[mee]

I was expecting this at around 500 USD. I hope the current 750 USD price is the 'just released' price and it lowers to at least the 600ish range new with the used price somewhere around 400.

24-127.5mm if the crop is accounted for is a nice range imo for a generial, multipurpose lens.

[kooks]

We need sings of FF glass + body... But $750 for a slow lens mmmmm not really interested..

Every DA lens is presumed to be APS-C only unless otherwise some FF tests have been done...



the DC motor would also be a relief for the SDM-spooked. While my DA*50-135's motor hasn't failed me once, it's still better to know the better motor could come in more practical lenses

Almost Halloween but not spooked. My well traveled and heavily used 50-135 ( bought new in 2009) and my often used DA 17-70 ( used in 2012 from KEH) have been trouble free.

[thibs]

C'mon guys, an FF zoom starting at 16mm would be both a lot bigger and a lot more expensive.

[jatrax]

C'mon guys, an FF zoom starting at 16mm would be both a lot bigger and a lot more expensive.

Is there a FF zoom that starts at 16mm?

---------- Post added 10-29-14 at 09:37 PM ----------

I was expecting this at around 500 USD. I hope the current 750 USD price is the 'just released' price and it lowers to at least the 600ish range new with the used price somewhere around 400.

I was hoping that release price would be $750 and afraid it would be $950. I think you are correct, it will drop to $600 but that might be a year out.

All depending on IQ of course. At that price point, and slow aperture the IQ has to be outstanding or this is a non-starter.

[rawr]

Is there a FF zoom that starts at 16mm?

Sigma 12-24, Nikon 14-24mm, Tokina 16-28mm, Nikon 16-35mm, Canon 16-35, Tokina 17-35mm, Canon 17-40mm ...

[jatrax]

Sigma 12-24, Nikon 14-24mm, Tokina 16-28mm, Nikon 16-35mm, Canon 16-35, Tokina 17-35mm, Canon 17-40mm ...

Yeah, I knew about the Sigma and the Nikon but it did not connect, I almost bought the Sigma at one time. The others I was not aware of.

The press release makes no mention of APS-C............. Though I cannot imagine it possible for this to be FF compatible with 5.3x zoom range.

[Bob from Aus]

But the 18-135 is also 3.5-5.6 and has only 62mm filter so can someone explain why this lens needs a 72mm filter for the same aperture and less focal length? I must be missing something.

I have a theory - the 18-135 has a bucket load of distortion which i find needs a lot of correction for wide angle shots. I expect this new lens to be much much better.

[rburgoss]

Compared to the 18-135 (both f3.5 - 5.6), it puzzles me why it's a 72mm filter diameter lens vs 62mm, and heavier (488g vs 405g). Min focus distance is about the same. WR, DC motor etc the same.

Optical construction of the 16-85 is a tad more complicated (16 elements in 12 groups for the 16-85 vs 13 elements in 11 groups for the 18-135), so I guess the extra weight is due to the extra glass - perhaps to improve the 18-135 optical performance - and to get that extra 2mm of wide.

Be very interested in the lenstip or other reviews to see how it goes.

I do accept the extra 2mm at the short end makes a big difference, but cutting 50mm at the long end and at the same time increase price around 50% over the retail price of the DA 18-135, it better be an excelent performer on which IQ can be appreciated with bare eyes over a normal screen, THROUGH THE WHOLE ZOOM RANGE! If test show its IQ is very similar to the DA18-135 along the full comparable zoom range (18-85), or you actually need some pixel peeping to tell a difference, then this new lens is not worth a second look and should be priced below the $300 line, just to use it as an improved kit lens over the DA 18-55.

In short words, if its built like a "filet mignon" and priced like "filet mignon", then I expect "filet mignon" taste, not a Salisbury Steak from a frozen TV dinner...

[ElJamoquio]

I find it hard to believe it won't be worth a $300 upgrade over the 18-135. Whether it's worth $750 is another matter, but I'll guess it'll be a decent lens.

[rrstuff]

Yeah, I knew about the Sigma and the Nikon but it did not connect, I almost bought the Sigma at one time. The others I was not aware of.

The press release makes no mention of APS-C............. Though I cannot imagine it possible for this to be FF compatible with 5.3x zoom range.

It will probably be "FF" starting from 24mm to 85mm.

[howieb101]

It is what it is but Ricoh (Pentax) need to offer some halo products. Atleast a few new fast primes or a new fast zoom. What Fujifilm has delivered in such a small space of time puts Ricoh (Pentax) to shame.

[Digitalis]

C'mon guys, an FF zoom starting at 16mm would be both a lot bigger and a lot more expensive.

Exactly - this lens looks too small to be usable on FX format, it may be usable on FX at focal lengths 24mm and above but any wider than that will cause problems.

Sigma 12-24, Nikon 14-24mm, Tokina 16-28mm, Nikon 16-35mm, Canon 16-35, Tokina 17-35mm, Canon 17-40mm ...

...You forgot the Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 - which is still a pretty big lens, but very light.

[robjmitchell]

If it is similar IQ to the 55-300 and you can get it for $500ish when purchased with a camera body then it will sell quite well.
1ED and three aspherical elements could mean its even better, although i'm not holding my breath.

[Kunzite]

Ricoh's page, with some not so useful samples and other information:
HD PENTAX-DA 16-85mmF3.5-5.6ED DC WR / Standard-Angle Lenses / K-mount Lenses / Lenses / Products | RICOH IMAGING
What I find interesting, they published MTF charts - the first/only lens which has them.