[Imp]

Sorry for another pure speculation FF thread guys.

I took a look the the Canon L series linup, at least as it goes on B&H, and boiled it down to the basics to see what lenses they have.
The interesting thing is that Canon has lots of duplicate lenses, f/2.8 and f/4 versions, with IS and without IS versions. So really, they don't have as many lenses as one would think.

First primes: the first column is what Canon has right now, not including duplicates and older models. The second column is what I think is the more necessary lenses to have in the lineup, the third column are equivalents or same focal length lenses which pentax already has
Sorry about the columns, forums are not compatible with them! I did the next best thing

14 ............14
24 ............24
35 ............35 ...............31,35
50 ............50 ...............43,50,55
85 ............85 ...............77
100 ............100 ............100 macro
135 ............ 135
180,200 ......200 ............ 200
300 ............300 ............300
400
500
600
800


For zooms, We have the same thing: first column what cannon has, second what is necessary, third what pentax already has and therefore doesn't need to produce.
11-24 f/4 ........................11-24 f/4
24-70 f/2.8 ........................ 24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8 ........................70-200 f/2.8 ........................ 70-200 f/2.8, 60-250 f/4
24-105 f/4 ........................24-105 f/4
16-35 f/2.8 ........................16-35 f/2.8
17-40 f/4, 16-35 f/4 ............17-40 f/4
100-400, 200-400 ............100-400, 200-400 ........................ DFA 150-450
28-300
70-300
8-15 fisheye ........................8-15 fisheye


So in conclusion, it seems that Pentax only needs to release about 9 more lenses to have a complete basic lineup of Full Frame lenses. "Oh, pentax doesn't have line selection" - I think we're doing pretty good already for full frame lenses
Of course, these focal lengths are just approximations, please don't start saying that a 17-40 should really be a 17-38 or anything.

What do you think?

---

Last edited by Imp; 05-12-2015 at 11:07 AM. Reason: Columns

[starbase218]

What do you think?

I think an f/2.8 lens is not the same as an f/4 lens. In terms of price, weight, size, etc. I also think a maximum of 300mm equates to 200mm on APS-C, which may not be long enough for some purposes.

I don't think I would consider the 60-250 a fullframe lens.

[jrpower10]

They need the 24-70 when the camera comes out. They could, at least short-term, deal with wide angle by making the FA 20mm again. That'd probably be enough to start attracting users.

[Imp]

I think an f/2.8 lens is not the same as an f/4 lens.

True, but for purposes of starting out, if they produce one or the other they are covered for the moment.

They need the 24-70 when the camera comes out.

I guess good super-wide lenses are hard to make

[osv]

canikon has not just their own glass to draw from, but if you add in the third-party glass that comes in canikon mounts, it is a bit overwhelming.

some of that third-party glass is also very good.

[Na Horuk]

I think that's not really surprising. Nikon has a very similar lineup, as did and big SLR company in the past. Many focal lengths (24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 135, 24-70, 70-200) caught on long ago and are still traditionally present. Pentax currently is missing some (24, 28, 70-200, etc.), but there are plenty of crop FoV equivalents. The Pentax lineup is actually quite extensive, despite how much we whine about it. There is a fisheye zoom, some UWA, wide and normal, as well as tele lenses. Especially if you consider third party lenses.

But yes, I expect Pentax' lineup to look a lot more like Canikon's in the future, if Pentax is pursuing the same market. Sony is slowly building it (but Sony seems to be focusing more on cameras). And the micro 43 cameras have similar equivalent FoV lenses, too.
Oh, and one more thing. Often the lenses are not exactly that focal length as the label. For example, I think I read a couple times the Pentax 50mm is actually more like 52.3mm. Similarly there was debate about the 60-250mm and 18-135mm, if I remember right. (though, focus breathing and other such oddities should be taken into account) But it makes more sense to write 50, except in the cases of specialty lenses, like the FA limiteds, or UWA (where every mm is very important)

[jrpower10]

I guess good super-wide lenses are hard to make

Don't know, but that'd be my guess. The FA 20mm would have almost the equivalent field of view as the DA 12-24 at the wide end, though, and it's a great performer so reintroducing it would be a winner IMHO. They really need that normal to wide zoom first, though, as that's the workhorse lens for most people.

[Tanzer]

Why would Pentax want to imitate Canon's lineup?

[Imp]

Why would Pentax want to imitate Canon's lineup?

Because, obviously, everything Canikon is terrible and awful so we shouldn't touch it. Who needs a 24-70 f/2.8?

I'm joking

[Tanzer]

Maybe they should change "Pentax" to "Ricoh", since "Canon" and "Nikon" are both spelled with 5 letters, and they are better.

Sheesh, even Sony's "Zeiss" 24-70 f/2.8 is spelled with 5 letters. When will Pentax ever learn.

[rawr]

I don't think I would consider the 60-250 a fullframe lens.

Note the first comment in that link:
Was the lens hood attached? If so, maybe a shorter hood would make the difference on FF?

Sigma, for example, supply longer or shorter hoods if you use a FF-compatible lens (eg the 70-200 HSM II) on FF or APS-C ...

And vignetting in long FF telephoto is not unusual - eg the top-of-the-line Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR2 has a light fall-off in the frame corner of 34% (about 1 EV) wide-open at 200mm on FF. The Canon 70-200 f2.8 II L performs even worse than the Nikon when it comes to vignetting on FF, with vignetting reaching 39% (-1.43 EV) at 200mm wide-open.

I think many Pentaxians are going to have to get used to FF lenses performing differently from APS-C, especially in the corners. Shooting APS-C has spoilt people.

[sterretje]

Both Canon and Nikon should start producing Limiteds. Oh no, then Pentax will be doomed

It always sounds like people can't be happy with what there is. In 2008, when I moved to a dSLR (and Pentax), Pentax made all lenses I would ever need except possibly the loooooong tele. And that is now solved as well; the situation is only getting better.

When are we getting a 16mm tilt-shift for APSc

[Tanzer]

If Pentax was smart, they will describe the upcoming FF lenses in terms of "645Z equivalence" in a subtle way. This would remind folks that all "FF" cameras are really just large APSC cameras -- and still a compromise compared to a real professional camera.

[Imp]

And all Medium format cameras are just compromises of the 67

[Tanzer]

True, but they don't have any offering at 6x7 (at least not yet), so it only makes sense for them to dis the FF format.