[Just1MoreDave]

These lenses are all being made now and stored in a giant warehouse, ready to be rolled out simultaneously with the new K-FF camera. Pentax plans to sell the body only for $1000, and a body plus 2 lens kit of 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 (both WR) for $2000. The 300/2.8 will come a few months later to keep the buzz rolling.

[eddie1960]

These lenses are all being made now and stored in a giant warehouse, ready to be rolled out simultaneously with the new K-FF camera. Pentax plans to sell the body only for $1000, and a body plus 2 lens kit of 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8 (both WR) for $2000. The 300/2.8 will come a few months later to keep the buzz rolling.

and the alarm buzzer cuts through the fog and dave realizes it was all just a wet dream

[jatrax]

The problem with constantly comparing FF and APS-C equivalent focal lengths is that an increasing percentage of camera owners have no idea what a FF camera angle of view looks like. I started on film, and still have a film camera but all my photography is now with APS-C cameras. And has been for so long I really don't remember what a lens looked like on FF. And anyone who has picked this up in the last 10 years may have never seen anything through a FF viewfinder.

So when someone starts talking about 70-200 zoom I can picture what that looks like on aps-c but not on FF. And I suspect that is true for a lot of people. The difference really only means something to people who regularly switch back & forth or have recently changed to aps-c. For the rest of us 70-200 is 70-200.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I would like a 70-200 f/2.8 not the aps-c angle of view equivalent of what 70-200 looked like on FF. I like the range of my F 70-210 f/4-5.6 on aps-c and except it is slow I really like the lens. I can understand why Pentax made lenses in the equivalent focal lengths when they moved to aps-c, I just think that idea is past and they would be better off from a sales viewpoint to make lenses that people relate to even if they don't look the same in a FF viewfinder. Maybe it is just a marketing thing.

[Marc Sabatella]

Well canikon don't sell theirs for the same price as tamron and Sigma but they still sell in big numbers I believe

Perhaps, but then, Canon and Nikon each sell 20 times as many cameras as Pentax does. So there is a much bigger market for lenses. There is a certain fixed cost to design and gear up for the manufacture of a new lens, and you have to sell a certain number of lenses just to break even. Just because Canon and Nikon can sell in large enough numbers to hit that breakeven point doesn't mean Pentax would.

But of course, you are right that Ricoh may feel differently than Hoya did.

[wlachan]

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

. Full frame DSLR? (because the 645D already?)

Because the majority of Pentax K mount buyers are price sensitive, very sensitive. Swearing I want one and actually put down the cold hard cash are very different.

. DA* 70-200mm F2.8 Zoom?

Because 50-135/2.8 makes more sense for APS-C, and it actually matches the good old 70-200/2.8 on film. Pity SDM is so dead.

. DA* 300mm F2.8 Prime?, Not F4

Not sure anyone have idea sharing?

Again, because the majority of Pentax users are price sensitive, very price sensitive (am I repeating myself? ) Any sane photographers would go for C/N 300/2.8 along with 1.4X/2X TC and start shooting today (actually for the last 2 decades) with predictive AF performance light years ahead. Pentax had the A/FA*300/2.8 for many years, didn't sell. With slow & noisy body AF or even slower and unreliable SDM, no sane photographers would spend a few kilo on Pentax super-teles. People here already starts to moan as the price tags approach 1k USD. Get the picture?

[bhairavp]

Such angst, Alan. Why do you enjoy coming here and repeating the same old fluff ad nauseum? Your 40D acting up?

[wlachan]

Me? Angst about Pentax? Not a chance. Are you feeling insecure about the truth? My 40D again? Oh boy.

[Lowell Goudge]

Thie same theme seems to continually re-appear here. Some argue equivalent FOV to film, others argue it does not matter. I think the latter have it right. Go back to my first post. The classical 28-70(ish) and 70-200(ish) zooms grew out of the film era, and they were replaced by 16-50 and 50-135 lenses in pentax's lineup probably because some inept marketing fool ( not sure pentax has any other) decided to replicate what was done on film for the smaller sensor. In my view, and all makers missed the boat here, is they should have taken the opportunity of the new format and new optical capabilities to redefine the focal length ranges of a standard lens setup.

Look at the latest lenses 17-70 and 18-135. Either of these two is infinitely more suitable to general use than the 16-50 or the kit 18-55 lenses are,

That is why I went for the 28-75 and 70-200 fast zooms, an ultra wide was always a need, and with the ultra wide and a lens going to 75mm I can elect to leave the big heavy monster home when i know I don't need the reach. Going with a 16-50 and 50-135 has me carrying both plus the ultra wide, because there are lots of times when you want more than 50mm.

When zoom ranges started expanding on film, I had a 28-105 and put the 1.7x AF converter on my MF 70-210 to get a 100-350mm lens If I didn't need the reach the longer lens stayed home. Just like today

In reality I think the 70-200 is a much more useful focal length range now, than it was in the past on film (or full farme). We shouldn't get stuck on equivalents and such, let's redefine the zoom ranges to suit what we need, now that a lot more is possible than 30 years ago

[Unsinkable II]

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

Agreed. You have to be in it to win it.

While the 300/2.8 is an expensive niche (though one I would buy), Pentax don't even offer a 18-250 travel lens (one I would buy in an instant). That most certainly isn't niche.

[top-quark]

It's already been pointed out that 70-200mm F2.8 and 300mm F2.8 are fundamentally film era designs. Now consider size and weight:

DA* 50-135mm F2.8: 765g
Sigma 70-200mm F2.8: 1370g

DA* 200mm F2.8: 825g
DA* 300mm F4: 1070g
Sigma 300mm F2.8: 2400g

It strikes me that Pentax have done the right thing: not having a full frame line to support, they've created optimal designs for digital format. The 50-135 is still a big optic so what must it be like dragging that Sigma around? As for the telephoto prime, you hit diminishing returns in a big way for the extra length or the extra stop of brightness: more than twice the weight and more than twice the cost.

The 70-200mm is, I'd say, pointless. If you really want one, you can get one either from Tamron or Sigma. There is a market for fast, long lenses but there must be a hard limit to the number of people who'd stump up £2500+ for a piece of glass (let's face it: most wouldn't pay 250) and Pentax have evidently decided that they're not going to try and compete for their business.

Tell you what I'd like: a nice, small F2.8 135mm, like the F or FA, only not ugly and with quick shift. Or maybe even a DA* F2 version, although that would probably be enormous.

[steve1307]

. Going with a 16-50 and 50-135 has me carrying both plus the ultra wide, because there are lots of times when you want more than 50mm.

Thats just what they are expecting you to do.... you have buy both of them

Agreed. You have to be in it to win it.

While the 300/2.8 is an expensive niche (though one I would buy), Pentax don't even offer a 18-250 travel lens (one I would buy in an instant). That most certainly isn't niche.

They did have an 18-250. It's just that it was Tamron's and they pulled the superzoom pin on Pentax it seems.
In the local (amatuer) photo club I participate in, which are mostly C an N users of course, the newer smaller Tamron 18-270 PZD version is getting a lot of lovin'.


A 300 /2.8 is a special and expensive niche I think it makes less sense these days with better ISO performance.
I say this having never owned or even tried a 300/ 2.8 and being so impressed with my eventual choice of a DA*300/4

but....... comparing 300 f4 to 300 f2.8
SLR Camera Lenses

the 300 / 2.8 is
2.5x the weight to carry around
3 to 5x the cost (so the wallet is not so heavy to carry around)

The 1 stop speed or ISO advantage is minimal with a K-5 or body with similar iso performance.

OK, so the DOF is 30% narrower but a 300mm lens has pretty thin DOF anyway.

The only real advantage I see is if you specifically wanted to use it with an autofocus TC.
A 600mm f5.6 might have an easier time than an effective 600 f8.


Comparing random pictures taken with a 300 f2.8 vs a 300 f4, on average, the sample photos posted with a 300 f2.8 will look more pleasing but IMO this is because the person who has invested in a 2.8 is a more critcal photographer (and also is likely, but not necessarily better than an average f4 user) but they would only post the best of their collection.

I saw plenty of sample pictures and thought, wow i've got to save up for a 300/2.8 but I realised its not the lens that was performing significantly better, it was the person behind it.

I'm glad I went for a DA*300 which I'm still learning and have a ways to go yet. A 300 f2.8 is a big step up just in the handling (and the paying for it).
If I'd found a 300 2.8 it probably wouldn't have left the house yet and certainly would never leave the house without a tripod.

[regor]

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

And how many is that ?... No one knows. A handful of folks hanging around this forum do, but this is hardly enough to sustain such expensive development. If Pentax/Ricoh thinks it would be profitable, and the key word is profitable, they'll do it. Meanwhile, you can buy a Sigma of the same.

[eddie1960]

And how many is that ?... No one knows. A handful of folks hanging around this forum do, but this is hardly enough to sustain such expensive development. If Pentax/Ricoh thinks it would be profitable, and the key word is profitable, they'll do it. Meanwhile, you can buy a Sigma of the same.

I'd rather drop the useless OS of the sigma and get WR myself, i'm guessing a lot of others would feel the same

[cmohr]

I gave up trying to get a FA*300/2.8 (rare as hens teeth, I'd love one and would happily swap my Sigma for one) and just ended up with the Sigma 300/2.8, if there had been a Pentax New option, I would have gone for it, and I wanted a 2.8 so as I could push it out to 600/5.6, I must admit I see little to no IQ drop when using the Sigma Lens with the matched APO TC's. Pity Pentax also never made FA*TC's, so no surprise they still haven't made a SDM TC, which is disappointing considering they only now make a lens to 300, and if you use a TC you loose SDM focus, thats the reason I didn't buy the DA*300. And considering they decided not to make SDM TC's, they then didn't even give a in camera choice of SDM or Screwdrive so as if you did use an AF TC with the SDM lens, it would auto switch to Screwdrive focus.

As far as carring a 300/2.8 around, I have no problems whatsoever, its just another lens, my kit before was fairly large, so now I have two bags.

[Lowell Goudge]

Thats just what they are expecting you to do.... you have buy both of them

you missed the point. It is not a question of buying both. It a question if for example, you have a three zoom kit, what is the correct focal lengths of the three.

Consider an ultra wide. Either 10-20 or 12-24
Add a mid lens either 16-50 or 17-70 or a 28-75
Add a tele zoom either 50-135 or 70-200

Now travel in a city. With pentax's current line up you go 16-50 and 50-135 because 50mm is not enough.
I go a lot of tomes where I am city bound and leave the 70-200 at home and travel with only 2 lenses.

I still own the third lens it is just not as convenient in a city where it is rare to need over 75mm. If you opt for the shorter range you have to carry more As I said the issue is why should be bound to "classical" focal length or field of view options that are not the optimum for what you need. The "film" focal lengths are more convenient now than they were on film once you add the ultra wide in the bottom