs and trying to come up with innovative eye catching product, the same as every other company. Lazy has nothing to do with it.

But I hardly ever use my 35-80 lens. Because 35-80 mis not a walk around lens on AS-c and neither is 28-105. It's about the utility of the lens on APS-c format. MY choice is 16-85, or 18-135, and it's toss up because I don't know what I'd use more, 16mm or 85-135mm. 28-105 for a walk around doesn't address either.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Just to get back on track regarding the size issue and how that relates to zoom range....

The physics of quality wide angle (rectilinear) design is challenging in the first place. The 16-45 is a 67mm; Pentax surely would have tried to get it smaller if they could do it without IQ compromise. When you look at the UWA zooms (mostly from Sigma), they are all quite big in relation to their aperture. The old full frame zooms starting at 24mm (16mm FoV on crop) are all quite a bit larger than the 28mm designs - because they have to be that way. Otherwise, they have to be unacceptably slow.

The challenge for Pentax in FF remains to keep optics small, yet offer at least some WR designs, as well. To attract new buyers in contrast to the Canon and Nikon offerings, going with jewel-style zooms would be a smart niche to pursue. This means shorter range zooms and/or a willingness to go a bit smaller aperture. Rather than f/2.8s for elite zooms, look closely at going with f/3.2 or even f/3.5. The Ltd. series has been a tremendous success, and that philosophy can work with zooms and FF if done in style (which is much of the Ltd. attraction, frankly). Pentax will need to be distinctive to attract new buyers; drawing from its existing limited market would be a failed strategy.

[stevebrot]

- I never said...
- I never said...
- I never said...

What you did say was that Pentax opted to not make a compact 18-70mm, but could have. The telling point is that they are not alone in that decision. None of the other manufacturers made one that fits that description either. Now I just happen to own a lens within that zoom range and no, it is neither light nor compact. It would appear that "compact" dimensions and the zoom range in question for APS-C are mutually exclusive.

I might be raving

Yes, you might indeed by "raving".


Steve

[wildman]

A random thought just crossed my mind. Barring the reasoning of cost to manufacture, why did Pentax choose the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 to be the kit lens for their cameras, when they had already created what may possibly be a more useful lens in the F/FA series with the 28-105 f/4-5.6 (IF)?

OK then a random possible answer.
Consider the market - a kit lens is a entry level beginners lens. Something cheap that Joe Sixpack can snap on and get started with his bright shiny new DSLR.
And what, typically,does Joe Sixpack do with his DSLR? Take family snapshots. And where are many if not most family shots taken - indoors.
Given that, the logic of 18-55 over 28-105 seems obvious to me and would seem to have been obvious to Canon, Nikon and Pentax as well.

[pjalves]

What you did say was that Pentax opted to not make a compact 18-70mm, but could have. The telling point is that they are not alone in that decision. None of the other manufacturers made one that fits that description either. Now I just happen to own a lens within that zoom range and no, it is neither light nor compact. It would appear that "compact" dimensions and the zoom range in question for APS-C are mutually exclusive.



Yes, you might indeed by "raving".


Steve

Dear Steve, at least four other manufacturers do have APS-C lenses that fit my description:
- Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 Contemporary (399$), more compact than the DA 16-85 (82 vs 94mm long);
- Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR (1070$), more compact than the DA 16-85 (86 vs 94mm long);
- Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (699$) - ok, it's not f/2.8-4, but still more compact than the DA 16-85 (87.5 vs 94mm long), having the same maximum aperture range.
- Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 R LM OIS (699$) - ok, shorter range, but with roughly the same dimensions of the slower DA 18-55.

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

Guess my feedback on the utility of this lens is a bit skewed, since most of my shots are landscape with some wildlife. I bought my FA 28-105 f/4-5.6 (IF) for $60 as a midrange zoom for when I'm out on the kayak. I do like how contrasty it is though. I can definitely see how my particular usage wouldn't fit with other's uses for it.

Wildman, I don't know what type of family pictures joe sixpack would take... but for portraits, I'm sure the 28-105 would work as well as the 18-55, albeit being a little slower at f4 minimum. Your point is most certainly noted.

As for the 18-135 zoom, I can see that being more utilitarian due to the extra width and further reach... but while center sharpness is crisp everyone seems to mention the edges or corners. Does the 28-105 share this same issue? Can anyone do a comparison shot for IQ across the frame? (I can't... I don't own an 18-135).

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

I don't think it is coincidence that the best zoom covering mid-range FoV Pentax has ever made is WR, built to tight tolerances (for a non-star lens) and happens to be unusually large. All the smaller, faster lenses are not WR. The Sigma 17-70 is unusual because special materials were used to achieve the small, light design; it would be much larger as a WR.

I would love to have an UWA zoom covering a huge range, WR, constant aperture f/3.5 or wider, prime quality IQ, in a tiny package. It just doesn't work that way. This is especially apparent when you see the proliferation of zooms starting at 17mm. It isn't as though consumers want 17mm rather than 16mm; the decision was made that size and costs to manufacture a quality lens slightly wider pointed toward making the compromise.