[lazyeye]

It is said that that lens is not suitable for film SLRs, only digital. Would someone clarify this for me. If it's a no-no for film, then what would be a comparable lens, both in terms of range and quality?
Thanks

[deejjjaaaa]

It is said that that lens is not suitable for film SLRs, only digital. Would someone clarify this for me. If it's a no-no for film, then what would be a comparable lens, both in terms of range and quality?
Thanks

it can't cover the whole 24x36mm area by design... Sigma used to have 24-135/2.8-4.5 - which might be OK for FF film sharpwise... also more or less close will be 17-35mm F2.8-4 DG & 28-70mm F2.8-4 DG

[AndrewG NY]

You should clarify whether you're looking for lens kit to do both film and digital, or whether you are just looking for good film glass. If film, which body? You must also consider whether or not the lens includes an aperture ring. Many Pentax bodies required one for full functionality, and the more recent lenses often omit it.

If you're asking for the equivalent coverage, 28-105 is probably the closest thing. I would recommend the Pentax FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 for this range on film. There are many 28-105 available from Pentax and other lensmakers, but this one's my choice. It's also about 1/2 the price of the Sigma. Another very good choice is Pentax FA 24-90 f/3.5-4.5 but it's a little wider, a little shorter, and costs twice as much as the 28-105.

If your question is a lens that can cover the focal length range 17-70 on digital AND film, like deejjjaaaa suggested, there aren't any single lenses like that available--the very widest standard zooms generally stopped at 24mm, and 28 was much more common (in days of yore, 35mm was the starting point). You would need a both a separate standard zoom and an ultrawide zoom .