[shaolen]

so yes I think this is a bit alarming. A good 24-105/120 is something that would attract many buyers and then they can move on to cheaper kits later. This camera isn't going to attract many on the cheap buyers anyway. But lets not forget Pentax's legacy. If I need to ill go that route

[kooks]

Very disappointed.
Given the target of new Full frame - professionals, expert amateurs - a constant F4 zoom would have been of more appeal than a variable aperture zoom starting only at 28mm,

Pros will not use a kit lens.. and this is a KIT LENS, this will be a cheap lens for the FF which will be perfect in order to sell the camera at a really competitive price as a bundle... Pros wont buy this, pros will get the body and then the 24-70 and 70-200mm, but not this lens because this lens isnt ment to that target.

This is like if you were asking Pentax to include the DA*16-50 as a kit lens and keep the price of the bundle as low as when they sell it with the DAL 18-55.

Also this confirms that Pentax is not only looking for high end pros, whey are looking for as many people as they can and want to use their FF camera at a really competitive prices, is not that hard to understand.

[bertwert]

This is like if you were asking Pentax to include the DA*16-50 as a kit lens and keep the price of the bundle as low as when they sell it with the DAL 18-55.

I wouldn't mind that...

[ramseybuckeye]

Pentax had an FA28-105 F4-5.6 that was produced by Tamron and they are very good for a low price lens. I don't know if this could possibly be a tweak of that design. But most of the manufacturers have some cheaper lenses in the lineups because there is a market for them. Using an older optical design could get a lens to market faster, while engineers can spend more time on new optics.

[FantasticMrFox]

28 mm instead of 24 mm and f/3.5-5.6 instead of f/4?

Hm ... not sure whether that's a wise decision on Ricoh's behalf.

[filoxophy]

Very disappointed.
Given the target of new Full frame - professionals, expert amateurs - a constant F4 zoom would have been of more appeal than a variable aperture zoom starting only at 28mm, when Canon and Nikon offer a wider range starting at 24mm. Pentax will have a huge challenge in shaking up the very competitive full frame market, but is going the wrong way here...

With the obvious caveat that nothing under discussion has been released yet:

By all appearances the K-1 will be a very advanced model by a number of metrics--a Canon 6D it's not. So yes, it deserves good pro glass and will get it in the form of the 15-30/24-70/70-200 f/2.8 trio at or closely following launch.

However, it's also rumored to launch around $2000 USD, just a few hundred more than the K-7 and K-5 were at launch. So why again are you disappointed that a lower cost "kit" FF zoom is going to be offered? Constant f/4 zooms in the wide-to-short-tele range are typically premium offerings in between a "kit" zoom and a "pro" zoom. How many price points should Ricoh have covered at launch to make you happy?

[Newtophotos]

Aaaaaannnnnddd . . . Here we go.

I want to see a scanned invoice from every poster who bought CaNikon (or kept comparable CaNikon) instead of the K-1 because (name your complaint). This will be my response:

INVOICE. If there's NO invoice it didn't happen.

Can this be a sticky?

[Cez]

Pros will not use a kit lens.. and this is a KIT LENS, this will be a cheap lens for the FF which will be perfect in order to sell the camera at a really competitive price as a bundle... Pros wont buy this, pros will get the body and then the 24-70 and 70-200mm, but not this lens because this lens isnt ment to that target.

This is like if you were asking Pentax to include the DA*16-50 as a kit lens and keep the price of the bundle as low as when they sell it with the DAL 18-55.

Also this confirms that Pentax is not only looking for high end pros, whey are looking for as many people as they can and want to use their FF camera at a really competitive prices, is not that hard to understand.

Again, a FF camera is neither targeted to the masses looking for cheap bundles (they mostly go for an APS-C instead, and Pentax has a very good extensive offer for them), nor exclusively to pros willing to buy only high end lenses such as FA Limiteds and the f/2.8 zooms.

In between the two, there is also an important "prosumer" market who is interested in high end lenses but also looking for versatile and quality lenses, especially among those buying Pentax. Although Canon, Nikon and Sony have indeed variable aperture kit lenses for FF cameras, I still continue to think that it is not what is driving their sales.

But I admit I am moaning a bit because I was really up to a 24-105/120 f4 lens for travelling... I do not actually care if it is sold as a kit lens or not actually, I just regret such a lens doesn't exist and doesn't seem planned yet.

Hope Pentax will deliver it in a near future or that Sigma will fill in the gap, as suggested by others.

[rawr]

For some folks the bundled price of this vs 24-70mm might be the difference in buying the FF at launch or not.

Easing the 'sticker shock' for camera+body buyers can indeed sometimes be critical.

If Pentax wanted to keep the shelf price low, even the FF-compatible $100 DA 50 f1.8 could probably do a creditable job as a K-1 kit lens.

I've seen the decent 'plastic fantastic' $200 Nikon 50 f1.8G offered as a kit lens for the D610/D750, so even 'pro' brands sometimes want to keep the bundled price down as much as possible.

[jpzk]

Another interesting thread to which I am subscribing, along with a couple of others, for the sake of reading all the complaints on products not even available yet.
I'm staying tuned for further reading.
Cheers!

[kooks]

but I really hope Pentax will deliver it in a near future or that Sigma will fill in the gap, as suggested by others.

I bet that they will... but they can not do it all at once, and my guess is that at this time they need as many people as they can in order to sell their FF products, they know that in order to compete with Canikons the price is very important.. This lens looks like will be a nice option for people that is with a short budget.

[Digitalis]

hey know that in order to compete with Canikons the price is very important

...and replicating every FL with identical aperture is also very important if all the complaints in this thread are anything to go by.

[Cez]

If Pentax wanted to keep the shelf price low, even the FF-compatible $100 DA 50 f1.8 could probably do a creditable job as a K-1 kit lens. .

Totally agree.

[zmohie]

The kit lens is used to be a net to attract the new customers not the brand loyalties.
Pentaxians already have dozens of FF lenses but new customers who want to know the system will not buy expensive lenses at first attempt. Ricoh knows what the market needs.

[Kharan]

Pentax 24-70mm costs around EUR 1300
Canon 24-105 costs around EUR 700

Nearly half the price.

Sure, if you don't consider that the Canon is a ten year old design, and that tens of thousands of copies have been sold, and that the price you referenced is grey market/refurb. Also, it's a stop slower, and really isn't an impressive lens, considering how large and heavy it is. Try searching for the Canon 24-70mm f/4 L IS, it'll return you to your senses.

The elephant in the room here is SIZE. The new 28-105mm looks very compact, also probably quite light, and I'd guess it'll have performance similar to the 20-40mm Ltd: unimpressive wide open, and very good a stop down the road. If the lens really shapes out to be small and light, then I'll salute Pentax for really sticking to their philosophy of compactness.

PS: primes don't count. You can argue for primes all you want, but many people just need a versatile zoom with WR to travel. Changing lenses is simply absurd in some environments, and it isn't like WR primes are abundant in the line-up, either.