[aleonx3]

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.

It appears that there is always much negativity no matter what. I remember before the 16-85 was released, many people complaining about the lack of max and constant aperture or just a me-too lens compare with Canikon version. However, the overall impression I got after it was released was actually pretty good and many consider that to be an all-round general purpose travel lens.

One thing about this 28-105 lens, many would think that why not 24 on the wide-end.. I am puzzled as well, however, my feeling is that there could be reasons for that (not 24-105) and perhaps something to do with the lens design to make it smaller and better image rendering, again just IMHO.

[ogl]

Exactly. I understand the virtues of a constant aperture zoom--I think we all do. This lens would be a hard sell for me personally, as I'm more of a prime guy. My only zooms currently are the 20-40 Ltd and HD 55-300, recently purchased. But I bought them KNOWING how I shoot and what I want.

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

If we say about DOF
FF f3.5-5.6 = f/2.4-3.7 in APS-C terms

The equivalent of the same lens for APS-C is 18-70/2.4-3.7

[Belnan]

If we say about DOF
FF f3.5-5.6 = f/2.4-3.7 in APS-C terms

The equivalent of the same lens for APS-C is 18-70/2.4-3.7

How many people would lust after this one? The APS-C equivalent doesn't sound to shabby to me

As long as the price is for the 28-105 is appropriate I dont see a problem. They needed a kit lens and they made it. No doubt it will have many fans once they get there hands on it.

[RobA_Oz]

This looks like it might be a re-run of the DA18-135 launch - lots of complaints about 18 not being wide enough, variable aperture, not being a DA* lens at first, then complaints about performance wide open or at the long end, etc etc, followed by grudging concessions that it was a comparatively good value-for-money proposition (when the price settled down), until now it's widely regarded as a good lightweight, quick-focussing, reliable general-purpose zoom.

Plus ça change...

[Zygonyx]

... plus ça reste pareil

[PKMike]

I reckon anyone with a post tally of less than say 250 or a minimum of 3 years forum membership or lower than 50 likes should not be allowed to have an opinion on the news & rumours section. This lens is the gateway drug equivalent to Pentax FF goodness. If they've taken the DA16-85 and supersized it then it may well be pretty damn good! Use it before writing it off.

I fit 2 out of 3 of those requirements can I have an opinion?

I fit 0 out of 3 of those requirements and don't have much opinion since I have not seen (let alone used) said lens. Just curious though as to when "expert" (opinion) status is achieved. Perhaps 1000 posts, 5 years forum membership and say 130 likes?

It's going to be like the K-5 days all over again. New bunch of muppets jumping over from the other brands and comparing everything to where they came from. "oh Pentax must have everything from 8mm to 1200mm to compete" or "why can't I have a 135 f/1.4?" "Im a pro and need it"

I wonder if any muppets may have been using Pentax while some "experts" were toddling about in diapers?...LOL

[shardulm]

Note that a "*" designation lens is missing in 16/24-70/105 range. There could be a D-FA* 24-105f4 coming soon.

[Giklab]

How many people would lust after this one? The APS-C equivalent doesn't sound to shabby to me

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4?

And just by the way, this 28-105 is an obviously new design. See the focus ring behind the zoom ring? Yeah

[iudex]

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4?

No, 17-70mm on APSC equals to 25,5-105mm on FF. 25,5mm vs. 28mm at wide end is a huge difference (see any FoV calculator). Actually the 28mm is even worse than usual kit lenses for APSC starsting at 18mm, since this equals to 27mm on FF. So 28mm is bad, not actually wide angle (or not wide enough).

---------- Post added 02-15-16 at 10:16 AM ----------

It appears that there is always much negativity no matter what. I remember before the 16-85 was released, many people complaining about the lack of max and constant aperture or just a me-too lens compare with Canikon version. However, the overall impression I got after it was released was actually pretty good and many consider that to be an all-round general purpose travel lens.

People buy the 16-85 because of very versatile focal range, especially the wide end. If it was 18mm (or actually 18,7mm to equal to 28mm on FF), I guess nobody would buy it.

[beholder3]

It's going to be like the K-5 days all over again. New bunch of muppets jumping over from the other brands

Don't worry. There are always many intelligent readers here. And they are smart enough to differentiate the moron muppets from those with a brain who contribute more than whining. And it's easy enough to check the post count, membership and even briefly check the post history for quota of helpful content.

[Giklab]

No, 17-70mm on APSC equals to 25,5-105mm on FF. 25,5mm vs. 28mm at wide end is a huge difference (see any FoV calculator)

If you want to be so pedantic, 17mm on Pentax APS-C is 25.84 on 36x24 FF, and 18mm is 27.36.
I was making a light-hearted comment, chill out.

[robbiec]

I fit 0 out of 3 of those requirements and don't have much opinion since I have not seen (let alone used) said lens. Just curious though as to when "expert" (opinion) status is achieved. Perhaps 1000 posts, 5 years forum membership and say 130 likes?
I wonder if any muppets may have been using Pentax while some "experts" were toddling about in diapers?...LOL

I would always hesitate to tag an expert purely down to post count, likes or even time served. Perhaps if someone came from a year of doing Single in Challenges then yeah 'Expert' or at least someone you should listen carefully to. The main reason I posted this arbitrary opinion lock request was a kneejerk reaction to a recent member being very disappointed that the new lens a variable f/3.5-5.6 was and that it should have been a constant f/4. We have not seen images from this lens, its optical layout, and yet it is disappointing?

Ref the toddler experts, you may well be correct, pity.

There is of course one exception to the rule... If you have been banned from the Pentax area on DPReview then all is good and Rupert normally hangs out in the Photo Sharing and Challenges section.

[awaldram]

It's going to be like the K-5 days all over again. New bunch of muppets jumping over from the other brands and comparing everything to where they came from. "oh Pentax must have everything from 8mm to 1200mm to compete" or "why can't I have a 135 f/1.4?" "Im a pro and need it"

On the plus side , We get to laugh in their face rather than behind their backs !!!!

[ogl]

All who want wide-angle at FF could buy DFA15-30/2.8

[D1N0]

All who want wide-angle at FF could buy DFA15-30/2.8

Yeah but maybe I want to have a nice compact 20mm