Yes, I'm looking forward to he next one.

Results now posted. Thanks to all who entered.
paulb531 has also uploaded his belated comments for last week's 'Grassroots Sport' competition too.

Excuse me hijacking your thread Nigel; another couple from Friday. Raw files processed in Elements:

Hydrangea Flower



Gulls on Roof



The definition is actually very good when one looks beyond the camera produced jpegs.

One thing my files aren't picking up with the 28-105 is the lens description. Even trying to pick up the description from the exif in unprocessed out of camera jpegs isn't showing it yet joostdh's files do. Wonder what I need to update?

I was looking to get FA77mm ltd but with this I don't actually feel I need it now. The 77 isn't a particularly sharp lens as it is intended for portraits. I'd be surprised if the resolution of this zoom is any worse than the 77 and it is considerably cheaper (and if I need the faster aperture I've got the 50mm f1.4 to use instead.) Seems this has saved me money and no, it won't be going back!

One hayfield deserves another! The view from the bottom of my garden.




That's a cropped shot from the lens at 105mm, so probably equivalent to around 250mm or longer.

Last night I had a play around with some of the raw files that I had taken soon after the lens arrived.

This was one of them that on the face of it was disappointing:



There doesn't seem to be any detail in the sky at all! But with a tiny bit of over-processing I achieved this (sorry its rather OTT!)


What to make of that!


By the way, I should of said both of joostdh's photos were very good and showed great detail.

The handling and image quality are pretty good for a FF zoom. I've been a bit spoilt with FF already having the Limited 31 & 43 and it isn't in their league, but given you can zoom to fit the subject rather than crop it does even it out a bit. Still finding a tendency to blow the highlights, it's mainly with bright skies

This brings me to joostdh's photos which both show the blown skies. The histogram for image 2 demonstrates this:


There's space at the left to move the curve to the left without loosing shadow detail.
It does seem to be a 'feature/quirk' of this lens.
JR has overcome it by deliberately underexposing by 1/3 stop which will help with this lens but I haven't found that necessary with other recent lenses. I've never had to do that with any of the DAs on APSC or even the other FAs and DFAs on the K-1.

Thought you might like to know that I've given the lens another go. I turned the settings from bright to natural which reduces the contrast and it seems much better. Last night I also had a play with the raw files where it had burnt the sky out and managed to recover good cloud detail in them. Repeating some of the shots I took yesterday don't look at all bad today. Maybe it's redeemed itself, fingers crossed!
If the problem reoccurs the answer might be to create a settings parameter for the lens with a lower contrast as perhaps the lens gives more contrast than others.
I've noticed some of the Ricoh example shots show the syndrome I was getting, no doubt for the same reason. So if anyone else experiences apparent overexposure with the DFA 28-105 try dialling back the in camera contrast setting before rejecting the lens.

Have you seen this:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4009996

Someone else has said something similar about it here:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57704912

Thanks Nigel. If it is a Friday afternoon lens it would be best to get it replaced while new. Shame one can't dial in exposure compensation per lens like one can do with focus. Obviously dialling in under exposure would affect all the others so I wouldn't want to leave it set to under expose as a norm.
Anyhow I'll try it again another day before I make any rash decision about it and I'll try it on my K-3 as well.
I'm not short of good quality lenses so if this one's a puck I'll either get it replaced or go without. I've got 30 days to reject it if I decide to go down that route; maybe I'll think differently tomorrow!

According to Which I have a 30-day right to reject. (Under the Consumer Rights Act you have a legal to reject goods that are unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described and get a full refund - as long as you do this quickly. This right is limited to 30 days from the date you buy your product. After 30 days you will not be legally entitled to a full refund if your item develops a fault, although some sellers may offer you an extended refund period. )

However SRS are saying this has to be done in 7 days. They need to get up to date with the 2015 Consumer Rights Act. So I'll have to make that decision quicker than anticipated. If it's faulty I thought I had a year or two??