[Rondec]

Honestly, if Pentax came out with a 60-300 f4.5 to f6.3 zoom, I would probably sell my DA 55-300 and purchase it. It would be handy to have one full frame lens that went to 300mm, even if it is low class.

[reh321]

With no information other than a look at the existing and road-mapped lineup, I would expect this to be along the lines of the existing 55-300 APS-C lens in terms of aperture.
I'd expect it to cost a bit more, just for the implication that comes with full-frame coverage.
And I would like the focus to be as fast as the PLM, though I doubt that will happen, simply due to the mass. Happy to be wrong there, though...

-Eric

My understanding is that special design considerations allowed them to make the focusing element of the DA 55-300 PLM lens sufficiently small that the PLM motor could move it. I don't know how large that element would have to be on a DFA lens, and that would be a major issue in focus speed.

[sbh]

I wonder if there will ever be a DFA 24-105/4 to go with the DFA 70-200/4.

That would be great. Much more useful than 24-70.

[builttospill]

I know a landscape shooter who raves about his Canon 24-105 f/4...he never shoots at anything less than f/11...:shrug:

That's a good point. And the Canon 24-105 is worth raving about; it's a very good lens.

[builttospill]

Lordy.
It takes all types.


There's low class and then there's no class.

You completely missed my point.

[totsmuyco]

I really wish there could be a software update allowing older cameras to use 55-300 plm. It's an answer to what we've clamored for a faster AF lens. I asked Pentax why can't it be used on my k-5II? Why? Why?

Pentax simply answered Because! Because! Because! ������

[Sandy Hancock]

I really wish there could be a software update allowing older cameras to use 55-300 PLM. It's an answer to what we've clamored for a faster AF lens. I asked Pentax why can't it be used on my k-5II? Why? Why?

Because they want you to buy a new body of course!

[Paul the Sunman]

I don't expect any "low class" FF lenses. The DFA 28-105 sets the benchmark for "affordable" general user optics, and it is excellent. The benchmarked 60-300 is likely to be of that sort of quality, but saving size and weight by being slower and variable maximum aperture. I would buy one for when I don't want to tote around my 70-200 or 150-450. Definitely needed.

[normhead]

That's a good point. And the Canon 24-105 is worth raving about; it's a very good lens.

Funny optical limits isn't raving about it. 3 out of five in the overall raving rating.

The lens produces massive barrel distortion of 4.3% at 24mm - this is highly disturbing for architecture photography or scenes with straight lines unless you correct the effect during post-processing. The situation eases soon thereafter and the lens reaches its lowest degree of distortion at 40mm (~0.7%). The problem increases again towards the long end of the range but the local pincushion distortion remains acceptable at around 1.5%

In the Pentax world, this is a "lenses for the way people take pictures" lens (Sharp centre softer edges) . Not the more modern "modern lenses for modern sensors" like all the DFA lenses.

The much maligned DA 18-135 at 24mm is 1.25% barrel distortion. A least on the graphs (which shouldn't be compared but do give a general indication of overall performance) the DA 18-135 also looks better for centre and edge sharpness. And Klaus gave the 18-135 a 1.5 out of 5 rating. It was actually the Canon 24-105 that convinced my I'd rather have the sharper 28-105, and that maybe I was being an idiot waiting for a similar lens from Pentax. If it was like the Canon I wouldn't have bought it. The Pentax DFA 28-105, now there's a lens people are raving about , with good reason, not just because it's what their brand sells.

So I'm curious who's raving about this Canon lens?

You can't sell me one of those high class Canon 24-105s. It's a perfect answer to why those who think fixed aperture lenses are better than variable need to understand, there are lens charts for a reason. It ain't necessarily so.

Funny how your perception of these lenses changes when you do bit of research. When the 28-105 came out I wanted 24-105, then I read the comments about the Canon 24-105 on line. Personally, I didn't see any raving, and I saw a lot of complaining.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I hope you were joking.
And what would it say about Canon users if they were "raving" about a lens with 4.5% barrel distortion at the wide end? That's more like the Pentax FA-J 18-35 I paid $100 for, new in box.

[lytrytyr]

And what would it say about Canon users if they were "raving" about a lens with 4.5% barrel distortion at the wide end?

Norm, it looks like you're confusing the old L IS with the new L IS II here.

[biz-engineer]

That's a good point. And the Canon 24-105 is worth raving about; it's a very good lens.

The RF 24-105 has impressive review. However, when I compare actually images in the corners, and test charts, I realize the reviews at BS. The RF24-105 is still a zoom, still has CA and corner sharpness of a zoom of the class of FF standard zooms. And the RF 24-105 is tested on EOS R with 30Mp and optical LP filter on the sensor, no that hard as if it was tested on a 5DSr or Pentax K1 with PS. So for me, there isn't much difference between 28-70, 24-70 , 28-105, 24-105 , 24-120, they are all 3x and 4x zooms with inneviable tradeoffs on the optical designs.

If sharpness is a concern, how to move forward from there:
-> keep the same camera and use prime lenses.
-> buy a camera with a bigger sensor.

---------- Post added 05-05-19 at 23:07 ----------

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I hope you were joking.

The marketing of the 24-105 was very good. The real performance was quite similar to any other zoom of the same class.

[reh321]

The marketing of the 24-105 was very good. The real performance was quite similar to any other zoom of the same class.

Some of us prefer zoom lenses. A zoom lens allows me to select a perspective and then zoom to get the framing I want. With prime lenses, I either need a wheelbarrow to lug my lenses, or I need to limit myself to the perspective / framing options provided by the lenses I happen to have with me. I am not addicted to needle-sharp corner-to-corner lenses. I put my main subject in the center of the photograph ..... having other things soft is just grand, because that just puts more attention on the main subject. Also, I'm not impressed by pixel-peeking; I want those who look at my photos to be at a respectful distance and enjoy the entire scene as I saw it when shooting it.

[normhead]

Norm, it looks like you're confusing the old L IS with the new L IS II here.

Probably..... when people don't provide links you are free to assume whatever you want.

[stevebrot]

The linked thread is pure wishful thinking and speculation, as is this thread.

[MegaPower]

canon is offering a 70-300 with IS at F4-5.6

a 55-300 on full frame will be a fat lens unless with a small aperture.