[TomTextura]

Anything with a variable aperture can go, with the exception of the 18-135 and the 55-300. All primes and fixed aperture zooms can stay, but the 16-50 and the 50-135 need to be revised to include a more reliable motor. Replace all the removed lenses with full frame glass that includes an aperture ring. Simple.

I like your thinking! I've no interest in owning a lens with a variable aperture. You're right tough, you can't really get around it with a super zoom. Such changes might make the Pentax offerings pretty up-market though.

[TomTextura]

The non-WR DFA 100/2.8 has been discontinued.

Wasn't aware of that.

The DA 16-45/4 is already discontinued in the Japanese market:

Wasn't aware of that either.

Thanks for pointing these out guys!

[TomTextura]

For the K-30 and the K-5 replacement that will be excellent. However, there is an entry-level dSLR coming along that will very likely not be WR - what will be sold with it?

It'd be neat to see the entry-level body be outfitted with one or two of the affordable DA primes. That would be fairly unique and would really let people see the IQ possible from even the "cheap" Pentax gear. Not sure if it would attract enough buyers though as the normal zoom seems to be what dominates the kit lens slot.

[Docrwm]

It'd be neat to see the entry-level body be outfitted with one or two of the affordable DA primes. That would be fairly unique and would really let people see the IQ possible from even the "cheap" Pentax gear. Not sure if it would attract enough buyers though as the normal zoom seems to be what dominates the kit lens slot.

That would be neat for enthusiasts but for the entry-level consumer in general a nice zoom in the 18-55 range is the default for many reasons, best to keep it that way for Pentax.

[TomTextura]

That would be neat for enthusiasts but for the entry-level consumer in general a nice zoom in the 18-55 range is the default for many reasons, best to keep it that way for Pentax.

Well, I still think the WR 18-55 would be the better default kit lens and as it's only a $40 difference I think it could work. It might just help encourage an eventual upgrade to a WR body by the entry-level crowd, which would be a good thing for Pentax and the consumer.

[TomTextura]

Maybe the widely unappreciated DA14/2.8 (I have one) is another example, although the better-built and lighter DA14/4 is a whole stop slower, but I'm not sure if that counts for much now.

I too can easily see the DA14 f/2.8 being a candidate for the chopping block. I imagine that it would leave a bit of a hole though for some shooters. I see that slot being better filled with a FF combo though, it'd just be better suited for the job. I still can't believe that Tokina hasn't released their 11-16mm f/2.8 in K-mount! That would take care of the desires of most who want something extra wide and relatively fast.

[interested_observer]

Since you are talking about lenses here, I'll approach it from a different view. Motors - I don't have a lens with a motor. I really do not need them, especially the way Pentax has handled this whole fiasco. If Pentax is going to put in a motor, put in screw drive also. I do not want a POS motor in my perfectly fine lens to screw things up. I can see motors going into the lenses from here on out. If Pentax insist on trying to sell me a POS, then at least make it useable when the motor fails and it becomes a boat anchor.

I have 60 year old lenses that are perfectly fine - manual, my hand works just fine. I have old screw drive lenses that are perfectly fine. I do not need quite and I do not need anything lightening fast. I do need something that works first time, last time and all the time.

[luftfluss]

I believe this is the Pentax lens that retails for between nine hundred and about one thousand. It has above average optics for a zoom and an imoressive aperature, but that is where it ends. Most professionals would in fact NOT use it.

If Pentax has or had a worse lens example that woud be it. Rather large problems with zoom lock and also focus issues that cause the need for it to be repaired even in moderate and rather delicate use. Most pros would rather carry around three lens than use this one from Pentax

Well, the most prominent Pentax pro on this board, Benjamin Kanarek, uses it. Benjamin Kanarek Blog 2010 Camera Lens Favorites Part 1 | Benjamin Kanarek Blog

Another prominent Pentaxian who uses the 16-50 is Kerrick James.

It does have the problems you pointed out, so we'll have to hope that PRIC releases an MK II.

[fuent104]

I'd like to see a budget 18mm or 20mm prime. I realize they are difficult to manufacture, but this is a wishlist, so it doesn't matter. When I first got into photography, I used my 28mm on my K1000 much more frequently than any other lens. It just worked best for how I saw the world. I want something that is equivalent. I can't be the only person who feels this way. I don't buy the idea that we're just supposed to forget that we used to have wide lenses, now that we are shooting on aps-c.

[TomTextura]

I believe this is the Pentax lens that retails for between nine hundred and about one thousand. It has above average optics for a zoom and an imoressive aperature, but that is where it ends. Most professionals would in fact NOT use it. If Pentax has or had a worse lens example that woud be it. Rather large problems with zoom lock and also focus issues that cause the need for it to be repaired even in moderate and rather delicate use. Most pros would rather carry around three lens than use this one from Pentax

You're going to hurt my feelings with comments like that about a lens I really like. Since I've so far been very pleased with my copy of the lens I can't help but feel like it has gotten an unfair bad rap. My feelings would quickly change though if I were ever to have the same misfortune that others have had with it. It's got such a bad reputation that I'm almost tempted to have my time with the lens be shorter rather than longer. But I've not reached that point yet and would first have to have something to replace it with that has a similar focal length, large aperture, and weather sealing. It's just too damn useful!

Well, the most prominent Pentax pro on this board, Benjamin Kanarek, uses it. Benjamin Kanarek Blog 2010 Camera Lens Favorites Part 1 | Benjamin Kanarek Blog Another prominent Pentaxian who uses the 16-50 is Kerrick James. It does have the problems you pointed out, so we'll have to hope that PRIC releases an MK II.

I was hoping someone would point to Kanarek as I knew he uses the 16-50. I've seen some of James's work, and liked it, but didn't notice that he had the 16-50 in his bag. I'm not surprised though as it's a very versatile lens. I'm all for a DA*16-50 f/2.8 II that can squeeze out a bit more sharpness and have faster focusing while being more reliable than what's been experienced by too many users in the past. Internal zoom would be awesome too! I'm not going to hold my breath for that last feature.

[TomTextura]

I'd like to see a budget 18mm or 20mm prime. I realize they are difficult to manufacture, but this is a wishlist, so it doesn't matter. When I first got into photography, I used my 28mm on my K1000 much more frequently than any other lens. It just worked best for how I saw the world. I want something that is equivalent. I can't be the only person who feels this way. I don't buy the idea that we're just supposed to forget that we used to have wide lenses, now that we are shooting on aps-c.

You're not the only person. It would be great to see a budget wide angle like that! I don't come from the film era, though I used to use my Dad's K1000 and had the same in photography class when I was a teenager, but I still feel the lack of wide angle options these days.

[RobA_Oz]

I too can easily see the DA14 f/2.8 being a candidate for the chopping block. I imagine that it would leave a bit of a hole though for some shooters. I see that slot being better filled with a FF combo though, it'd just be better suited for the job. I still can't believe that Tokina hasn't released their 11-16mm f/2.8 in K-mount! That would take care of the desires of most who want something extra wide and relatively fast.

While it's true that Tokina could provide some additional competition in this area, I find the Sigma 10-20/3.5 covers that range nicely, and is only half a stop slower than the Tokina, although it isn't meant for a 35mm sensor. I sometimes wonder why I've still got the DA14, when I have a copy of the Sigma, too. Of course, there are others in this segment, as well. Pentax could do worse than licensing a SMC version of either, especially if the DA14 was to go, but the question of sensor coverage may be a factor that we'll have to see about.

[RobA_Oz]

I'd like to see a budget 18mm or 20mm prime. I realize they are difficult to manufacture, but this is a wishlist, so it doesn't matter. When I first got into photography, I used my 28mm on my K1000 much more frequently than any other lens. It just worked best for how I saw the world. I want something that is equivalent. I can't be the only person who feels this way. I don't buy the idea that we're just supposed to forget that we used to have wide lenses, now that we are shooting on aps-c.

I imagine a budget 18mm prime would be a lot easier to manufacture than a 16mm. 18mm, of course, is the wide end of several lower-priced APS-C zooms, while 16mm is the preserve of more exotic variants.

In the 35mm film era, a 28mm was equivalent to an 18mm on APS-C, while the 16mm on APS-C is the equivalent of a 24mm on 35. I distinctly recall being amazed when I first matched my K24/2.8 to my K2DMD. I'd previously only used my 28/3.5 SMC Takumar on that camera, with an adapter, although it was no slouch optically. The breadth, sharpness and colour of the 24/2.8 was a real joy. Which is why, I guess, I enjoy the DA15 so much (yes, I've got one of those, too - talk about redundancy - but the price offer was too good to resist!). I'll also enjoy mounting my FA*24/2 on any 35mm DSLR Pentax that might be offered some time in the future.

[sterretje]

It'd be neat to see the entry-level body be outfitted with one or two of the affordable DA primes.

The K-r, when introduced, was available as a kit with either 18-55 or DA35/2.4. Not sure how well the latter sold.

[top-quark]

Gaps

Not sure that there really are major gaps in the current lineup. Any perceived gap - such as a 70-200mm F2.8 - is likely filled by a designed-for-digital alternative (50 - 135 in this case). Super-tele is shortly to be filled with an absolute beast that should exercise the shoulders of the stoutest enthusiast.

To Go
My predictions are:

• DA 14mm F2.8. Why you'd get this when you could have the 15mm Limited is beyond me. F2.8 isn't buying you much - ultra wide is tolerant of slow shutter speeds. If you needed the extra width, wouldn't you get an ultrawide zoom instead? Can't find it at my usual stockists so maybe it's already been discontinued.
• FA 50mm F2.8. Old (and ugly) design about to be obsoleted by the DA.
• DFA 50mm F2.8. Why would you get this when you can get the DA 35 Limited for less and the DFA 100 WR for the same price?
• Possibly DA* 200mm F2.8. Uncomfortably in the middle of the 50-135 and 60-250, it doesn't seem to have been a great success, in spite of some great reviews. Still want one, though.

Duplicates
There are numerous options around the 40mm length. The XS and Limited seem to be competing for the same ecological niche. Were I in the market for a functional body cap, I'd go for the 40mm Limited any day. I'd get it for a K-01 too.

DA 35 2.4 and 2.8 Limited may seem like their own competition but are actually in different markets (budget-conscious and style-conscious) and satisfy both well.

Given the cost, I fail to see a compelling reason to own the FA Limiteds. Of course, if I had the money I'd totally be in the market so I expect these to remain as luxury items that help distinguish the brand.

What I'd Like to See
There are a couple of interesting items on the road map. That Limited zoom is a tempting prospect. As is the DA* 16-80 (or whatever). I'd expect this be F2.8 - 4. Variable aperture doesn't need to be rubbish, just so long as maximum aperture isn't F6.3 or something. This looks to have been inspired by the highly prized Zuiko 12-60mm (do the arithmetic...).

If there is a feature that distinguishes Pentax from the competition, besides a comprehensive selection of pancake primes, it's the combination of compactness and ruggedness. I'd like to see them run with that, so:

• Keep the DAL zooms for the budget conscious.
• Replace the DA zooms with WR versions. The 17-70 is already plenty expensive, so shouldn't increase in price, but a DC, WR version would be a tempting alternative to a DA* zoom or the 18-135.
• A 55-300 WR would be a surefire winner. I'd willingly pay, say, £50 over the current price. I suspect every owner of a K-5 / K-7 / K-30 would sell their existing version and buy it. The only problem for Pentax would be a less compelling reason to buy the DA* telezooms.
• 12-24 replaced with a DC, WR version. Again, already expensive, so shouldn't increase in price. Extra production cost may well be offset by extra sales. WR may be the feature that stops you from buying a Sigma / Tamron.

Not sure that I can see a compelling reason for 24mm. It's a film-era length filled by the existing 21mm. Yes, something like F2 would be nice, but would it sell enough to make it worthwhile? Certainly can't see the point of a competitor for the Nikon 14-24. Cost and size makes that an extreme niche product. Pentax don't have the market presence to make it pay.

As for aperture rings, we don't need no stinking aperture rings! If only there were some way to control aperture from the body with something like a convenient dial on the back that you could reach with your thumb. Oh, wait. There is!

There are two reasons for still having an aperture ring:

• You like making life difficult for yourself by needing to do that stop down metering malarkey.
• You want to do macro using extension tubes.

Only the latter is a good reason but what we actually need is a set of extension tubes with the correct electrical contacts so that we retain automatic aperture control with all its attendant benefits.