[godwinaustin]

my reference was more to a lack of fast wide angle primes on the aps-c crop. The 31 fits the bill for a 50 equivalent but its also 1000 dollars.

[blackcloudbrew]

Um...I may be wrong but isn't the newest DA lens out there is the DA 50 f1.8? Brilliant yet cheap little lens.

There is the crop factor to take into account on focal length and I thought somewhere back some reasoning about digital sensors not really needing to do better than f2.8 (that's a random memory at this point and may be totally off base).

[TER-OR]

With the light sensitivity of these sensors isn't super-fast a bit unnecessary? Sure, for a razor-thin DOF I guess, but not for light gathering.

I did pick up a Sigma 26mm f1.8 macro after using it for a couple weeks rental. It does well indoors wide open, but I haven't needed that option very frequently. As a close-subject lens it's really really nice. I chose it over the DA35 macro, which I probably didn't evaluate as rigorously as I could have.

[VoiceOfReason]

Fast and wide is huge. I used to have a Sigma 20mm f/1.8 (showed as 1.7 in the camera) and that thing was a monster. I would like to see a fast 20 or 24 from Pentax, weather sealed too!

[Adam]

Good point. Haven't thought of that. I guess that goes hand in hand with the post I made earlier. Thanks Adam.

It still makes me scratch my head though as to why they would produce certain lenses that would not be commonly used or affordable. A prime example would be their new 560mm. Or outside of lenses, their medium format camera which isn't something the average user would pick up nor could afford.

The 560mm doesn't make sense, but it would imply that they're developing a pro APS-C camera like the D300s...

I'm not sure about the 645D, as the D800 is probably going to get a lot of studio shooters to stick to 35mm. And I've heard that the 1Dx is not too shabby in the studio either, for that matter! But the 645D must be selling well enough, otherwise R&D would have stopped

[Franky2step]

geez, I have a 50 f1.7, and there is a 50 f1.4 available, I also have a 24 f2, that's pretty fast, a 43 f1.9, a 77 f1.8, there is always something that people want regardless of what they have. why doesn't nikon have a VR version of their <100mm primes?

[Ben_Edict]

I find it interesting and amusing at once, that people complain about the lack of fast lenses, which necessarily are going to be expensive and on the other hand, there is the big fraction of people complaining about the lack of "affordable" or downright cheap lenses.

I know, bot wishes are justified. But Pentax is a small manufacturer with comparetively low production runs on any single lens. They need to concentrate on those, which they expect to sell as good as possible. There is simply no place for extraordinary lenses, which won't sell. That's unfortunate, but I can understand the policy.

What I never understood is Pentax' craving for super-small lenses. Small lenses in my opinion afford too many compromises, due to the design constraints: They are neither cheap nor do they offer the best IQ.
Therefor I stick to older fast glas, like the A and FA series. Back in M-days Pentax also had many very small lenses in its portfolio, which also were quite mediocre. But then they had enough market share to always keep some better quality, faster designs in production at the same time. These days are gone. Fast lenses, by the way, will always have a place in pjotography, as they are indispensible for their shallow depth of field, especially with the smaller APS-C sensors. Apart from that: high ISO performance is certainly better today than it ever was with film, but even then a fast lens will open up opportunites under dim lighting.

The new 560mm lens is really an odd decision in this light, neither small, nor fast and about IQ - who knows?

Ben

[Phosphene]

The 560mm doesn't make sense, but it would imply that they're developing a pro APS-C camera like the D300s...

I'm not sure about the 645D, as the D800 is probably going to get a lot of studio shooters to stick to 35mm. And I've heard that the 1Dx is not too shabby in the studio either, for that matter! But the 645D must be selling well enough, otherwise R&D would have stopped

I hope that is the case. One of the main reasons why I haven't upgraded my k-5 to the k-5IIs yet. Though I struggle to keep from getting the k-5IIs. Hopefully I only have to hold off for less than six months or I may upgrade.

[lytrytyr]

What I never understood is Pentax' craving for super-small lenses. Small lenses in my opinion afford too many compromises, due to the design constraints: They are neither cheap nor do they offer the best IQ.

Small lenses do not need to be compromised:
Just consider the DA 70, for example.
On the other hand, they make for fast AF,
they're less obtrusive in street use,
and they're easier to carry in a travel kit.

[lytrytyr]

On the other hand, what makes the FA limited trio not "modern" or "fast"?

Fast, maybe, classic, maybe, but certainly no longer modern.
The most recent FA Limited, the FA 31,
was introduced in the film era, back in 2001.
(About the same time as the FA 24-90.)
It does not have the modern convenience of Quick-Shift,
and its fixed hood is designed for an image format that Pentax no longer produces.

The 31/43/77 focal length set makes a logical wide/normal/tele trio on 24x36mm,
but that sense is lost on the modern APS-C cameras,
just becoming normal/slight tele/longer tele.

[Kerrowdown]

Even if you head back to the older lenses, lenses with an aperture below 2 are few and far between.

I still consider these as pretty fast, just to name a few in the A series,

SMC Pentax-A 28mm F2.0
SMC Pentax-A 35mm F2.0
SMC Pentax-A 50mm F1.2
SMC Pentax-A 50mm F1.4
SMC Pentax-A 50mm F1.7
SMC Pentax-A 50mm F2.0
SMC Pentax-A* 85mm F1.4
SMC Pentax-A* 135mm F1.8
SMC Pentax-A* 200mm F2.8 ED

[RobA_Oz]

Fast, maybe, classic, maybe, but certainly no longer modern.
The most recent FA Limited, the FA 31,
was introduced in the film era, back in 2001.
(About the same time as the FA 24-90.)
It does not have the modern convenience of Quick-Shift,
and its fixed hood is designed for an image format that Pentax no longer produces.

The 31/43/77 focal length set makes a logical wide/normal/tele trio on 24x36mm,
but that sense is lost on the modern APS-C cameras,
just becoming normal/slight tele/longer tele.

Just to clarify, I was speaking in terms of optical design, but I take your point about Quick-shift and the hoods on the Limiteds. In terms of optics, I guess ED glass and aspherical surfaces might qualify as "modern" or contemporary, even if they're not that new any more. In terms of IQ, those concepts are pretty much irrelevant, I reckon, though others may not agree.

[7samurai]

I really love the 35mm f/2.4. It's really is a sharp lens. It rivals my A 50mm f/1.7, if not sharper. I have the 50mm f/1.8 on order and hoping it will be just as sharp. I still would like Pentax to add a 24mm or less to the line of low cost lenses.

[52mm]

Moderately fast primes can be compact, lightweight, mechanically simple and rugged while giving good IQ, without necessarily having to break the bank. I consider that a fairly compelling package for the average photographer. (I find that 500g on the camera are weighing me down far more than 200g + 300g in the bag.)
The only problem is mass-market lens manufacturing has focused on making zooms for many years and only now are we seeing sort of a trend back. Now granted, zooms have become really good, and my best 135mm @ f/8 is my Sigma 70-300 DG OS... but it still is a big and cumbersome beast, and I wouldn't want to subject it to any sort of harsh mechanical treatment. Heaven knows what would have happened had I received it packaged like my Tokina 135/2.8 (floating loose in a box together with a TC). Not to mention that bit of brownish tint that's taking its toll on blues even with AWB.

I'm wondering what an updated take on something like the M135/3.5 might look like, for example. (Which I am guessing was a "how small and lightweight can we make a passable 135?" type exercise at the time, and it still qualifies as mighty petite. Nowadays we know how to make things small and lightweight, so it would be a bit more about quality this time.) Would it be able to surpass the DA 50-200 or 55-300?

How much of a problem is the long register of DSLRs anyway? It does appear to be sort of an issue for short to mid focal lengths. If so, crop DSLRs with film-era registers in particular would be likely to be surpassed by mirrorless cameras eventually (at least those with mounts designed from scratch), especially in the wideangle department.

[sunny16]

If Pentax is really going to produce a full-frame camera, it's possible that things have been overall quiet on the lens front because they're putting the design teams time towards a few new lenses for that format.