cgarrard: Nice range, rounded blades, weather resistant, quiet focusing, HD coating, ED element, nice size... now we need to see the optical quality tests. Sounds like an ideal zoom lens for many applications. If the optical quality is there, the price on the street will likely be $699 soon and that will be a great deal. 750 is lofty, despite it performing excellent optically- if it does.
Carl: you are stressing tha fact that longer FL is bigger challenge than faster lens. So tell me why are there dozens of ultrazoom lenses, but only one f1,8 zoom? This 16-85mm is no big zoom, it´s only 5,3x and there are similarly slow zooms with way longer reach that are neither heavier, nor pricier. One example for all: Tamron 16-300/3,5-6,3. 18,75x zoom (!), similar luminosity (in fact probably better, since at 85mm it surely won´t be f5,6), similar size, only slightly heavier (but has IS), also weather sealed, with smaler filter thread and noticeably cheaper. So this Pentax is definitely overpriced for what it is. For this price it should have been f4, or being f3,5-5,6 is should be 500 USD max.P.S. It´s iudex, not Ludex. ;-)
Zvonimir Tosic: Totally not interested in zoom lenses. but I have to admit this one is good.
Price is comparable with the competition, and the street price will always be lower, and when it comes in kits, it will be dirt cheap. So for a lens with quality motor, best coating on the market, and the WR, this may be the only lens some user will ever need. Why it's not f4 constant? Well it starts at f3.5 and ends at f5.6, so average is f4 anyway.
Well done, Pentax engineers.
Skilak: check once again. I am sure the DA 55-300 did not have f4 at 200mm. The course of the luminosity was as follows:f4 from 55 to 107mmf4,5 from 110 to 190mmf5,6 from 210 to 260mmf5,8 till 300mm.And sorry, bokeh at f5,6 was not great (I did a lot portrait shots at 200-300mm). It had sufficient background blur even at f5,6, but just because of long FL that substituted for missing speed. But at 85mm it is different and it is not sufficiently long to blur the background at f5,6.
Tan68: universal lens is supposed to do everything, just like a decathlee. Of course a specialized sprinter or javelin thrower can do this single discipline better, but the decathlee can do it sufficiently. Just like the universal zoom: it should be able to substitute a wideangle landscape lens (and with 16mm wide end this lens can serve this purpose) just like portraits - and in this aspect thie lens fails. Of course a specialeized portrait lens has f1,4 or f1,8, but for a universal lens f2,8 is fine and f4 so-so, but f5,6 is definitely too slow. I could use my former 17-50/2,8 for portraits at the tele end, so that lens was universal for me (if a bit short). I could trade 1 EV of speed for the 35mm gain, but 2 EV is too high price.
Carl: of course I am stating my personal opinion, but I guess some things are self-evident: tha faster lens, the more glass is in it and the optics more complicated; this transforms to price. Lets have a look at Sigma Art 18-35/1,8: it is a masterpiece, constant f1,8 zoom with lots of glass in it and most importantly with fantastic optical performance and I paid 799 USD for it. So a slow zoom with variable aperture for 750 USD cannot be considered as good value.
Piggy the bad: $750 = £470 give or take a couple of quid. BUT Pentax uk are selling this in the uk for £600 ?? Once again another example of how Pentax are screwing the uk consumer.
This has been discussed many times. Yoy can buy the lens for 470 pounds directly from the US, but add custom fees and tax and you get to similar price point. The only way is to buy it in the US personally and bring home. ;-)Btw. I do not think Pentax is expensive in UK; I bought my K-30 from UK since it was the cheapest there (some 100 eur less than in my country).
Zvonimir: I agree with the FL: 85mm is ideal for portraits. But what background blur do you get at f5,6? I had two slow zooms, apart from the usual kit zoom it was the DA 55-300. It had f4 between 55 and 107mm and it had quite harsh background blur; so I can imagine the terrible bokeh at f5,6. No, thank you.
Retzius: Sigma makes a 17-70 2.8-4 Macro HSM in Pentax mount for $499...
JustDavid: on the contrary, weaker dollar helps me since I am live in Europe and pay in Euro. ;-)
If this lens is not capable to substitute more lenses most of the time, then MFT charts are irrelevant. I would go for a lens with broader FL if it at least partially served more purposes. And at tele end I mostly shoot portraits for which I need reasonably shallow DoF. F2,8 would be the best; f4 is at the borderline, only acceptable because of relatively long FL; f5,6 is far beyond.
Gosman: Too expensive. When on sale, the Pentax 16-50 constant 2.8 WR DA is about $900. That's what I'm waiting for!
Agreed. This lens should have been introduced for 499 USD MSRP with a chance to fall down to 400 USD street price later on. 750 USD is crazy and even if it falls down a bit in time, I doubt it will approach the 500 USD border.
AngryCorgi: Pentax pricing is always subject for a good giggle.
The fact that Nikon/Canon sell lenses for crazy prices does not mean Pentax´s (higher) price is OK. Pentax as a small producer cannot afford to ask more than the big two.
alex_shin: This is what I was waiting for! Sounds like a great kit lens for my future K-3.My 16-45 is great, but I got tired of its very limited tele range.We'll see how the tests turn out. And, of course, the price shall go down, which it will, especially in a kit.
The DA 17-70 is outdated. Give it a DC motor, HD coating and WR and it breathes new life in it. Because the basis: nice FL range and constant aperture is fine and very useful (unlike this new lens with variable aperture).
Exactly, Ricoh should have modified the aged 17-70/4 with HD and WR and DC motor and it would be a hit.
You are kidding with your "average theory", right? I guess most of the FL range the f number is above f4 (the kit lens 18-55/3,5-5,6 was f3,5 at 18mm, but already at 19mm it was f4 and f4,5 at cca. 28mm).Furthermore, you need speed on the tele end more than at wide end, firstly due to exposition reasons (shorter shutter times needed), but also for portraits that are shot at 85mm (not at 16mm). 85mm is ideal for portraits, but hat DoF do you get at f5,6?Another reason against variable aperture is loss of control over exposition values: you set some values but as you zoom in these values change automatically, which is frustrating (and this is why I decided not to buy a variable aperture zoom any more).So no "well done, Pentax", but "bad job, Pentax, you missed another opportunity". And I say this as a person that have looking forward to this lens since it appeared in the roadmap in 2013.
Sorry, no lens that is this slow is worth 750 USD (and no, the fact that Canon sells similar lens for similar price does not change). A lens that is supposed to be universal walkaround lens that eliminates the need to constant lens changing definitely needs to be faster than f5,6 (e.g. 85 mm is a typical portrait FL, but portrait at f5,6?).
Oh I have just noticed this: max format is 35mm FF. Is it just a typo, or is it really a FF zoom?
BarnET: Ow man that's one pricey slow kit-zoom.
Yeah, even more expensive than I expected. This would be pretty expensive even for constant f4; but for f3,5-5,6 it's rudeness to ask this much. As much as I looked forward to this zoom after it occured in the roadmap in 2013, now I just can say: no, thanyou.
Naveed Akhtar: 1) Excellent shot .. and yes2) Excellent camera
Exactly. Not only it shows the capabilities of the camera, but also it is a pleasure to look at.
I think even APSC sensor would not deal much better with the dynamic range. Solid outcome IMHO.
Very nice IMHO. I wonder what more you guys expect from a 1,3" sensor.