[MJSfoto1956]

Ok, now that I have your attention, let me preface this with the fact that I already own a bunch of "big" lenses for my Nikon D800. I don't need to replicate this. What I need is a smaller camera kit for travel with filter size no bigger than 67mm. That is the primary reason why I purchased my Pentax K-3 + DA*60-250mm. The DA* 60-250mm meets this requirement (especially if you compare how lightweight it is vis a vis Nikon 80-400mm or Canon 100-400mm behemoths). So far so good. What else is out there in Pentax land? Well all the Limited lenses meet this requirement too. Check. I have a nice set of limiteds as well (although they aren't WR which is such a shame). Then there is the older 16-45mm with a 67mm (again not WR). Ok, I have that too and it has proved to be a good little performer. But that's it. Everyone else in lens manufacturing land is making behemoths (prime examples: Leitz Otus and Sigma Art, but even Pentax can be faulted e.g. 16-50mm f/2.8 w/77mm filters). Fuji seems to be on the ball however: I'm liking their 56mm f/1.2 (62mm filter) and I hope Pentax follows suit. Let the Sigmas and Tamrons make the behemoth lenses while you extend your 67mm-and-under weather-resistant lens line. Please.

Michael

[jatrax]

One thing I always found remarkable was the degree that Pentax stuck with 49mm on so many primes. Makes carrying a set of filters really easy.

And while I agree with your thoughts re keeping things small, for those of us without a D800 as a backup camera for our k-3's, I would like to see the line get filled in with some larger lenses as well. There are a number of holes in Pentax line up currently, but looking at the bright side it means lots of opportunities for Ricoh to bring out some new kit.

[JinDesu]

The Fuji is nice, but comes in just a little larger than the DA*55 1.4. So I suppose that makes them pretty close to each other. I always felt the 16-45 was pretty huge for a F4 lens. It's only a little smaller than the 16-50.

That being said, there's the DA 20-40, which despite the moaning and groaning, is quite a good lens. It just needs to be cheaper.

[waterfall]

Ok, now that I have your attention, let me preface this with the fact that I already own a bunch of "big" lenses for my Nikon D800. I don't need to replicate this. What I need is a smaller camera kit for travel with filter size no bigger than 67mm. That is the primary reason why I purchased my Pentax K-3 + DA*60-250mm. The DA* 60-250mm meets this requirement (especially if you compare how lightweight it is vis a vis Nikon 80-400mm or Canon 100-400mm behemoths). So far so good. What else is out there in Pentax land? Well all the Limited lenses meet this requirement too. Check. I have a nice set of limiteds as well (although they aren't WR which is such a shame). Then there is the older 16-45mm with a 67mm (again not WR). Ok, I have that too and it has proved to be a good little performer. But that's it. Everyone else in lens manufacturing land is making behemoths (prime examples: Leitz Otus and Sigma Art, but even Pentax can be faulted e.g. 16-50mm f/2.8 w/77mm filters). Fuji seems to be on the ball however: I'm liking their 56mm f/1.2 (62mm filter) and I hope Pentax follows suit. Let the Sigmas and Tamrons make the behemoth lenses while you extend your 67mm-and-under weather-resistant lens line. Please.

Michael

I agree. had and sold a Sigma 50mm, 1.4 because it was a boat anchor and scary large on the objective for humans. The FA 43 Ltd is so nice and at f/1.9 not a weakling in competition with the Boat Anchor.

[MJSfoto1956]

I always felt the 16-45 was pretty huge for a F4 lens. It's only a little smaller than the 16-50..

Not in my way of thinking -- when I travel I like to only pack a single set of (sharable) filters which include various ND filters and polarizers. And from much experience I have found that limiting things to a 67mm max filter size is the way to go: the difference is substantial when you add up the total system weight and size of all the 77mm components vs. 67mm components. If I need speed, then I put on a fast (small 49mm or 52mm) prime and I'm good to go.

Now for events, of course, fast zooms are a requirement, and I can appreciate that. But I'd like to see Pentax expand their lightweight/small lens line. Clearly Fuji is going directly after Pentax's market with their latest WR releases. Pentax should be concerned.

YMMV

Michael

[Na Horuk]

Fuji is definitely marketing some interesting cameras, but they are a little expensive and I think some people complain about Fuji sensors
Nice lenses, and beautiful, compact cameras, though

Edit: And yes! That 56mm f/1.2 seems mighty fine!

[LFLee]

Ok, now that I have your attention, let me preface this with the fact that I already own a bunch of "big" lenses for my Nikon D800. I don't need to replicate this. What I need is a smaller camera kit for travel with filter size no bigger than 67mm. That is the primary reason why I purchased my Pentax K-3 + DA*60-250mm. The DA* 60-250mm meets this requirement (especially if you compare how lightweight it is vis a vis Nikon 80-400mm or Canon 100-400mm behemoths). So far so good. What else is out there in Pentax land? Well all the Limited lenses meet this requirement too. Check. I have a nice set of limiteds as well (although they aren't WR which is such a shame). Then there is the older 16-45mm with a 67mm (again not WR). Ok, I have that too and it has proved to be a good little performer. But that's it. Everyone else in lens manufacturing land is making behemoths (prime examples: Leitz Otus and Sigma Art, but even Pentax can be faulted e.g. 16-50mm f/2.8 w/77mm filters). Fuji seems to be on the ball however: I'm liking their 56mm f/1.2 (62mm filter) and I hope Pentax follows suit. Let the Sigmas and Tamrons make the behemoth lenses while you extend your 67mm-and-under weather-resistant lens line. Please.

Michael

you are okay with 60-250 but compliant about 16-50 size?

doesn't make sense...

[skierd]

Sounds like you want a smaller overall system. Try the olympus em series maybe?

[cali92rs]

One thing I always found remarkable was the degree that Pentax stuck with 49mm on so many primes. Makes carrying a set of filters really easy.

And while I agree with your thoughts re keeping things small, for those of us without a D800 as a backup camera for our k-3's, I would like to see the line get filled in with some larger lenses as well. There are a number of holes in Pentax line up currently, but looking at the bright side it means lots of opportunities for Ricoh to bring out some new kit.

This is a good post.

How about this...make big lenses and small lenses. If you don't like the big lens, no one is forcing you to buy it.
To fulfill the fast lens gaps, users are either switching systems (Pentax doesnt make money), buying 3rd party such as tamron, sigma, samyang (Pentax doesnt make money), or buying legacy, no longer produced lenses (Pentax doesnt make money).

[ronniemac]

Agree with the idea that small is beautiful, but hey, so is big, like 645 big.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Really enjoy the DA Limiteds, now considering the D FA 100mm which is WR, 49mm dia filter, and really a neat lens

Hopefully an extended range is introduced to go with a f.f. ha!

[ruggiex]

I think they need to make some fast lenses now to entice new buyers imo. I like their philosophy of making small lenses but they should expand and there will be people buying them. The only issue is how to price it so the limited still seem desirable at their current pricing.

[VisualDarkness]

And at the same time people cry over the lack of big and bright lenses in the K-mount. Two different groups, two different worlds.

[VoiceOfReason]

I like some of my larger lenses the best. Different lenses for different reasons.

[JimmyDranox]

Yes, small lenses. Anything smaller than this is good for me:

http://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/monthly_11_2012/post-15189-0-54860700-1352109045.jpg

[VisualDarkness]

Yes, small lenses. Anything smaller than this is good for me:

http://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/monthly_11_2012/post-15189-0-54860700-1352109045.jpg

I bet the guy can see the big bang like that. Or was that the way they discovered the Higgs particle?