[reh321]

Right.. its a cheap kit lens. Some of you need to understand it for what it is.

It isn't a 24-105 f/4 because it isn't trying to be a 24-105 f/4

It is trying to be a cheap, kit lens and it has succeeded.

I would agree if you replace the word "cheap" by the word "inexpensive"

[derekkite]

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.

The retailers would demand it. They want a low sticker price with a lens.

I have yet to buy a kit lens with a body.

[aleonx3]

24-105mm F4 is still small and light. And I don't understand why this lens's wide open sharpness isn't good? I'm using 5d mark 3 btw.

No need to defend it rigorously if you believe it is one of the greatest lens, just show us some of your good work using this lens. Then it will silent people down; perhaps you may have a wonderful copy of this lens, I haven't seen one yet.

[VoiceOfReason]

If it only raises the price of the body a hundred or hundred and fifty I will get it, if not the body is fine for me since I have good FF coverage. I think this would be a good walk around lens.

[Na Horuk]

Anyway, if they are to have three ranges they need to start somewhere and having nothing at all but expensive f/2.8 zooms is perhaps not a good plan in the short term.

Yep. Especially since many of the DA zoom lenses are not FF in all focal lengths/focus distances.

It is trying to be a cheap, kit lens and it has succeeded.

lol well okay, I think you are hammering the "cheap" part a bit too hard. Hopefully its optics won't be "cheap." (if they are on par with 17-70mm lenses available for APSC, it should be okay; already higher than the absolutely cheapest DA L kit lenses)

By the way, where are all the equivalistas saying "Actually, this is a f/2.6-4.9 lens in APS-C terms."?

No need to defend it rigorously if you believe it is one of the greatest lens, just show us some of your good work using this lens. Then it will silent people down; perhaps you may have a wonderful copy of this lens, I haven't seen one yet.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127120595@N05/albums/72157656835084411/page1
For these pics, I used mark 2 with 24-105mm mostly. I carried mark 2 with 24-105 AND Pentax 67 with 105mm for 2months trip.

Well, beside f4 and IS, if Pentax 28-105 have a nice quality, it would be great except for the widest focal length.

[TwoUptons]

I've heard a couple of people mention (though whether through rumor or speculation I don't know) the possibility of a second full-frame body to be released later this year.

It seems to me that a 28-105 would be just the ticket for a "less-pro" kit lens designed to match the second body but available now for folks who don't want the 24-70 on their K1 but want something new to cover FF.

I was hoping for a 24-105(or 120), and I won't likely buy the 28-105, but I thought the 17-70 was a nice range in APS-C, even if I didn't need it, and this seems to serve the same purpose...

-Eric

[hangman43]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127120595@N05/albums/72157656835084411/page1
For these pics, I used mark 2 with 24-105mm mostly. I carried mark 2 with 24-105 AND Pentax 67 with 105mm for 2months trip.

Every one I looked at were shot at F/8 and up so why would it matter if this lens is not a F/4 if it works as well at F/8 which it might if not better.

Every one I looked at were shot at F/8 and up so why would it matter if this lens is not a F/4 if it works as well at F/8 which it might if not better.

Well did I ever mentioned and argues about F4? If I do argue about Pentax 28-105 lens, then it will be its widest focal length and variable aperture.

[bibz]

The canon 24-105 f4 is a dog of a lens and a waste to put on a 36mp sensor fyi. Not a small lens, and I'm not confident on the build quality of the cheap L stuff. Red ring or not, the premium isn't worth it IMO. Compared to even the original 24-70 its laughable. I know one pro who went without when his 24-70 was in the shop and had a 24-105 to use. It's fine for 1080 video, but even then you can see some of its weaknesses.

The canon 24-105 f4 is a dog of a lens and a waste to put on a 36mp sensor fyi. Not a small lens, and I'm not confident on the build quality of the cheap L stuff. Red ring or not, the premium isn't worth it IMO. Compared to even the original 24-70 its laughable. I know one pro who went without when his 24-70 was in the shop and had a 24-105 to use. It's fine for 1080 video, but even then you can see some of its weaknesses.

Canon still didn't renew it btw

[cheesehead]

Here's my perspective as a longtime lurker. I'm one of those amateurs who got started on a K1000 and loves photography. I take photos for fun. I go outside and take photos to relax. My friends ask me to bring my camera (now K-5) to events.

I'm part of the target market for the K-1, and if and when I can find the money, I'm buying it (assuming it's as good as I think it will be). When I'm taking pictures for me, I'm using primes, and I'm really looking forwards to matching the K-1 with my 100mm FA macro and my 28 & 50 mm FA's. And trying out my K 30mm.

I'd probably the buy kit lens D-FA 28-105 for walk-around except I already have the F 35-70 and FA 28-105. I'll be interested in seeing how it does against those and the 24-90. If it's better than those, maybe I'll buy it. I'm glad Pentax is offering a newer consumer FF zoom.

But if I'm paying big money for glass, it's going to be for the amigos primes, maybe a Sigma ART, an ultrawide, not a high-end zoom. For my shooting, the zoom is for the casual stuff. I need a zoom, but I don't need to spend a grand on one. Not until my LBA gets a lot worse.

[aleonx3]

Every one I looked at were shot at F/8 and up so why would it matter if this lens is not a F/4 if it works as well at F/8 which it might if not better.

You took the words out of my mouth and by that standard, the new DFA 28-105 will be looking good with HD coating (we know Pentax/Ricoh lens design philosophy as in DA18-135 and 16-85 - more on IQ and less distortion).

Well did I ever mentioned and argues about F4? If I do argue about Pentax 28-105 lens, then it will be its widest focal length and variable aperture.

If it is a great lens, people would tend to think it is sharp wide-open (ie. at F4), which is not what you primarily used it for (mostly outdoor at f8 or smaller). However, having said that, there is no question that the 24-105/f4 is a good travel lens as it is mostly intended for convenience with decent image quality and reasonably fast at F4. The thing that bothers me (and other event photographers) is the lens distortion at the wide-end for people shot especially in a group photo. If you, like me, shoot a lot of group photos indoors, you will know what I mean. The other thing about the lens (may be also something to do with the Canon sensor as well) is the colour (or rather lack of it), which does not compare well with Pentax of course, just IMHO. Nevertheless, nice set of travel photos, enjoy what you have.

By the way, just to show you that my DA 18-135 lens/k-5II lighter travelling combo is not really that bad compare to yours (my Korea trip).


---------- Post added 02-14-2016 at 10:14 PM ----------

Canon still didn't renew it btw

Why would Canon renew it if people keep buying it... not until they own it then realize it through experience with other photogs, I am sure when you bought yours, you believe it is a one of the greatest lens not until you see other people using other lenses and started to compare and question.

---------- Post added 02-14-2016 at 10:15 PM ----------

The canon 24-105 f4 is a dog of a lens and a waste to put on a 36mp sensor fyi. Not a small lens, and I'm not confident on the build quality of the cheap L stuff. Red ring or not, the premium isn't worth it IMO. Compared to even the original 24-70 its laughable. I know one pro who went without when his 24-70 was in the shop and had a 24-105 to use. It's fine for 1080 video, but even then you can see some of its weaknesses.

Somehow, I have to agree... it is one of the cheapo L glass and yet widely owned by Canon users (almost every Canon user has one). I agree that 24-70 L glass is different beast though.

[mee]

I would agree if you replace the word "cheap" by the word "inexpensive"

Those words are synonymous in the English language.

---------- Post added 02-14-16 at 10:39 PM ----------

lol well okay, I think you are hammering the "cheap" part a bit too hard. Hopefully its optics won't be "cheap." (if they are on par with 17-70mm lenses available for APSC, it should be okay; already higher than the absolutely cheapest DA L kit lenses)

No, you don't know what I'm saying are assuming about what I'm saying versus asking what I'm saying. This is the crux of the issue with online discussions... few people ask and just assume creating arguments that don't exist.

What I'm saying is I'm sure it will be fine optically for what it is yet should be very affordable... the old FA series 28-105s aren't bad in this aspect... and this new lens will have ED elements and the HD coating.. plus a DC motor and weather seals.

[reh321]

I would agree if you replace the word "cheap" by the word "inexpensive"

Those words are synonymous in the English language.

I don't know where in the US you live. I have lived in the Midwest and in Massachusetts.
Every place I have lived, "inexpensive" has been synonymous with "low cost", but "cheap" has had an added implication of "low quality".
My K-30 was inexpensive, but no one would claim that it is poorly made / "cheap".
YMMV

added: My expectation that some people would infer "poorly made" when they see "cheap" is why I would prefer to see the word "inexpensive" used.