[savoche]

Interesting thread this... as to how many folk say they would like fast primes of various focal lengths.

Whilst not in the current range line up, Pentax did make such beautiful glass.

They still available pre owned but at a price, in manual focus versions (that's where you twiddle the lens around, no not the zoom ring, we're talking primes here). If you get the "A" series lenses, aperture is still controlled be the camera.

Yep, Pentax wouldn't really have to design much of anything. Just start up production of the old ones They won't come cheap with that build quality, though.

[Sandy Hancock]

An autofocus/coating update of the A50/1.2
DA*24/1.8, preferably covering the FF image circle.
A recoated, weather sealed FA*85
A DA*135/1.8
A reliable, improved version of the DA*16-50
A full frame 24-70 and 70-200, as long as an appropriate body exists to put them on.

[cxdoo]

I'd like to see a 50-135/2.8 with a faster, trouble free motor (or none at all).


And if upcoming 70-200 is that, I'd like a FF body that goes with it

[ElJamoquio]

Common wisdom is that the 50-135 motor has been fixed already.

[cxdoo]

Even if I was comfortable with that (and I am not), I'd still want something faster (as in AF) for almost double the price of Tamron 70-200. For me it's just too expensive, considering the (potential) shortcomings.

[ChristianRock]

Camera manufacturer's lenses are always more expensive. The fact that you can get the Tamron 70-200 2.8 for 700 doesn't stop Canon and Nikon from selling theirs for 2,500 and 2,400 respectively.
Pentax's version (APS-C) can be seen as a bargain for 1,050 compared to that.

[ElJamoquio]

Even if I was comfortable with that (and I am not), I'd still want something faster (as in AF) for almost double the price of Tamron 70-200. For me it's just too expensive, considering the (potential) shortcomings.

I bought the Tamron and love it. To me the 50-135 never made sense, but to other people it did.

---------- Post added 07-08-14 at 09:40 AM ----------

Camera manufacturer's lenses are always more expensive. The fact that you can get the Tamron 70-200 2.8 for 700 doesn't stop Canon and Nikon from selling theirs for 2,500 and 2,400 respectively.
Pentax's version (APS-C) can be seen as a bargain for 1,050 compared to that.

Those are very different image circles and focal lengths, and your estimate of Pentax's price is low by $350.

If you want to throw different image formats into the mix, the closest equivalent comparison is the $1400 Pentax compared to the $1400 Nikon F/4. Admittedly the nikon has a hair better aperture, but it's the same cost.


Perhaps a better comparison would be the Tokina 50-135? Discontinued now I think.

---

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 07-08-2014 at 09:43 AM.

[cxdoo]

I also love my Tamron However I could live with 50-135 and its smaller size as I rarely find myself on the long end. Just not with current 50-135 at current price.

BTW, it's not so much the price that pushed me to Tamron for 17-50 and 70-200, as the feeling that Pentax offering is just not worth it. Anyway, now that I'm done with zooms I will go back to giving money to Pentax for primes. Shame, though.

[ChristianRock]

Those are very different image circles and focal lengths, and your estimate of Pentax's price is low by $350.

If you want to throw different image formats into the mix, the closest equivalent comparison is the $1400 Pentax compared to the $1400 Nikon F/4. Admittedly the nikon has a hair better aperture, but it's the same cost.


Perhaps a better comparison would be the Tokina 50-135? Discontinued now I think.

I checked Amazon before posting and it's 1,048 dollars fulfilled by Amazon.

Also, we've done this conversation before, nobody buys the equivalent to f/2.8 (which would be a 70-200 1.8 in APS-C) - first because they don't exist, second because if you are buying APS-C you decide to leave with a wider DOF. That's just the way it is.

So Pentax designed the 50-135 to be the APS-C version of a 70-200 2.8 and that's what I go by. Olympus and Panasonic do the same thing, they do f/2.8 high end tele zooms. They haven't done a f/.095 tele zoom lens yet, because besides it being impossible, they know people that buy 4/3 are fine with larger DOF.

[ElJamoquio]

What you said:

So Pentax designed the 50-135 to be the APS-C version of a 70-200 2.8

What I would've said:

So Pentax designed the 50-135 to be the APS-C version of a 70-200 4.5

If you had said this, no argument.


There's nothing wrong with F/4.5 lenses on FF. They're perfect for 80-90% of my shots.

[ChristianRock]

You know, I could talk about a 2.8 lens allowing you to use lower ISOs and/or higher shutter speeds, but you know what, I'm just going to ignore threads where this stupid trollery of "equivalence" is brought up.
It has absolutely NO real world importance to people buying APS-C or 4/3 systems.

[K David]

20mm f2 FA tilt-shift