I really would love a DFA 24-135 f/4 WR. Too bad it doesn't exist.

VoiceOfReason · 11-28-2016, 07:51 PM - **3 Likes**

I really would love a DFA 24-135 f/4 WR. Too bad it doesn't exist. To me it would be a sweet walk around with the K1. Or, imagine a DFA 24-150 f/4 WR to perfectly match the 150-450 I have? Ohh how sweet.

**PPPPPP42** · 11-28-2016, 08:39 PM

It would be big, heavy and expensive.
Its just too big a range to cover in a fixed aperture (even F4) without the physical size getting up there and to keep the quality up across that range would make it expensive too.

There was an A28-135 F4 but it weighed 820 grams and in August 1985 cost $299 which was more than $100 over the cost of any other zoom, and only $20 less than the A*85 F1.4 and A135 F1.8 higher end primes. There was a macro function in that lens that would be omitted in a new lens, but the new lens would have the weight and size of the AF mechanism added so I would imagine that would be something of a wash for comparison.

The only stuff in the FA range that was even close was either cheap crap variable apertures or was only 28-70 F4 so I have no idea what something like that would really weigh or cost.

lytrytyr · 11-28-2016, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by PPPPPP42

It would be big, heavy and expensive.

The Nikkor 24-120 f/4 weighs 710g and costs a grand.

rdj92807 · 11-28-2016, 08:53 PM

Tamron made a great 24-135/4-5.6, which I have. Excellent performance and very compact, just a bit wider than the excellent Pentax 28-105 DFA. With updated lens elements Pentax should just rebadge this lens, which would sell like crazy. I'm glad I bought my Tamron a long time ago and kept it. It has identical optical performance to the D-FA between 40 and 105, with weaker extreme edges 28 to 35 at 4.0 and under.

**mgvh** · 11-28-2016, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by rdj92807

Tamron made a great 24-135/4-5.6, which I have. Excellent performance and very compact, just a bit wider than the excellent Pentax 28-105 DFA. With updated lens elements Pentax should just rebadge this lens, which would sell like crazy. I'm glad I bought my Tamron a long time ago and kept it. It has identical optical performance to the D-FA between 40 and 105, with weaker extreme edges 28 to 35 at 4.0 and under.

I also have this Tamron 24-135, and it probably should be rated a bit higher than it is. Check out the pics in the Pentax gallery.

surfar · 11-28-2016, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by PPPPPP42

A28-135 F4

The other DFA zooms that are a stop faster weigh a lot too.....

kenspo · 11-29-2016, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by surfar

The other DFA zooms that are a stop faster weigh a lot too.....

You can't compare pro lenses with non pro lenses.

surfar · 11-29-2016, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by kenspo

You can't compare pro lenses with non pro lenses.

Well, there must not have been any Pentax "pros" back in the A lens era because all those zooms from then aren't F2.8!

kenspo · 11-29-2016, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by surfar

Well, there must not have been any Pentax "pros" back in the A lens era because all those zooms from then aren't F2.8!

Things are different now then back then. Cant compare a 2016 model car with a car from 1965.

VoiceOfReason · 11-29-2016, 06:44 AM

I imagine Pentax could pull it off at ~700-750g and 800 dollars.

Kunzite · 11-29-2016, 07:26 AM

What makes you think so?

VoiceOfReason · 11-29-2016, 07:32 AM

Pentax has a history of doing it cheaper and lighter.

normhead · 11-29-2016, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

Pentax has a history of doing it cheaper and lighter.

Lately they've become Sigma clones, look at the DFA 70-200 and DFA 150-450, they are the heaviest in their class.

Kunzite · 11-29-2016, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by VoiceOfReason

Pentax has a history of doing it cheaper and lighter.

Maybe; but that's not the case for the new D FA lenses.

normhead · 11-29-2016, 07:59 AM

I would be happy with just a 24-105 3.5-5.6 type of lens to go with my 60-250.

24-105 is just barely over 4:1, it should be doable with decent quality. I'd be more concerned about no ƒ4 22-24mm prime.

11-28-2016, 07:51 PM - 3 Likes	#1
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124	I really would love a DFA 24-135 f/4 WR. Too bad it doesn't exist. I really would love a DFA 24-135 f/4 WR. Too bad it doesn't exist. To me it would be a sweet walk around with the K1. Or, imagine a DFA 24-150 f/4 WR to perfectly match the 150-450 I have? Ohh how sweet.

11-29-2016, 07:59 AM	#15
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I would be happy with just a 24-105 3.5-5.6 type of lens to go with my 60-250. 24-105 is just barely over 4:1, it should be doable with decent quality. I'd be more concerned about no ƒ4 22-24mm prime. Last edited by normhead; 11-29-2016 at 08:13 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wouldn't it be nice to see a new DFA* 250-600 DC WR?	VoiceOfReason	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	08-06-2016 05:52 PM
EMERGENCY!!!!!!! How bad is it really? Broken 50-135	nms_photog	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	29	01-25-2016 01:20 PM
The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 doesn't seem to get much love?	Vantage-Point	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	12-05-2011 01:06 AM
Adorama listing a lens that doesn't exist?	jsherman999	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	51	01-10-2009 10:43 AM
My Stepson is hicking the Pacific Crest Trail. Too bad he doesn't have a Pentax DSLR.	ebooks4pentax	Photographic Technique	2	06-18-2008 07:12 AM

11-28-2016, 08:39 PM	#2
PPPPPP42 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Wisconsin Photos: Albums Posts: 947	It would be big, heavy and expensive. Its just too big a range to cover in a fixed aperture (even F4) without the physical size getting up there and to keep the quality up across that range would make it expensive too. There was an A28-135 F4 but it weighed 820 grams and in August 1985 cost $299 which was more than $100 over the cost of any other zoom, and only $20 less than the A*85 F1.4 and A135 F1.8 higher end primes. There was a macro function in that lens that would be omitted in a new lens, but the new lens would have the weight and size of the AF mechanism added so I would imagine that would be something of a wash for comparison. The only stuff in the FA range that was even close was either cheap crap variable apertures or was only 28-70 F4 so I have no idea what something like that would really weigh or cost.

11-28-2016, 08:52 PM	#3
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by PPPPPP42 It would be big, heavy and expensive. The Nikkor 24-120 f/4 weighs 710g and costs a grand.

11-28-2016, 08:53 PM	#4
rdj92807 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 97	Tamron made a great 24-135/4-5.6, which I have. Excellent performance and very compact, just a bit wider than the excellent Pentax 28-105 DFA. With updated lens elements Pentax should just rebadge this lens, which would sell like crazy. I'm glad I bought my Tamron a long time ago and kept it. It has identical optical performance to the D-FA between 40 and 105, with weaker extreme edges 28 to 35 at 4.0 and under.

11-28-2016, 10:11 PM	#5
mgvh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: MD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,029	Originally posted by rdj92807 Tamron made a great 24-135/4-5.6, which I have. Excellent performance and very compact, just a bit wider than the excellent Pentax 28-105 DFA. With updated lens elements Pentax should just rebadge this lens, which would sell like crazy. I'm glad I bought my Tamron a long time ago and kept it. It has identical optical performance to the D-FA between 40 and 105, with weaker extreme edges 28 to 35 at 4.0 and under. I also have this Tamron 24-135, and it probably should be rated a bit higher than it is. Check out the pics in the Pentax gallery.

11-28-2016, 11:08 PM	#6
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,138	Originally posted by PPPPPP42 A28-135 F4 The other DFA zooms that are a stop faster weigh a lot too.....

11-29-2016, 03:18 AM	#7
kenspo Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Oslo Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by surfar The other DFA zooms that are a stop faster weigh a lot too..... You can't compare pro lenses with non pro lenses.

11-29-2016, 04:48 AM	#8
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,138	Originally posted by kenspo You can't compare pro lenses with non pro lenses. Well, there must not have been any Pentax "pros" back in the A lens era because all those zooms from then aren't F2.8!

11-29-2016, 05:35 AM	#9
kenspo Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Oslo Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by surfar Well, there must not have been any Pentax "pros" back in the A lens era because all those zooms from then aren't F2.8! Things are different now then back then. Cant compare a 2016 model car with a car from 1965.

11-29-2016, 06:44 AM	#10
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124 Original Poster	I imagine Pentax could pull it off at ~700-750g and 800 dollars.

11-29-2016, 07:26 AM	#11
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	What makes you think so?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-29-2016, 07:32 AM	#12
VoiceOfReason Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mishawaka IN area Photos: Albums Posts: 6,124 Original Poster	Pentax has a history of doing it cheaper and lighter.

11-29-2016, 07:46 AM	#13
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason Pentax has a history of doing it cheaper and lighter. Lately they've become Sigma clones, look at the DFA 70-200 and DFA 150-450, they are the heaviest in their class.

11-29-2016, 07:56 AM	#14
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by VoiceOfReason Pentax has a history of doing it cheaper and lighter. Maybe; but that's not the case for the new D FA lenses.