New lens from Pentax

<p>I just received an e-mail from RICOH, offering a new DA 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 ED DC WR @ $749.99. A couple of months ago, I purchased a Tamron 24-75mm f2.8 for approximately the same price. I'm sort of glad that Pentax didn't come out with their lens sooner. I bought the Tamron because of the f/2.8 aperture for portraits. The wider range of the Pentax would have been tempting, since I could have taken the kit 18-55 out of my bag and would have had a more useful wide angle-short tele. But I think for portraits, the f/2.8 will be more useful.</p>

<p>Thanks for the info Howard. I just purchased a used Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 (which looks to be brand new really), and am enjoying it. The extra reach of the new Pentax and the WR would be nice, but I don't have enough discretionary income to rationalize buying it. I wonder how it compares to the 18-135, which I think has a similar aperture range. </p>

<p>Price seems a steep to me for a variable aperture lens. I'd like to see how the reviews and comparisons come out. I'm happy enough with my 18-135 for what it is so I'd be unlikely to buy it unless it really offers something different (besides the obvious FL differences). </p>

<p>The lens looks OK and I can imagine picking it over some of the alternatives, we'll have to see if it can outperform the better examples (e.g. Pentax or Sigma 17-70). It obviously offers WR and a little more range over the Pentax or Sigma 17-70's.</p>

<p>I'm a little disappointed that it's just as large as the DA17-70/4 despite the 1-stop slower max aperture, even has a larger 72mm filter size, though this isn't that surprising, the Nikkor 16-85/3.5-5.6 has very similar specs.</p>

<p>The Nikkor is $100 dollars less @ B&H.. So, we're obviously not going for competitive pricing anymore. I wonder how they stack up against each other.</p>

The Nikkor is supposed to be pretty decent, so merely matching it wouldn't be shameful. It is a few years old now, and

isn't weather-sealed so I'm not surprised it's a little cheaper. The Canon 15-85 is $50 more than the Pentax and isn't

sealed either. Both offer internal optical stabilization while Pentax can rely on bodies for that (and probably save a little

on production costs).

 

I had sort of wished for a spec a bit more like the compact Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5 (62mm filter) but not this time. That lens has become quite expensive ($999), I seem to remember it much more reasonable a few years ago.

<p>great post.http://green101.tk/8/o.png</p><div></div>