Originally posted by normhead I complained for a long time about the 28-105 not being 24. Then I bought the lens and pretty much forgot about it. At this point I'd like a lightweight variable aperture 15-30 to go with it. After all, I have my Sigma 8-16 for my K-3.
Personally, I don't think even 24 saves you form needing an UWA lens. That's my reason for not considering the 16-85, I'd still need my Sigma 8-16, so why switch from my 18-135?
I understand the point of view, but basically this is a personal choice. On a camera like the K1 or any other high pixelized FF, I can see a 24-105 f/4 as doing it all. After that's a 16-70 f/2.5 equiv on APSC and nobody would consider that slow or limiting by any means.
24mm is wide enough so that most landscapes can fit in and often wider view are simply too distorted. 105mm on FF is already some reach but at worst with some crop it is all you need in term of reach outside of specialized application like wildlife. f/4 on FF in particular with K1 low light capabilities is good enough for the bokeh, provide great sharpness and performance, in particular at the longer end.
So that really depend on how you want to see it
On my side I do almost everything really with DA15, FA31 and FA77 and I don't feel any limitation with that setup. True when I was in Tanzania for wildlife I used the cheap and nice 55-300 for great results and I use my F135 or DA21 from time to time, but that's about it.
Now why the 28-105 isn't 24-105 and why it is variable apperture? Because it is a kit lens, it is ligtht and cheap. The 28-105 is still an quite interresting range and an equivalent 18-70 f/2.2-3.5 on APSC would certainly be seen quite favorably