Another one in the "interested, but not at that price" camp.

I know it's WR but £600 is way out of the price bracket it needs to be in - especially given that it is not a particularly fast lens. I'd understand more if it was something like f2.8-4, or was constant aperture like the 17-70.

If Pentax have managed to produce a lens that (a) focuses quickly and reliably and (b) delivers decent image quality across the focal range rather than being optimised for performance at one end or the other, it would be worth serious consideration. But it would need to perform better than the 18-250s (which will be faster at 135mm) to justify the expense.

It looks lovely, but the concept is not exactly new: go back five years to the Leica Digilux 2 and its Panasonic LC1 twin and you had a camera with shutter speed dial, aperture ring and very similar interface to this Fuji. I loved my LC1 but it was essentially a superb lens in search of a better sensor. I'd be much more interested in this Fuji if the lens could rival that Leica 28-90 f2-2.4 rather than being a fixed 35mm. Sadly, it's not possible to produce that kind of high quality fast zoom for APSC without it being much larger - so you might as well have an SLR and have done with.

Much as I'd love a "digital MX", I'm not sure Pentax should go down this route: Pana-Leica didn't seem to do terribly well with either the Digilux 2 or the Digilux 3 - and Pentax need to be able to offer a convincing and easy upgrade path to people using their entry level cameras. I don't know that this kind of concept works except for a small market of people who will be prepared to pay a substantial premium for a premium product.

The most interesting part of the annoucement seems to be the viewfinder - if it works well, then a hybrid OVF/EVF sounds like something Pentax might want to consider.

Hi Will - you have my sympathy! When I got the K-7 I sold an awful lot of gear that I'd accumulated first, because I couldn't otherwise justify what was then a very significant cost. It is a great camera though, and I think you'll find all kinds of improvements from the K200D - aside, that is, from low ISO performance where the 10MP chip really delivered superb results.

My experiences:

(1) my first copy of the WR kit lens was so poor I sent it back, but the second one a significant step up - so good I sold the 16-45! I'm sure there is some sample variation, so I would test yours some more (preferably with a tripod, mirror lock up and static subject).

(2) when using the (replacement) lens, my impressions are that mine is not at its best at the widest angles (but it does well enough by the time I get towards f8 so I think yours is looking a bit odd). However, by the time it gets beyond 20mm, things start to improve significantly, even around the borders. It compares well with 50mm primes too, but has the disadvantage of not being able to provide as much control over depth of field, coupled with related lack of ability to have fun with bokeh. By the way, the old 35mm prime I still have up for grabs in the classifieds outperforms the kit quite comfortably! Just thought it was worth a mention

(3) there is a fair amount of purple fringing, especially around the borders. It exhibits more of this than I get with any of my old primes covering the same focal lengths.

Overall, I think my copy performs well, but is not without its issues. I wouldn't want to use it as my main lens, but it does extremely nicely as a lightweight, decently-made lens for travel and/or grotty weather conditions. When stopped down, there should be very little difference between the kit and more expensive lenses (at least in terms of sharpness), so if you can't get decent results I'd send yours back.

Hope this helps,

Jon

Cheap and cheerful to add to the 35/2.4:

24mm/2.8
50/1.7 and
85/as fast as they dare

WR and Limited:

Reworked 135/2.5K - without purple fringing though!
180 macro of similar spec to the Sigma one that is very difficult to find

Aside from this lot, I think the other major gap remaining is a long telezoom - 80-400 WR with a clear step up from kit lens quality would be nice.

Not sure I understand why people are so determined to have this lens faster than f2.4.

Yes, I know the VF will be brighter and you can reduce the ISO/increase the shutter speed. But this is not a focal length where you're going to expect miracles with bokeh (at least not at this price - you need to think FA 31 Ltd for that) and as a standard walkaround lens it's more likely to be used mostly around f4-11 in any case.

Remember - the f3.5 versions of the old 28mm SMCM and K lenses were considered to be better performers than their f2.8 counterparts. It's possible that Pentax might know what they are doing here....

If this lens comfortably outperforms the 18-55 (and it should, at least in terms of purple fringing if nothing else) then it shouldn't do Pentax any harm.

Most of the comparison tests I've seen suggest the Tamron is the best macro value out there - a better performer than the Sigma. I think as you stop down, the Pentax may be sharper than the others, but having said that - you can't go wrong with any of them: they're all really good.

I'd stay within budget and buy the one with the best guarantee.

I reckon we should wait and see how it feels and performs once we can get our hands on it.

Given the optical formula looks suspiciously identical to the 35/2 FA lens that many of us rate very highly, if that is coupled with build quality equal to the WR kit lenses, and at a reasonable price, then let's give Pentax a bit of a break. I'm not that fussed about the polycarbonate mount either - given that we're talking about such a lightweight lens.

If this was the start of a lightweight and reasonably priced system of primes (a cheap update of the 135/3.5 might be nice, plus something around 24-mm and a cheap nifty fifty), I'd say good luck to them!

I think you'd have to pay at least £20 extra to throw in the kiss! Seriously though, £40 is less than I'm looking for because this lens is (a) great and (b) as near to as new as you are likely to get. I'm also willing to bet that the performance of the lens announced yesterday is unlikely to be significantly, if any, better - but the build quality will be very different indeed.

So the choice remains: plastic fantastic for serious money, or classic metallic for £60 ovno? It ought to be a no-brainer....

Cheers,

Jon

I'd recommend Botswana too - we went with Wilderness Safaris, who were excellent.