[Pentaxor]

I would say that Pentax is not going to produce faster lenses for two reasons:
1. High ISO capabilities of recent cameras
2. Have you ever read this articles?
An Open Letter To The Major Camera Manufacturers

If you read it carefully, it explains a lot about the latest Pentax's choices of not commercialise lenses faster than f/2.4

Cheers,
Andrea

it's a bad choice considering that Pentax doesn't look it's going to produce FF. it's already bad news that they didn't considered FF, another bad news for not making faster lenses than f2.4. I'm not saying that Pentax should make an f.95 though, considering the market for it is tricky.

---

Last edited by Pentaxor; 06-03-2011 at 07:56 AM.

[8540tomg]

It’s always nice to have fast glass as you never know when you may need the extra speed. I could be wrong but I would submit that lens speed may not be as important now as it has been in the past. The advent of the K5 with its vast dynamic range may have reduced, if not eliminated, the need for ultra fast f 1.2 lenses.

Tom G

[bwDraco]

Have you ever read this articles?
An Open Letter To The Major Camera Manufacturers

If you read it carefully, it explains a lot about the latest Pentax's choices of not commercialise lenses faster than f/2.4

Cheers,
Andrea

An image-space telecentric lens design, as favored in Four Thirds System designs, would be necessary to circumvent this problem. Four Thirds lenses can be surprisingly large for their focal length because of this requirement. This is one more design constraint and makes it even more difficult to design a lens of this type for digital use. A lens like this does have its place, but it shouldn't be done until more important products such as a DA* 400mm lens are developed and produced.

[Clavius]

Why is DA* 400mm considered as more importand then fast glass? I've seen a few people mention that now. Maybe it's just personal, but I hardly use anything longer then 85mm. Because I can walk up close to my subjects when I need to. I find closing in on my subject often results in a better picture too. However, I cannot make my lenses faster then their fastest aperture, when I feel like it.

[sjwaldron]

The trends seems to be toward slower glass, so I don't see this happening. I'd like one though.

[creampuff]

What would be the point in producing super high speed lenses which would obviously cost a bomb to buy when the vast majority of Pentax users fall under the penny pinching, poor as a church mouse demographic?
An obvious non-starter of a marketing idea that serves no purpose aside from bragging rights, which adds nothing to the company's bottomline.

[8540tomg]

Why is DA* 400mm considered as more importand then fast glass? I've seen a few people mention that now. Maybe it's just personal, but I hardly use anything longer then 85mm. Because I can walk up close to my subjects when I need to. I find closing in on my subject often results in a better picture too. However, I cannot make my lenses faster then their fastest aperture, when I feel like it.

For birding and wildlife photography 400mm is a good focal length. Many birds won't let you get close enough for a decent shot. 85mm may be fine for portraits but just won't cut it for birding or most sports. In the wild there are many creatures that are dangerous to approach - bears, lions etc. While the DA* 300/4 is a fine lens 300mm is entry level for birding. This is why many of us who shoot wildlife would like to see Pentax produce some longer focal lengths 400mm and longer.

Tom G

---

Last edited by 8540tomg; 06-03-2011 at 09:51 AM.

[sjwaldron]

What would be the point in producing super high speed lenses which would obviously cost a bomb to buy when the vast majority of Pentax users fall under the penny pinching, poor as a church mouse demographic?
An obvious non-starter of a marketing idea that serves no purpose aside from bragging rights, which adds nothing to the company's bottomline.

Because sometimes serious glass can produce amazing images not easily obtained otherwise. I know this guy who has a Canon 200mm f1.8 lens. Some of the shots have a magical feel to them. Not to say that I could personally afford something like that...

[8540tomg]

What would be the point in producing super high speed lenses which would obviously cost a bomb to buy when the vast majority of Pentax users fall under the penny pinching, poor as a church mouse demographic?
An obvious non-starter of a marketing idea that serves no purpose aside from bragging rights, which adds nothing to the company's bottomline.

You have a vaild point Creampuff. That said, many companies, including Pentax, have produced exotic designs that serve little or no purpose aside from bragging rights. I suspect they will continue to do so as the engineers like to push the envelope from time to time.

Tom G

[Kim C]

My "most often" used setup on the film bodies is 15/3.5A, 20/2.8A, 24/2.8K, 28/2K, 35/2 ZK and 50/1.2.

For the K5 I can duplicate some of it. 14Ltd in place of the 20, 20Ltd in place of the 28, and 31Ltd in place of the 50.

I would far rather Pentax introduced a good 10mm fully corrected lens and something around the 24/25 mark. I think these would sell far better some some ultra fast lens and would do more for Pentax's reputation.

Kim

[northcoastgreg]

The trends seems to be toward slower glass

True, but somewhat exaggerated. The current lineup has two 1.4 lenses and two 1.8 lenses. It also features the fastest wide angle Pentax has ever released (FA 31/1.8) and the fastest rectilinear lens wider than 20mm (DA 14/2.8). Pentax has never put as much emphasis on fast glass as Nikon and (especially) Canon. Moreover, the current Pentax lineup only appears slow when compared to the K or A series of lenses; compared to the M, F or FA series, it doesn't appear all that slow, just less complete.

[Clavius]

What would be the point in producing super high speed lenses which would obviously cost a bomb to buy when the vast majority of Pentax users fall under the penny pinching, poor as a church mouse demographic?

Exactly! If Pentax were to produce such a very fast lens, then it would probably be more affordable then the version of the competitors. (In other words, if any brand is capable of building a affordable superfast lens, then it would be Pentax.) Think of the FA 50 f1.4. It's the cheapest 50 1.4 of all the brands, and the quality isn't all that bad. It's a empty space in the market, waiting for Pentax to fill.

[wildman]

I would say that Pentax is not going to produce faster lenses for two reasons:
1. High ISO capabilities of recent cameras

Exactly.
Make a fast camera rather than a fast lens. Research money much better spent and would make all lens' used on the camera "faster".

I'd be more happy with a drop dead clean ISO of 6400 and my FA35/F2 than any imaginable fast lens.

[sjwaldron]

Exactly.
Make a fast camera rather than a fast lens. Research money much better spent and would make all lens' used on the camera "faster".
I'd be more happy with a drop dead clean ISO of 6400 and my FA35/F2 than any imaginable fast lens.

The K-5 is the poster child of this ideal. I can use some of my slower glass with better results than my K-7.

True, but somewhat exaggerated. The current lineup has two 1.4 lenses and two 1.8 lenses. It also features the fastest wide angle Pentax has ever released (FA 31/1.8) and the fastest rectilinear lens wider than 20mm (DA 14/2.8). Pentax has never put as much emphasis on fast glass as Nikon and (especially) Canon. Moreover, the current Pentax lineup only appears slow when compared to the K or A series of lenses; compared to the M, F or FA series, it doesn't appear all that slow, just less complete.

I have a 31mm f1.8, 14mm f2.8, and 55mm f1.4, so I guess I support the ideals of faster glass in Pentax land. I think with APS-C, the 31mm doesn't feel as amazing as it could on full-frame. It's still my all-rounder lens that I use more than any others.

By current trend I meant it more along the line that Pentax's most recent releases have been slow and consumer-ish. I thought I heard that designer of the 55mm f1.4 doesn't even work for Pentax anymore too?

I think my main goal would be to find lenses that can help me with produce images like that bokeh stacking effect, but without all of the post processing effort. Seeing results of the 200mm f1.8 from Canon, I can say I don't agree with them when they said in the photo comments that it can't be done without post-processing.

[RonHendriks1966]

Well for fast glass I would prefer DA*135mm/f2.0 since that is real new future in Pentax glass-line-up.