[RioRico]

The worst part about the lenses that they do have always repeating and overlapping each other is that they're all missing one of the most important ranges, the 18-105mm range! I want a lens with this range.

Make that 10-100 and I'll agree. At f/2.8, of course. WR would be nice, macro not necessary, no f*cking USM/SDM, UV-transparent, etc. Oh, and it should be light-weight. And available in various colors. And not too expensive. I'll even clear a landing pad on my roof for the reindeer and sleigh when it's delivered.

Ah, another point. The ever-present 18-55 kit is equivalent to the old 28-80 kit of yesteryear. (I'll ignore all those wimpy 35-80 kit lenses, not enough stretch.) But the 28-80 kit's constant companion was the ubiquitous 70-200 (or sometimes 80-210 or thereabouts -- much glass available in that neighborhood). The corresponding APS-C equivalent would be 50-135 or so, maybe racked out to 50-150. Pentax makes just ONE 50-135, and it ain't cheap. I glance around and I see various 50-200's, but very little in the 50-135 area. Curious. I'm not questioning why, I'm just curious. (Not yellow.) (Oops, that's a 60's reference. Ignore it.)

"At her confirmation classes they had worked through the Commandments;
at the seventh, an evening had been devoted to impure curiosity."
--E.Bowen

[GeneV]

Make that 10-100 and I'll agree. At f/2.8, of course. WR would be nice, macro not necessary, no f*cking USM/SDM, UV-transparent, etc. Oh, and it should be light-weight. And available in various colors. And not too expensive. I'll even clear a landing pad on my roof for the reindeer and sleigh when it's delivered.

Ah, another point. The ever-present 18-55 kit is equivalent to the old 28-80 kit of yesteryear. (I'll ignore all those wimpy 35-80 kit lenses, not enough stretch.) But the 28-80 kit's constant companion was the ubiquitous 70-200 (or sometimes 80-210 or thereabouts -- much glass available in that neighborhood). The corresponding APS-C equivalent would be 50-135 or so, maybe racked out to 50-150. Pentax makes just ONE 50-135, and it ain't cheap. I glance around and I see various 50-200's, but very little in the 50-135 area. Curious. I'm not questioning why, I'm just curious. (Not yellow.) (Oops, that's a 60's reference. Ignore it.)

"At her confirmation classes they had worked through the Commandments;
at the seventh, an evening had been devoted to impure curiosity."
--E.Bowen

They do make a 50-200, which is at its best as a 50-150 (though not too bad at 200).

[jct us101]

Make that 10-100 and I'll agree. At f/2.8, of course. WR would be nice, macro not necessary, no f*cking USM/SDM, UV-transparent, etc. Oh, and it should be light-weight. And available in various colors. And not too expensive. I'll even clear a landing pad on my roof for the reindeer and sleigh when it's delivered.

Ah, another point. The ever-present 18-55 kit is equivalent to the old 28-80 kit of yesteryear. (I'll ignore all those wimpy 35-80 kit lenses, not enough stretch.) But the 28-80 kit's constant companion was the ubiquitous 70-200 (or sometimes 80-210 or thereabouts -- much glass available in that neighborhood). The corresponding APS-C equivalent would be 50-135 or so, maybe racked out to 50-150. Pentax makes just ONE 50-135, and it ain't cheap. I glance around and I see various 50-200's, but very little in the 50-135 area. Curious. I'm not questioning why, I'm just curious. (Not yellow.) (Oops, that's a 60's reference. Ignore it.)

"At her confirmation classes they had worked through the Commandments;
at the seventh, an evening had been devoted to impure curiosity."
--E.Bowen

Oh come now, that's not fair, you know that Pentax isn't capable of a 10mm wide angle. Maybe we'll just have to wait for Sigma to do this. Oh wait, they already did! Too bad their lens sucks though, the 18-125mm and the 18-125mm OS (I've tried the former before, it really does suck way more than I originally thought) but I don't know about the latter one.

[sterretje]

Most answers were already given but those wondering about the 17-70:

Each of those short zooms (meaning 3x or 4x) has it's purpose. 18-55 as kit lens (with WR option nowadays), 16-45 being slightly wider and constant aperture, 16-50 being faster (and WR) and 17-70 having the extra reach.

I personally don't have a need for a 18-105 (or similar), 17-70 would be fine for me. My wife however would definitely enjoy that range.