F4 would be more expensive too.20-50mm f4 would be more desirable.
to save on size try can always leave out IS.
F5.6 is less desirable
Upvote
0
F4 would be more expensive too.20-50mm f4 would be more desirable.
to save on size try can always leave out IS.
F5.6 is less desirable
That Pentax 20-40 is a very nice lens.That is such a Pentax focal length for a zoom lens.
It won't? But it's a CR1, we know so much! I was sure we had this nailed down to the final specs, gosh darn and well, thanks for saving me money.It wouldn't have good optics, so I'm not interested.
Hey... 24-35 F2.0 is a specialty, an extremely wide and constant aperture lens. Whether the 20-50/whatever slow variable lens sounds like a kit but is waaaay too limited for an average consumer wanting a single lens do it allI disagree. I think it's a great wide to normal range. I understand some have issues with short zoom ranges such as the Sigma 24-35 but it is a very good lens imho. This might be as well.
Why so? good DOF for varied depth scenes - f8+ and wide enough to capture the whole scene or nip it in a bit.If interesting was very, very NOT interesting
Got to be one of the worst aperture and zoom rangers I've heard of in recent memory.
What's next, a 50-87 f5.6-6.3. No IS.
It wouldn't have good optics, so I'm not interested.
I think for such a lens to be desirable, it would definitely have to be extremely better than 4-5.6.
Yuck. Just ....yuck.
I hope they will introduce 17-70 instead or at least first.
When I read that my mature EF mind agrees but my infantile RF mind wonders if that's no longer true.20mm f/4 for FF at the short end won't be all that small. It may be light and relatively small, but likely not anything close to a pancake. A 20 to 24 mm crop lens can be small and also 35-40mm FF, but not so easy with 20mm FF and zoom and IS take space as well.
It could be collapsible like some of the M lenses, but the objective will still have to be a reasonable size to make 20mm work well. 28-50 could be much smaller, but not nearly as flexible. I like the range. The 11-22 on the M is a delightful lens and this new lens translates to 12.5-31.25mm, which would be better for general purpose use but still cover the wide end well. It is worth noting that the 11-22 is collapsible, but it is still one of the biggest and heaviest of the M series lenses. If this lens has the kind of IQ that the 11-22 has, it will be wildly popular. In fact, that could be the trigger that gets me to buy an R body.When I read that my mature EF mind agrees but my infantile RF mind wonders if that's no longer true.
17.5mm to 35 mm you mean...It could be collapsible like some of the M lenses, but the objective will still have to be a reasonable size to make 20mm work well. 28-50 could be much smaller, but not nearly as flexible. I like the range. The 11-22 on the M is a delightful lens and this translates to 12.5-35, which would be better for general purpose use but still cover the wide end well. It is worth noting that the 11-22 is collapsible, but it is still one of the biggest and heaviest of the M series lenses. If this lens has the kind of IQ that the 11-22 has, it will be wildly popular. In fact, that could be the trigger that gets me to buy an R body.