[Zygonyx]

Has anyone an idea of the filter diameter of the lens hood itself ?
I would appreciate 62 or even better 67mm... thinking of my filter shed.

[thibs]

Definitely NSFW (Not Safe For Wife)

Is it? Mine doesn't care.

[Cambo]

Has anyone an idea of the filter diameter of the lens hood itself ?
I would appreciate 62 or even better 67mm... thinking of my filter shed.

same as the 50-200.

Cheers,
Cameron

[jatrax]

Definitely NSFW (Not Safe For Wife)

Not true here, mine wants one for her k-5II..............

[Zygonyx]

same as the 50-200.

Cheers,
Cameron

Let me doubt of this, it would mean 52mm diameter, smaller than the 55mm indicated on the lens.

[grispie]

And that's beautiful!
Now, I think I'm going to get this 20-40mm instead of the 16-50mm...
This set-up is like a Leica in the world of DSLR...

I had a leica digilux 2, which has a fixed but superb 28-90mm f2-2.8 lens on it. Great for strolling, 16-50 way too big for that same feeling.
If IQ is anything like that, putting this on my (soon to arrive) silver K3, would be very comparable. the only thing is that the Leica D2 has a manual aperture ring.

Noticed some discussion on silver vs black. from the unboxings i saw on youtube, i have the feeling i would wanna put a black one on it. Silver body and silver lens just seems too much, well, silver :-)

[Kunzite]

I had a leica digilux 2, which has a fixed but superb 28-90mm f2-2.8 lens on it.

It doesn't; it's lens is a 7-22.5mm.

[grispie]

It doesn't; it's lens is a 7-22.5mm.

ok, 7 to 22.5mm for you...
equivalent to...

[Kunzite]

Equivalency fails when discussing size, and I refuse to use fake standards which are irrelevant to me (as long as I'm an APS-C user)
But the point was that it can be as compact because it really is a 7-22.5mm lens - a non-SLR lens. Because of this, the 1+ stop slower 20-40mm SLR lens, while physically larger (about 15mm longer), should be considered an amazingly compact lens. I was worried - before knowing the specs - that it would be a constant f/4 in order to keep it compact; Pentax outdid my expectations.

[Cambo]

Let me doubt of this, it would mean 52mm diameter, smaller than the 55mm indicated on the lens.

should've checked. Going by ancient failing memory banks...

Cheers,
Cameron

[gazonk]

But the point was that it can be as compact because it really is a 7-22.5mm lens - a non-SLR lens.

The Fujifilm SL1000 has a 24-1200 lens and weighs less than the K-3 body - Pentax is doooooomed!!

[grispie]

a non-SLR lens. Because of this, the 1+ stop slower 20-40mm SLR lens, while physically larger (about 15mm longer), should be considered an amazingly compact lens. I was worried - before knowing the specs - that it would be a constant f/4 in order to keep it compact; Pentax outdid my expectations.

Can you help me understand why they couldn't make it a, lets say, f2-2.8 e.g.? lets edit that: what makes it so difficult to make an SLR lens f2. vs 2.8 e.g. while keeping the size the same?

Aside from that, I was a bit skeptical at first, but then again, the range is nice, f2.8-4 is nice, small is nice, WR is nice. If IQ is there, it may very well end up on my shelf...

[Kunzite]

I'm no expert thus probably not the right person to try and explain such things, but one stop faster means ~1.41x the diameter, right?
Of course, that's an oversimplified view; maybe making it a constant f/2.8 would not require a significant increase in size; or maybe more elements would be required in order to compensate for aberrations, and it would result in a larger lens.

[SyncGuy]

Can you help me understand why they couldn't make it a, lets say, f2-2.8 e.g.? lets edit that: what makes it so difficult to make an SLR lens f2. vs 2.8 e.g. while keeping the size the same?

Aside from that, I was a bit skeptical at first, but then again, the range is nice, f2.8-4 is nice, small is nice, WR is nice. If IQ is there, it may very well end up on my shelf...

Not technically possible coz it has something to do with flange distance also...
What Kunzite states is true... Just look at the Sigma 18-35/1.8.. Sheesh!

I'm no expert thus probably not the right person to try and explain such things, but one stop faster means ~1.41x the diameter, right?
Of course, that's an oversimplified view; maybe making it a constant f/2.8 would not require a significant increase in size; or maybe more elements would be required in order to compensate for aberrations, and it would result in a larger lens.

And i don't think it is possible at all.. Why? Because it will cannibalize the da16-50/2.8 sales..
And that's what make it impossible...

[goubejp]

I have owned a 16-50 f2.8. In fact it is not a constant f2.8 lens optically. I mean that at 16 mm, wide open, the diaphragm is closed to stop down the lens to f2.8. It is more a 16-50 f2-2.8 stopped down to force it to f2.8. Image quality at 16 mm f2 is certainly not the best.