[ogl]

i actually measured the pixels and it shows up as 28-120mm (+/- 1). That being said, i think the reason why the ends as drawn as gradients, is because pr are not sure about the specifications .

28-135/3.5-5.6

[audiobomber]

See the link below. The DFA large diameter lens is gone. That's it. Only a minor change...

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/products/lens/images/K_Mount_Lens.pdf

It's not gone, it's been moved up into the current section (D FA 24-70mm f2.8).

[Groucho]

Wake me up when they add a FF weathersealed fisheye zoom. Rectilinear lenses are so boring.

[K David]

What's FUD?

Friendship, Unprecedented love, and Dedication.

[pathdoc]

Frenzied Ululation and Droning ("Pentax is dooooooomed!! )

[monochrome]

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt

Don't buy that, we're going to have something much better at some point in the future...

desperately need the irony tag.

[K David]

Frenzied Ululation and Droning

Would say we'll have a Future of Unique Distinction?

[lytrytyr]

I just wish there were some purple dots in the planned lenses area.

There should be some gray dots soon!

[Kunzite]

Do you know something?

[K David]

There should be some gray dots soon!

I would imagine so, and I'll be really happy to look at those. I really want Limited lenses, though. Those are the lenses that consistently test out as some of the best ever made. But really, I like their size, weight, build, and so forth. (And usability on my film cameras helps.) I'll look at buying a gray-dot lens, but I would be hard pressed not to buy a purple-dot lens unless it overlaps something I already have.

[mgvh]

These comments show why I've been holding on to my Tamron 24-135 f3.5-5.6. Of course it would be nice to have a WR Pentax full-frame with that range, but this Tamron is a good option.

[banep]

I actually measured the pixels and it shows up as 28-120mm (+/- 1). That being said, I think the reason why the ends as drawn as gradients, is because PR are not sure about the specifications :P.

That lens will be full frame kit lens eqivalent of 16-85mm so it will have 24-128mm rounded probably to 24-135mm range. Genuine Pentax. Case closed.

[D1N0]

When I look at it it seems to be a 24-135. Tamron nor Tokina currently have such a lens. A very useful range. Agree with Banep

[normhead]

Since when does Pentax release kit lenses not in the same league as the Nikkors? One of the strengths of Pentax has always been the quality of their kit lenses. Is there some kind of aura going on here, that ascribes magical qualities to Nikkor glass? Did some camera company die and make Nikkor the standard? What's up?

Some of us don't worship Nikkor lenses, not even a little bit.

Some of us don't give a rats derriere about Nikkor lenses, at all... it's simply information we don't need to clutter our minds with.

[northcoastgreg]

Since when does Pentax release kit lenses not in the same league as the Nikkors?

That depends on what you mean by kit lens. Nowadays, any lens sold with a camera is sometimes regarded as a kit lens. Thus, the Nikkor 24-120 f4 and the Canon 24-105 f4, both of which are sometimes sold with Canikon FF cameras, and are therefore sometimes referred to as kit lenses. But these are pro-graded lenses costing over $1,000. Nikon's more common kit lens for their FF cameras is the 24-85 f3.5-4.5, which is a consumer grade FF kit lens with an MSRP of around $600.

Now the question is what price category is Pentax's slower FF zoom going to target? Irrespective of focal length, is it going to be a consumer grade lens in the $500 to $600 range? Or is it going to be more in the prosumer/professional range, north of $1,000? If the former, than it's not going to be as good a lens as the Nikkor 24-120 f4, because it's not going to be in the same class of lens. Even if we (gratuitously) assume that Pentax lenses tend to outperform similarly priced Nikkor lenses, surely it would be a stretch to suggest that consumer grade Pentax lenses out perform pro-grade Nikkors costing twice as much!

Some of us would like to see a Pentax equivalent to that 24-120 Nikkor or the Canon 24-105 L. But that would mean that the second standard zoom in the system would cost about as much as the new DFA 24-70 f2.8. Does Ricoh really want to force it's FF users to pay at least $1,000 for both of the new standard zooms in their FF system? Or do they want to provide something at a much lower priced point for cash-strapped FF-ophiles? My guess is that they'll choose the latter option. Which is fine, as it would give me a very good excuse for sticking with APS-C, which I'm inclined to do in any case.