[D1N0]

It will probably weigh about half the D FA 15-30. The similarly specced Tokina lenses (11-16/20) are 550 and 560 grams. Tokina is not known for making very light lenses.

[Bophoto]

Finally, something in the Pentax lineup to get really excited about. Unless it's something absurd like $1500, I'll probably buy it on day 1.

I see that DA12-24 / 4 costs $700 on BH photo, £800 on SRS and approx $1200 in Sweden. So I think the price on BH photo has fallen a lot over the last few years.
A new DA * 11-18 / 2.8 will surely cost around 1500 $.

[EarlVonTapia]

It will probably weigh about half the D FA 15-30. The similarly specced Tokina lenses (11-16/20) are 550 and 560 grams. Tokina is not known for making very light lenses.

Good call in comparing it with the Tokina. Honestly, anything under 600g would be just fine for me. Making it only for crop sensors probably helps keep the weight down.

A new DA * 11-18 / 2.8 will surely cost around 1500 $.

I don't feel it's going to be that high. Even the DA 15-30 2.8 is only $1450 new, and that's because it's full frame. I'd say anything around $1000 seems likely. $1200 would be pushing it, while anything under $1000 would be a pleasant surprise.

[Ketsuppi11]

Good call in comparing it with the Tokina. Honestly, anything under 600g would be just fine for me. Making it only for crop sensors probably helps keep the weight down.



I don't feel it's going to be that high. Even the DA 15-30 2.8 is only $1450 new, and that's because it's full frame. I'd say anything around $1000 seems likely. $1200 would be pushing it, while anything under $1000 would be a pleasant surprise.

About the size of DA* 16-50mm (84 x 98.5mm, 562g) or slighly bigger and price around 1000$ and I will be happy! Though if it will be 1000$ in USA it will be at least 1500$ in Sweden...

[dadipentak]

Focus limiter (very handy on a 11-18mm lens ;~)

[Pål Jensen]

Could the mystery button be a focus lock? Certainly useful on a lens particularly suited for astrophotography. I see in the press release that the lens supposedly is excellent corner to corner wide open.
Alternatively it is a filter drawer.

[shardulm]

O.I.S

[TwoUptons]

Clearly, the tape covers up where you put in the key to wind the clockwork focus motor...

-Eric

[Pål Jensen]

O.I.S

That would be very weird as Pentax have sensor based stabilization. Besides, a super wide lens is where stabilization is the least useful....

---------- Post added 11-29-17 at 03:46 PM ----------

Anyway, the new DA* 11-18/2.8 lens is an important signal. It tells us that APS is still a high-end prospect for Pentax. We can expect the top-end APS body to provide the technology for the future MF and FF bodies.

[normhead]

That would be very weird as Pentax have sensor based stabilization. Besides, a super wide lens is where stabilization is the least useful....

---------- Post added 11-29-17 at 03:46 PM ----------

Anyway, the new DA* 11-18/2.8 lens is an important signal. It tells us that APS is still a high-end prospect for Pentax. We can expect the top-end APS body to provide the technology for the future MF and FF bodies.

There are not DA* zooms under about $1200 CAD. So, I'm expecting the DA*11-18 to be a little higher than that. Does anyone have a clue why an UWA lens should be 2.8? That's a head scratcher for me. Someone who would buy this lens needs to explain it to me.

Is the erroneous perception that 2.8 lenses are intrinsically sharper than ƒ4 lenses being exploited by Pentax's marketing department? Let's all stop and contemplate the reputation of the 200 macro ƒ4 as the sharpest Pentax lens ever made. They didn't have to do this.

When this lens comes out there will be a DA*11-18, 16-50 and 50-135, and i won't own even one of them. I'm starting to think that instead of being the pro-Pentax guy I'm accused of being, I'm becoming the anti-Pentax.

Why you would buy a 50-135 2.8 when there's a DA*60-250 ƒ4 that works on both FF and APS-c for the same money completely escapes me. It's like 3 lenses for the price of one. The DA*60-250 replaces the DA*50-135, the DA*200 2.8 and the DFA 70-200 2.8 almost $5,000 CAD for $1300 new. And you lose 1 stop. Premium optics at a value price. OK you could leave to the DA*200, but still....

[shardulm]

Does anyone have a clue why an UWA lens should be 2.8? That's a head scratcher for me. Someone who would buy this lens needs to explain it to me.

So that the users or "internet (the know all) critiques" can measurebate and say corners are not sharp @2.8 but they get better f4 onwards.

Jokes apart.. but why 2.8 for an UWA lens is beyond me. The only time it would matter is when you are shooting at the MFD @2.8 to isolate the subject (non-portrait that is).

---------- Post added 11-29-17 at 10:37 AM ----------

That would be very weird as Pentax have sensor based stabilization. Besides, a super wide lens is where stabilization is the least useful....

---------- Post added 11-29-17 at 03:46 PM ----------

Anyway, the new DA* 11-18/2.8 lens is an important signal. It tells us that APS is still a high-end prospect for Pentax. We can expect the top-end APS body to provide the technology for the future MF and FF bodies.

Agree. I twill not make sense. It was a shot in the dark tape. Focus limiter does not make sense either.. I mean this is an UWA lens so usually the DOF is so much deeper that around f8-f11 almost everything is in focus at hyper focal length.

I have a feeling that it is going to be something silly new tech.

[luftfluss]

I can think of a couple reasons for a fast UWA*, and I don't even shoot UWA.

*Nothin' to do with subject isolation, either.

[pathdoc]

I can think of a couple reasons for a fast UWA*

Brightness of the viewfinder for indoors work and an extra stop of speed for lower-noise astro shots come to mind.

[photoptimist]

Does anyone have a clue why an UWA lens should be 2.8? That's a head scratcher for me. Someone who would buy this lens needs to explain it to me.

One word: "astrophotography."

Getting a gorgeous Milky Way w/landscape, star trails, or meteor shower shot depends on having the brightest aperture possible (and the lowest ISO possible).

Besides f/2.8 is like a line in the sand for "Pro" zooms vs. amateur zooms (and akin to the belief that variable aperture zooms can't be good).

In this era of internet reviews, "good enough" is never good enough. It's all about better, faster, sharper even if that performance is irrelevant (and costly and heavy) in the context of every day shooting.

[normhead]

I can think of a couple reasons for a fast UWA*, and I don't even shoot UWA.

*Nothin' to do with subject isolation, either.

Care to expand on those thoughts, or are they a state secret?