[Unlimited]

D1N0 you are correct about the Nikons; they have worse build quality, however the absence of that focus motor means I'd say around 50 grams less; of course there are also other parts justifying the sensible different weight. I'm in no way advocating lighter bodies, nor was I implying that Nikons are better because of that, I was just saying that Nikon have omitted inbody focus motors because of the reasons mentioned before.
Well.. I'm pretty sure the 18-35 would stay on the body at least 90% of the time. I agree for others as a every(easy)day it would not be recommended due to its size/weight. As for IQ of 20-40 that remains to be seen.

[repaap]

This whole conversation of cameras weight just became of jadijadi, when comparing also these two lenses +camera weight. I'd also belive that flare resistance could be little better from this limited Zoom, so more usability even inside spaces, clubs ect, where fast lens is good, there could be bright light sources ruining the shot, no?

Well that will remain to be seen. (Limiteds have been known to be great with flare resistance)

Ps. Light camera and long&heavy lens is not good match.

[Cambo]

Agree about the bodies. I mostly meant to say weight rather than size. Anyway the Nikons you mentioned are roughly about the same in size as K-50 and K-30 but considerably lighter: see for yourself:
Side by Side Comparison: Digital Photography Review

And about the size of the lens: agree with you that the in lens motor takes place and has weight but the "gigantic" lens of Canikon are mostly due to the fact that most of them are FF and as I said most of them put higher importance on IQ vs size.
Regarding the 20-40 I don't intend to buy it and not just because of its price but because I'll buy the Sigma 18-35.

look at the size of the Canon Consumer zooms with IS and motors in them compared to the Pentax of equivalent focal lengths. Or the full-frame Canon's next to the full frame Pentax...Canons are MUCH bigger because of all the stuff in the lenses. I was just making the point that I hope Pentax doesn't go that way.

Cheers,
Cameron

[snake]

While the theory of this lens is kind of cool, I can guarantee it will not be f2.8 at 24mm and will display, once again, lack of vision on Pentax's part, omitting, once again, the classic focal length for street and semi-wide shooting. A FL popularized again by the X100. The focal length Pentax fanboys will always try to make a workaround for (ie: DA21, FA31, etc.). They are not substitutes for a fast 24, simply put. Something nearly every serious company has. Even Sony.

[IchabodCrane]

While the theory of this lens is kind of cool, I can guarantee it will not be f2.8 at 24mm and will display, once again, lack of vision on Pentax's part, omitting, once again, the classic focal length for street and semi-wide shooting. A FL popularized again by the X100. The focal length Pentax fanboys will always try to make a workaround for (ie: DA21, FA31, etc.). They are not substitutes for a fast 24, simply put. Something nearly every serious company has. Even Sony.

So maybe it's f/3.0 at 24 mm. That's not "fast" but f/2.8 is?

[Quicksand]

It's going to skip right from 23 to 25.

[wed7]

A FL popularized again by the X100. The focal length Pentax fanboys will always try to make a workaround for (ie: DA21, FA31, etc.). They are not substitutes for a fast 24, simply put. Something nearly every serious company has.

Pentax really missed this chance if the the 20-40 will be having variable aperture for an ideal everyday lens.

[Andi Lo]

While the theory of this lens is kind of cool, I can guarantee it will not be f2.8 at 24mm and will display, once again, lack of vision on Pentax's part, omitting, once again, the classic focal length for street and semi-wide shooting. A FL popularized again by the X100. The focal length Pentax fanboys will always try to make a workaround for (ie: DA21, FA31, etc.). They are not substitutes for a fast 24, simply put. Something nearly every serious company has. Even Sony.

I dont get why 2.8 is so important at 24mm APSC... the DOF is not going to be very shallow to begin with. For that I think you need the Sigma 18-35/1/.8

High SO performance has for the most part replaced the need for fast lens for shutter speed purposes except in very dim light, where you won't be using this lens anyway, you'll be using the Sigma or a 1.8 prime.

Nikon's without screwdrive (d3200/D5200) are bulkier than the pentax camera's with screwdrive. And it makes the lenses bulkier instead. Lenses can also be huge because of a high F-number. F1.2 will give you a lot of light and very narrow DOF. But if you are not looking for that, you do not need a huge lens. I am sure the IQ of the 20-40 will be great.

Your point is valid, however target market of D3200/D5200 are not likely to go beyond the basic kitlens + basic telezoom and a 50/35 prime, where the size difference is not that big (in fact the 35mm DX is a very compact lens).

I can't wait until they announce the price of this lens, although I'm really afraid to hear what it is

[thibs]

D1N0 you are correct about the Nikons; they have worse build quality, however the absence of that focus motor means I'd say around 50 grams less; of course there are also other parts justifying the sensible different weight. I'm in no way advocating lighter bodies, nor was I implying that Nikons are better because of that, I was just saying that Nikon have omitted inbody focus motors because of the reasons mentioned before.<br />
Well.. I'm pretty sure the 18-35 would stay on the body at least 90% of the time. I agree for others as a every(easy)day it would not be recommended due to its size/weight. As for IQ of 20-40 that remains to be seen.

<br />
<br />
I dont think so: Nikon removed the internal motor for three reasons :<br />
* costs<br />
* weight (but really, 50g for that motor? not convinced)<br />
* market segmentation (big time)! <br />
<br />
The third reason forces customers not to go secondhand with af-d and prior lenses. It also forces the customer wanting to do so to shell out the money for a higher tier body.<br />
This is a smart strategy if not nice to customers. This is called playing dirty. Pentax(Ricoh) has not (yet) done such thing.

[Unlimited]

Thibs you actually think so.. there's just an addition to what I have written. Market segmentation exists by crippling cheaper bodies, however I don't think it's really the case in this aspect.. the cheaper bodies ARE cheaper by removing the (unnecessary) motor. From all the Nikon guys I know (true not that many) none have lens without motors; it's been quite a while since Nikon has produced screw drive driven lens, so removing something with really small chances of ever being used seems logical to me. Pentax on the other hand cannot do that since most of their lens are screw drive so Pentax is a little screwed . Many of the ones that have SDMs fail so that is not good either. Every camera manufacturer wishes to push consumers towards more expensive (and bigger profit) equipment. In case of lens their strategies differ: Canikon builds very good IQ basic kit lens (18-55) but cheaper and less durable so more likely to fail sooner whereas Pentax builds much better (builded) kit but with lower IQ; I would prefer using a better IQ lens for less time than using a mediocre one for much longer.
Anyway Pentax strategy for lens it's not working with me as I have no desire to buy any of their current lens. In Romania the price for K-3 kit with the mediocre 18-55 is ~ 35 USd more; even at that difference I'm not sure I would buy it to use it. I might buy the kit and sell the lens right away so that I could have a lowered price for the body and somebody with a broken non WR 18-55 could enjoy it for much less than a separate lens price.
Ok.. I've been slightly off-topic for too much now so I'll refrain on commenting any further.
Good luck with your 20-40 and may it be not priced as ususal !

[repaap]

I dont get why 2.8 is so important at 24mm APSC... the DOF is not going to be very shallow to begin with. For that I think you need the Sigma 18-35/1/.8

High SO performance has for the most part replaced the need for fast lens for shutter speed purposes except in very dim light, where you won't be using this lens anyway, you'll be using the Sigma or a 1.8 prime.



Your point is valid, however target market of D3200/D5200 are not likely to go beyond the basic kitlens + basic telezoom and a 50/35 prime, where the size difference is not that big (in fact the 35mm DX is a very compact lens).

I can't wait until they announce the price of this lens, although I'm really afraid to hear what it is

I'm also looking forward to see this baby's prize. I would be really surprised if it will be under 700€ And being limited it would be little suspicious. Maybe, 850€?

[Alizarine]

Canikon builds very good IQ basic kit lens (18-55) but cheaper and less durable so more likely to fail sooner whereas Pentax builds much better (builded) kit but with lower IQ; I would prefer using a better IQ lens for less time than using a mediocre one for much longer.

And can I ask how did you cross-evaluate between the Pentax and the other two systems with regards to their kit lenses IQ, to come up with this conclusion? Was it a numerical or a "real-life" kind of test?

[repaap]

Thibs you actually think so.. there's just an addition to what I have written. Market segmentation exists by crippling cheaper bodies, however I don't think it's really the case in this aspect.. the cheaper bodies ARE cheaper by removing the (unnecessary) motor. From all the Nikon guys I know (true not that many) none have lens without motors; it's been quite a while since Nikon has produced screw drive driven lens, so removing something with really small chances of ever being used seems logical to me. Pentax on the other hand cannot do that since most of their lens are screw drive so Pentax is a little screwed . Many of the ones that have SDMs fail so that is not good either. Every camera manufacturer wishes to push consumers towards more expensive (and bigger profit) equipment. In case of lens their strategies differ: Canikon builds very good IQ basic kit lens (18-55) but cheaper and less durable so more likely to fail sooner whereas Pentax builds much better (builded) kit but with lower IQ; I would prefer using a better IQ lens for less time than using a mediocre one for much longer.
Anyway Pentax strategy for lens it's not working with me as I have no desire to buy any of their current lens. In Romania the price for K-3 kit with the mediocre 18-55 is ~ 35 USd more; even at that difference I'm not sure I would buy it to use it. I might buy the kit and sell the lens right away so that I could have a lowered price for the body and somebody with a broken non WR 18-55 could enjoy it for much less than a separate lens price.
Ok.. I've been slightly off-topic for too much now so I'll refrain on commenting any further.
Good luck with your 20-40 and may it be not priced as ususal !

Well, that screwy thing is one thing wich makes so sought after Limiteds as compact as they are.
And
18-55WR is quite good for what it is. Ofcourse you would not know this because you haven't really tried it. I'd take something wich is working for longer time and is good for what it does, instead of something what I do know, that will break on me. But hey, it is just me.

[Unlimited]

And can I ask how did you cross-evaluate between the Pentax and the other two systems with regards to their kit lenses IQ, to come up with this conclusion? Was it a numerical or a "real-life" kind of test?

Truth be told I haven't compared them directly on the same subject. Because of different bodies I could not do a direct/fair comparison. But if hard evidence on photozone.de and lenstip is not enough for you I could say that I have used a lot a Canon 18-55 IS and it was damn sharp for what it was (a cheap kit zoom). It is comparable in sharpness to a Tamron 17-50, whereas the same cannot be said about Pentax 18-55. My ex-girlfriend's 18-55 Pentax is much worse than the Tamron 17-50 she's using now. Also the 18-55 IS Canon was sometimes a little sharper than my Sigma 24-70 f 2.8 Macro, which is not a bad lens at all. The 18-55 IS that I used in the past had some problem with its motor/mechanism as it would not AF all the time; however that lens has been used A LOT so it was somewhat to be expected to fail because of its cheapness. So I guess I have some proof on what I'm saying. Some pictures with a 18-55 IS on my 20D (except resize not processed at all):
Bikeshop.ro - anunturi-vanzare-motociclete-second-hand-kawasaki-zr 550 zephyr-din-1992-455999.html
The 18-55 Nikon is a little worse than Canon but still better than the Pentax. Of course Pentax has better build and has WR but I already said that. Please understand that I'm not bashing Pentax but I'm trying to be honest.
I said in my previous post that I'll stop going off-topic, so PLEASE if anyone disagrees with me write me a PM.
Best regards,
Ciprian

[Unlimited]

Can't edit my previous post with the following:
And btw I'm an engineer so:

You Tube

You Tube