(03-29-2020, 05:11 AM)toni-a Wrote: They lack an ulrawide and a 24-105 or believe me 24-105f4 is way more useful than 28-105 f4-5.6 Canon has even better 28-105f3.5-4.5 who is interested in it?
An appealing standard zoom is IMHO the first thing to start with. Regardless of the optical quality of the actual zoom it's range and speed aren't appealing.
Prioritizing lenses similar to what they already have doesn't make much sense.
Pentax has the 28-105 f/3.5-5.6, and the 24-70 f/2.8; they have this range reasonably covered. The f/2.8, by the way, is comparably priced with the Canon 24-105 f/4.
Wider than that, for FF, there's only the 15-30 f/2.8.
Your "even better" lens, are you reducing a lens' performance to numbers? The 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 is a film-era lens, and judging from the reviews I could find, far from being praised.
The Pentax 28-105 f/3.5-5.6 is surprisingly good for its price. I would definitely call it appealing; actually a default choice when getting the K-1, unless you'd go with the 24-70.
"Regardless of the optical quality" is a strange statement...
(03-29-2020, 10:46 AM)davidmanze Wrote: Ah the Sony A99 ........ Sony's cul de sac range! ......
There's a better story: Samsung's.
That "Ditch your DSLR!" campaign, meant to clear stocks while they were closing shop... priceless! How many bought into Samsung believing DSLRs will disappear?