iudex: A truly interesting lens and from the specs it looks like a perfect allrounder for me. I had a Tamron 17-50/2,8 lens and I really loved it for it´s combination of useful range and fast aperture. However the optical quality was not that great and also I could imagine a bit wider and longer end. This new Fujinon offers both: wider (with 16mm I could live without other wideangle lens) and 5mm at the tele end is nice too. Seeing the complex and expensive optical construction and knowing the quality of Fujinon XF lenses I expect nothing but superb optical quality. To this point everything looks great. However complicated construction means big and heavy lens which somehow negates the advantages of a CSC. And paying 1200 EUR for a standard zoom is insane. I know I cannot compare it to the cheap and subpar Tamron 17-50 for 1/4 of the price, but comparing to my Sigma 18-35/1,8 I cannot stop wondering why the Fuji has to cost 70% more than the optically amazing Sigma. cont.
Thorsten: the Sigma´s MSRP at launch was 799 USD, so the difference to Fujinon launch price is still considerable 400 USD. In different words: Fujinon is 50% more expensive then the (groundbreaking) Sigma.
Conrad: they are of course different, but the shorter FL of Sigma is outweighed (construction-wise) by much better luminosity (which is an optical challenge noone has repeated by now). Btw. the Sigma build quality is top-notch, easily on par with my all-metal Limited Pentax.
cont.The Sigma is optically top notch (Art line) and construction-wise a more complicated lens (it has f1,8, i.e. 1,3 EV faster) and costs 700 EUR. I somehow cannot convince myself to believe the Fujinon is worth paying 1200 EUR. P.S. all the thoughts are of course theoretical, since I do not own a Fuji CSC and compare CSC lens to DSLR lenses. If I had a Fuji CSC, I would have no other choice if I wanted a zoom with similar specs.
A truly interesting lens and from the specs it looks like a perfect allrounder for me. I had a Tamron 17-50/2,8 lens and I really loved it for it´s combination of useful range and fast aperture. However the optical quality was not that great and also I could imagine a bit wider and longer end. This new Fujinon offers both: wider (with 16mm I could live without other wideangle lens) and 5mm at the tele end is nice too. Seeing the complex and expensive optical construction and knowing the quality of Fujinon XF lenses I expect nothing but superb optical quality. To this point everything looks great. However complicated construction means big and heavy lens which somehow negates the advantages of a CSC. And paying 1200 EUR for a standard zoom is insane. I know I cannot compare it to the cheap and subpar Tamron 17-50 for 1/4 of the price, but comparing to my Sigma 18-35/1,8 I cannot stop wondering why the Fuji has to cost 70% more than the optically amazing Sigma. cont.
In all other votings my choice was the same as the choice of the majority (LX100, Sigma Art 50mm, Sony a6000) and I think those are deserved winners. However in this category I differ and am quite surprised by the leaders. I voted for Pentax 645Z, Nikon D750 and Sony. Pentax for bringing medium format quality and MPx count into a portable body for great price; Nikon for making almost perfect balance between features, picture quality and price and a7s for reminding that megapixels are not everything and for insane lowlight capability and high ISO quality. Anyhow I expected 7D II to lead, followed either by Nikons pro DSLRs or Sony a7s.
toomanycanons: When's the last time any of you bought a Metz product?
fmian: The 3-4 Metz flashes I have handled recently (modern models) felt incredibly bad. Poor component fitting. Loose door covers. Cheap feeling external materials. High price though.If that's the first impression I got after using YongNuo and Canon flashes, then I'm sure other potential customers got the same impression.
Having said that, I've seen some old Metz flashes that were quite nice.
As regards the build quality: it depends. My previous cheap Metz 36 AF5 was of poor build quality (battery doors, fitting). However my current Metz AF 44 is fine. I cannot compare it to other brands, but last week I shot a family fiesta and had a lot of troubles with the TTL metering: while exposition with one lens was OK, the pictures with other lens were up to 3 EV underexposed. So the reliability of TTL metering is questionable.
Artistico: Nice IQ. Digital medium format is getting better and better value for money.
It would have been nice if Mamiya and Fuji also competed with Pentax for this market segment of high-quality affordable MF cameras - just like in the film days. It would accelerate the development of a digital MF camera within the economical reach of more enthusiasts.
Even with the introduction price, though, Pentax is getting really close to being just that.
MF in Artistico´s post stands for medium format, not manual focus. ;-)
PPierre: I think the 7th one is amazingly well thought: good atmosphere, good story, and a topic we never talk about/feel ashamed to talk about though it exists and is quite common. I like this kind of photos !
Hint: bed, man and woman... ;-) Not only young and beatiful do it.
makofoto: Does anyone really buy these slow zooms?
Unfortunately yes, since people have no other choice. The focal range is great and covers cca. 80% of all the shooting and it´s pretty comfortable to have an all-in-one lens. However the speed is terrible and there are not many lenses in this focal range that are faster, so people have no other choice than buying these slow lenses. The only lens with similar FR and constant f4 is Sony 16-70/4.
audiobomber: You can't tell IQ or build quality from a photo. Ricoh says this lens is intended for people who want higher IQ than a kit lens. It's safe to say it will outperform the 18-55, 18-135 and the various superzooms.
The DA 18-135mm feels like a pro lens; it is tight, no creep, no rattles or looseness anywhere. It makes a Tamron superzoom feel like junk. I expect the 16-85mm will be the same build, and hopefully IQ will match my 16-45mm. If so, I'll sell the others and get this.
Ad "It's safe to say it will outperform the 18-55, 18-135 and the various superzooms." Well it´s not a big deal being better than the two worst lenses in Pentax´s lineup. ;-) For 750 USD the ambitions of this lens should be much higher. It needs to be noticeably better than DA 17-70mm and should compare to the DA 20-40mm (which is actually cheaper).
citrontokyo: Love all the complainers here.
This is the perfect landscape lens. It's DC, not SDM. It's WR where the 17-70 is not. It's 16mm where the kit is 18. It's 85mm where the 16-45 is, well...
Anybody who claims it doesn't do this or that clearly isn't thinking.
DStudio: I agree completely. People somehow do not see that also Canon´s/Nikon´s comparable lenses are too expensive and by pointing at those mediocre lenses they defent this Pentax. The fact that the others are not good does not mean my similar product is OK. It should definitely have been constant f4. Punktum.
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.
Exactly, at wide end every milimeter is useful and 16mm is better than 17, not to mention 18mm. Lately I switched from zoom beginning at 17mm to 18mm and I do miss it a lot, 18mm is not wide enough and the next lens I am about to buy is 15mm prime. Having a zoom beginning at 16mm I wouldn´t need it.
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.
Do you read what I write? I write about Tamron 16-300mm and compare it to Pentax 16-85mm and you reply:" it´s also wider, and 2mm wider creates a bigger design challenge..." what are you responding to? As you say, enough said, it´s a monologue from your side, not a dialogue.
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.