[JonPB]

Lenses are not magic.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology..."

I wish I could be a fly on the wall when Pentax makes these strategic decisions... and a fly who understands Japanese. Having sales data and being able to talk with the engineers would make it far easier to be an armchair manager.

I'm optimistic about what we'll hear in the next month.

[dmytty]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology..."

A very apt way of putting it. Maybe it is a bit of magic. After all there are things like Vapor Deposition involved...and many an engineer would like to be able to call on the occult when the deadline nears.

The real magic of course is what happens in the eye of the beholder. And the difference between great photos and good photos is as hard to explain as the black arts.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall when Pentax makes these strategic decisions... and a fly who understands Japanese. Having sales data and being able to talk with the engineers would make it far easier to be an armchair manager.

I'm optimistic about what we'll hear in the next month.

Did you see the part about where I mentioned that the K30 is #58 on the sales list (in Japan of all places).

Pentax is not in a position to 'coast'.

[DSims]

I'm optimistic about what we'll hear in the next month.

Good point - me too! In fact, especially over the next 9 months or so, I anticipate some real products that will be really useful.

[Pål Jensen]

Lenses are not magic. The barriers to a new lens usually fall to determined engineering.

No, but they are commodities that is going to be sold at certain volume and to competitive prices to be worthwhile. A 12/1.4 is ridiculous.

I find these threads rather tedious. It is like those FF threads where Pentax should make FF cameras that performs better, are smaller and lighter and cheaper than the competition. The new FF lenses should be cheaper than APS lenses and of course cheaper than the competition. They should be no larger than APS lenses the magnification factor notwithstanding. And of course ultrafast....

[audiobomber]

Here's the timeline of the criticism:
1. Firstly, there was numerous mention that it's just not possible to even make an 18-85 f/2.8.

The criticism was that it wasn't practical, and I'll stick with that. There's no point in making a lens that's so large and expensive that no one buys it.

[JonPB]

I find these threads rather tedious.

You're right insofar as you might feel that these threads are unproductive, broadly speaking. Personally, I find optical technology more interesting than digital, and I find discussing hypothetical scenarios--at the bounds of what my lay mind considers possible--to be more interesting than watching TV. This is purely amusement for me, and you should feel no obligation to participate any more than you should feel obliged to root for the Detroit Lions when they play on some Sundays in fall.

What I really ought to do is go out and buy a basic optics textbook, which will probably require a physics text as well--I think I've about depleted the lay-audience internet sources--and once I have more understanding I should share that with the forum, perhaps, if I'm fortunate, with corrections from more experienced members.

There's no point in making a lens that's so large and expensive that no one buys it.

I think it has been established that people will buy very large and very expensive lenses. The question is whether or not producing a very large and very expensive lens would be profitable for Pentax. You conclude that it would not be. That's a perfectly valid opinion, and one nobody here can contradict because we don't have any market data to argue against it.

My view is that a lens with very strong optical qualities, a wide zoom range in the normal region, and top-notch weather sealing would be a viable product. Weather sealing and zoom make for a good combination. The DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 have nearly identical zoom ranges, as do the DA*60-250 and DA17-70. Admittedly, creating a faster or wider-ranged lens with the same optic qualities of these fine lenses would require advances (over the last 3-5 years) in manufacturing non-traditional lens elements or floating optical groups, which may well have occurred but probably hasn't.

A DA*19-80/4 would have essentially the same range as the 60-250 and 17-70, and, upon reflection, that's a perfectly realistic lens specification both in terms of optical technology and product lineup. How much larger or more expensive would it need to be for the lens to be faster or have more range? I don't know. I do know that, if backing off the wide end reduces chromatic aberration at 19mm and increases detail in the 50-60mm range, I'd be excited to put such a lens on my camera. I do know that I'd give strong consideration to using a larger lens if it is faster or has more range, if size, weight and cost are the only penalties for maintaining optical quality.

Many companies have "halo" products that most of their consumers don't buy--but which irrationally affect their decision to buy the product they end up purchasing. I wouldn't be opposed to Pentax creating a unique, big, expensive zoom lens as a halo product to complement their unique, small, expensive prime lenses. But then, I don't have any market data to say whether that would be a sound decision on their part.

[DSims]

The criticism was that it wasn't practical, and I'll stick with that. There's no point in making a lens that's so large and expensive that no one buys it.

Exactly. No such product will be released "in the near future" (e.g. soon enough to show up on a lens map) even at the maximum target of $2000-2500 (which is the most any FF or smaller DSLR manufacturer has ever charged for a fast zoom in the "normal" range,) much less for the $1000 he proposed soon afterward.

[dmytty]

You're right insofar as you might feel that these threads are unproductive, broadly speaking. Personally, I find optical technology more interesting than digital, and I find discussing hypothetical scenarios--at the bounds of what my lay mind considers possible--to be more interesting than watching TV. This is purely amusement for me, and you should feel no obligation to participate any more than you should feel obliged to root for the Detroit Lions when they play on some Sundays in fall.

I find that when people feel a desire to express a skeptical opinion, they are often contemplating exactly that which they seemingly oppose. The stronger their reaction, the greater their intrigue. In my opinion, the skeptics here are simply lens owners that are torn between wanting newer and better...and fearful that their lens 'investment' might be devalued.

What I really ought to do is go out and buy a basic optics textbook, which will probably require a physics text as well--I think I've about depleted the lay-audience internet sources--and once I have more understanding I should share that with the forum, perhaps, if I'm fortunate, with corrections from more experienced members.

An overview of things you might study:
http://spie.org/etop/1997/26_1.pdf

An optical design handbook online:
http://vega.inp.nsk.su/~inest/book/Malacara%20Handbook%20of%20optical%20Design%202nd%20ed.pdf

If you have an interest in pushing the envelope, the light field camera theory might interest you:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/billf/www/papers/lightfieldsTR-Levin-Freeman-Durand-08.pdf

I think it has been established that people will buy very large and very expensive lenses. The question is whether or not producing a very large and very expensive lens would be profitable for Pentax. You conclude that it would not be. That's a perfectly valid opinion, and one nobody here can contradict because we don't have any market data to argue against it. My view is that a lens with very strong optical qualities, a wide zoom range in the normal region, and top-notch weather sealing would be a viable product. Weather sealing and zoom make for a good combination

Pentax produces a $10,000 medium format camera. As you say, it is not a foregone conclusion that Pentax may bring out 'halo' products, and even those which are fantastically expensive.

On the other hand, an 18-85 f/2.8 would be not only a halo product, but one which would have widespread appeal and thus have potential for high volume manufacturing. As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, the Red 18-85 f/2.4 offers ample evidence that not only is it possible, but an f/2.8 would be a half-step easier to hit the big sweet spot. Bringing costs down by 90% might seem fantastic, but it's happening.

Lens manufacturers like to have a big portfolio of lenses as they feel this lets them sell more. However, the superzoom trend (Bigma, etc) shows that there is a portfolio consolidation trend, and it only stands to reason that fast lenses with high image quality will be a part of this trend.

[123jippo]

What makes the Pentax system different - and better?

Body WR
Body SR
Body size
Body prices
Limited Lenses
DNG
Bodys are easy to use
SD cards
Pentax do put to software all features they can, not like competitors they do force to buy more expensive body
Pentax photographers are unique...and when using Pentax nobody want to borrow ur gears
This Pentax site

Negative aspects of using Pentax are something like minor to all this