[Kenneth3aracing]

Just have no idea Pentax as a camera & lens manufacturer and doesn't make the following:

. Full frame DSLR? (because the 645D already?)
. DA* 70-200mm F2.8 Zoom?
. DA* 300mm F2.8 Prime?, Not F4

Not sure anyone have idea sharing?

[eddie1960]

Just have no idea Pentax as a camera & lens manufactroer and doesn't make the following:

. Full frame DSLR? (because the 645D already?)
. DA* 70-200mm F2.8 Zoom?
. DA* 300mm F2.8 Prime?, Not F4

Not sure anyone have idea sharing?

the first is because the original plan for one got canned because of the poor sensor available, then as they developed APSC lineup they made lenses specific Hoya likely didn't want to spend the money as they bought the company for the medical not the photo side
Good news is Ricoh now owns the Photo side and there is a lot of hope for a FF
Second - they made an FA 80-200 2.8 which got dropped with the apsc line introduction. Likely we will see a variant back when FF comes
Third - See above

As a small company with limited (by Hoya) product development and marketing budgets they had to focus on the broad market. none of the above are broad market items.

Hopefully Ricoh changes this (and I think they will)

[eddie1960]

to see what has been made (and can be found used)

Pentax-FA* 300mm F2.8 ED [IF] Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Pentax-FA* 80-200mm F2.8 ED [IF] Reviews - FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Pentax-FA* 28-70mm F2.8 AL Reviews - FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

All these come up for sale regularly and i expect would all be reworked as DFA* designs for a FF camera

DA* BTW designates designed for APSC, though a number of them will cover FF

[Ishpuini]

Just have no idea Pentax as a camera & lens manufacturer and doesn't make the following:

. Full frame DSLR? (because the 645D already?)
. DA* 70-200mm F2.8 Zoom?
. DA* 300mm F2.8 Prime?, Not F4

Not sure anyone have idea sharing?

Simple: no 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 are made because no 135format camera (what people insist on calling FF) is made.

For APS-C the DA*50-135 and DA*200 are exactly the f/2.8 lenses you refer to. Multiply by 1.5 and you will realize the DA*50-135 is a 70-200 equivalent and the DA*200 is the 300 equivalent.

Wim

[elho_cid]

They don't make it because they believe we would not buy it. And they are right.

[eddie1960]

They don't make it because they believe we would not buy it. And they are right.

They are wrong (actually to be accurate Hoya was wrong, I think it will change under Ricoh). look at how many people here own the sigma and tamron 70-200 2.8 lenses
or pay as much for old a*300 2.8 used as they likely would for a new DFA* 300 2.8 w/WR.
The used market prices are as high as they are on some lenses specifically because there is no new option

[eddie1960]

Simple: no 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 are made because no 135format camera (what people insist on calling FF) is made.

For APS-C the DA*50-135 and DA*200 are exactly the f/2.8 lenses you refer to. Multiply by 1.5 and you will realize the DA*50-135 is a 70-200 equivalent and the DA*200 is the 300 equivalent.

Wim

a 50-135 2.8 is the equivalent of a 70-20 f4.0 on FF

a DA* 200 2.8 is a FF 300 f4.0

and they are priced like those FF lenses would be

[Lowell Goudge]

Lets avoid the FF discussion in total here, as there has never been any indication that pentax would ever make a FF body, much the same way as canikon will never move into medium format.

the present lens line up, is essentially the ASP-C equivelent of the field of view and speed of the most commonly sold pentax Film lenses.

Just look at things a little.
in primes we have
- DA55F1.4 to replace the 85mmF1.4
- 200F2.8 to replace 300F2.8
- 300F4 to replace ? as pentax had long discontinued the 500F4.5

in zooms
- 50-135F2.8 replacing 70-200F2.8
- 16-50 F2.8 replacing (more or less) 28-70F2.8
- 10-17 fisheye replacing 17-28 fisheye

and the list goes on and on

What got missed is that there are many pentax shooters who still like the older range of zooms, for their use.

I am one of those, and as a result have a tamron 28-75F2.8 and sigma 70-200F2.8, because in actuality, this gives a better use for many things. and then add an ultra wide zoom at the bottom.

it is easier for example to have a 10-20 or 12-24 zoom, plus the 28-75 and take nothing else at all, if you are city bound on a vacation. the longer end of the 50-135 is a waste of space and weight, in many instances.

The problem I think is that while the origonal zooms that came out covered the 28-75 range and the 70 - 200 range, this is because these were practical to make, and 70-200 was the everything else lens in addition to the 28 and 50mm lenses that were sold. WA to medium tele was a late arrival compared to the tele zoom, and the range was set based on what could be made economically at the time.

to replicate the FOV in digital format was, in my mind a mistake made by almost all camera companies. The new format, along with new lens technologies should have redefined the zoom ranges (perhaps) and we are seeing that now, with 17-70 and 18-135 lenses, that make the 50-135 the wrong range to supply in a zoom

[Kenneth3aracing]

It sounds like a lot of calculation,

Let make some examples of different lenses on my k-x:
DAL 35mm F2.4 > 53mm F2.4
Pentax-F50mm F1.7 > 75mm F1.7
Tarmon 17-50mm F2.8 XR/LD(made for APSC) > 17-50mm F2.8
Pentax DA* 50-135mm F2.8 > 75- 203mm F2.8
Tarmon 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD > 105- 300mm F2.8
Pentax-F AF 1.7x (design for FF) > 2.6x on focal lenght and Aperture

Please correct and explain me if I get wrong. Thanks

[eddie1960]

It sounds like a lot of calculation,

Let make some examples of different lenses on my k-x:
DAL 35mm F2.4 > 53mm F2.4
Pentax-F50mm F1.7 > 75mm F1.7
Tarmon 17-50mm F2.8 XR/LD(made for APSC) > 17-50mm F2.8
Pentax DA* 50-135mm F2.8 > 75- 203mm F2.8
Tarmon 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD > 105- 300mm F2.8
Pentax-F AF 1.7x (design for FF) > 2.6x on focal lenght and Aperture

Please correct and explain me if I get wrong. Thanks

to truly compare to Ff (35MM you need to adjust the F stop as well (the exposure will remain the same but DOF changes)

so from a visual perspective (as opposed to an exposure perspective) given the same pixel size

DAL 35mm F2.4 > 53mm F3.6
Pentax-F50mm F1.7 > 75mm F2.5
Tarmon 17-50mm F2.8 XR/LD(made for APSC) > 17-50mm F4.2
Pentax DA* 50-135mm F2.8 > 75- 203mm F4.2
Tarmon 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD > 105- 300mm F4.2

[Adam]

Hopefully they're working on the full-frame, in the mean time Sigma has picked up where Pentax left off:

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM for Pentax 589109 B&H
Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX DG Autofocus Lens for Pentax 195109 B&H
Fast Sports Zoom Lenses for Pentax - 70-200mm Sigma & Tamron- PentaxForums.com

[rvannatta]

Hopefully they're working on the full-frame, in the mean time Sigma has picked up where Pentax left off:

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM for Pentax 589109 B&H
Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX DG Autofocus Lens for Pentax 195109 B&H
Fast Sports Zoom Lenses for Pentax - 70-200mm Sigma & Tamron- PentaxForums.com

Of course my thought on long lenses has nothing to do with whether they
are effectively the the same as what used to exist. We have rising expectations.

When selecting a long lens, we want FAST, LONG, LIGHT WEIGHT--with these factors all balanced with the thickness of our pocket book. They don't make them too long, too fast or too light in weight, (all of which are tradeoffs), though different people will prefer a different balance of features. The result just needs to meet the pocket book realities which of course varies with each pocket.

I don't recall ever missing a bird shot becuase my lens was too long or too fast because I was fumbling in my bag for a slower wider heavier lens.

Likewise if you ever have the occasion to photograph a charging bear, your
heirs and devisees likely can sell a photo of the bear's tonsils for just as much as they could a photo of the entire bear so shorter may not be better there either.

[Marc Sabatella]

They are wrong (actually to be accurate Hoya was wrong, I think it will change under Ricoh). look at how many people here own the sigma and tamron 70-200 2.8 lenses
or pay as much for old a*300 2.8 used as they likely would for a new DFA* 300 2.8 w/WR.
The used market prices are as high as they are on some lenses specifically because there is no new option

It's one thing to say a handful of people on a forum buy these lenses, another to say they would actually sell in sufficently qunatities to justify the amount of money it would take to develop such - especially since simple economics siggest Penax could never sell theirs as cheaply as Sigma or Tamron.

As for FF course, there are a millipn existong threads debatng that topic, but the bottom line is the same - it would cost a huge amount of money to develop such a system, and Pentax apparently deems it unlikely it would sell well enou to be worthwhile.

[eddie1960]

It's one thing to say a handful of people on a forum buy these lenses, another to say they would actually sell in sufficently qunatities to justify the amount of money it would take to develop such - especially since simple economics siggest Penax could never sell theirs as cheaply as Sigma or Tamron.

As for FF course, there are a millipn existong threads debatng that topic, but the bottom line is the same - it would cost a huge amount of money to develop such a system, and Pentax apparently deems it unlikely it would sell well enou to be worthwhile.

Well canikon don't sell theirs for the same price as tamron and Sigma but they still sell in big numbers I believe
A lot of people would prefer a Pentax lens.
And the Sigma now that it comes as an OS model only actually may end up more expensive than a comparable Pentax (in the 70-200)
The other thing is I would expect the Pentax variants to come out as high level WR versions (IE a FF version of a DA*) which would justify some cost
If they do in fact move into the FF arena they will pretty much have to release at minimum a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 (and probably a wide 12-24 as well though f4 may be enough there) I would think any FF Pentax client would also expect them all to be WR construction

I think it's more accurate to say Pentax (Hoya) didn't believe it was worthwhile. At this point in time we have no idea what Pentax Ricoh thinks since there have been no announcements or roadmaps

[RonHendriks1966]

The only way to not sell them is to not provide them. I would be in the market for 300mm/f2.8