[noelpolar]

I resemble that remark.

I carried the DFA*70-200 every day all last month, including on cross-country runs. I had the K-3 on a Black Rapid sling strap, and while running I supported the lens with my right hand around the barrel. No stress on the mount that I could detect.

And the image quality? Oh my sweet Lord. I still haven't used it on the K-1 though; I must amend that....

so many lenses....

[Sandy Hancock]

so many lenses....

Indeed.

I can see perhaps one lens purchase (DFA24-70), and the sale of many (DA*16-50, FA20-35, F28, A50/1.2, DA*50-135, FA135 and maybe DA15, DA21, FA*24 and HD35).

A lot of K-1 time needs to be spent weighing all of that up first.

[zapp]

I have the D-FA 70-200 and it is as big and heavy as you can imagine. Coming from Fuji with APS-C compact style design - Pentax used to stand for APS-C compact SLR camera and lens design, the 70-200 is something completel different. This lens is not my carry around lens, but great for many occasions. The weight is more than for any of its pears, much more, significantly more. YOu should not carry the lens on the camera around your neck. It will kill your neck as well as the camera mount! My 1300g Nikon 80-200 killed my F4 mount long ago and this Pentax lens weighs in at 2000g with foot. You will not detect stress ont he mount, but one day it might not mount/dismount anmore - and there is no such thing as changing the mount, you will need a new camera.
I like putting my hand around the lens for carrying. check whether your hand likes to hold on to a 95mm diamter tube - the lens is quite straight, other manufacturers have different dimaters on the tube making it easier to grab. I wanted this lens, now I have to carry it. As soon as fixed focal length lens with feasible diameters, I will go for it making them my walk around gear. I am talking about a 35/85. The 24-70 does not convince me and I am not missing this zoom area on my K3. K1 will come later this year, rying to move to FF without doubling the size of my equipment.
Check weight, length, diamter of this type of lenses before buying. And hold one on your camera before you pull ther trigger. Pentax will mst likely not offer a f/4 lens in this area for years - and yes the perormance of the 70-200 is just great optically. Results look better than from DA* 200 which I have sold for the 70-200.

---------- Post added 14-05-16 at 12:45 PM ----------

Maybe it could be crowdfunded. I wonder how many pledges they'd need to do a production run!

It's probably more about developer capacity rather than funding. They cover the big zooms, now Pentax should show some new primes.

[FantasticMrFox]

Maybe it could be crowdfunded. I wonder how many pledges they'd need to do a production run!

I was thinking about that exactly last night when lying in bed

Why does Sigma not simply take to Kickstarter for Pentax lenses? They select the lenses that they project the largest demand for because Pentax itself doesn't offer something similar (e.g. the 24 f/1.4 'Art', or the 24-35 f/2 'Art', or the 150-600 'Contemporary'), make a project on Kickstarter and pledge to offer a certain lens if they get whatever number of backers is necessary to make the endeavour profitable. That covers the cost of development (lens mount, AF protocols etc.) and the first badge, and afterwards they can run additional badges based on normal market demand.

Would be worth a try, but to be honest I cannot see any of the traditionally very conservative Japanese manufacturers run such an experiment

[pathdoc]

Indeed.

I can see perhaps one lens purchase (DFA24-70), and the sale of many (DA*16-50, FA20-35, F28, A50/1.2, DA*50-135, FA135 and maybe DA15, DA21, FA*24 and HD35).

A lot of K-1 time needs to be spent weighing all of that up first.

There is no way on God's earth I am giving up my FA135 until I know what it's like on full-frame digital, and ditto the D-FA 100WR macro. And speaking of Macro, just the other day I did some work shots with the FA50 in front of a Sodial extension tube and the result was quite passable. I could seriously see myself making that my full-frame Macro rig if it so happened that I needed the extra megapixels. Otherwise the DA35 Macro will do just fine in crop mode, and maybe even in full-frame if the FOV isn't TOO huge...

[Adam]

It's probably more about developer capacity rather than funding. They cover the big zooms, now Pentax should show some new primes.

Pentax is definitely working on it. There are 4 new primes on the roadmap, plus a fisheye zoom.

[mee]

Sigma said this?

Correct. Paul Pizzano again in response.

[Nicolas06]

This has been discussed before, but the size of the A7 + 70-200 f/2.8 isn't much different to the K-1 + 70-200. Most of the size is in the lens, in this instance (the A7 is lighter, of course)... The Fuji system, I can't comment on...

true, but if you get a K3 + 50-135, you get something really lighter and smaller that give the same reach. You get a bit less shallow deph of field, a bit more noise and significantly slower AF, but that also half the price and half the weight. For many photos, it wouldn't make any visible difference.

People choose differently because they have difference priority. Size/weight/price being part of it.

I owned the 50-135 in the past, I sold it, because it was too heavy and too intrusive. Now I shoot with FA77 instead as well as F135... You know what? My 50-135 can't handle a candle to the FA77, despite the 50-135 being praised by most.

And my bet is even with all the difference between K3 + FA77 & F135 on one side and K1 + 70-200 on the other side, the biggest difference would be the photographer skills, the quality of the light, the compositiion, the subject... Not the gear. And for the gear, I think the biggest difference might come to the zoom vs prime for handling as well as the weight... rather than picture quality.

Going the 70-200 + FF route make sense if you need to deal with the noise, mostly.

[Sandy Hancock]

You know what? My 50-135 can't handle a candle to the FA77, despite the 50-135 being praised by most.

And my bet is even with all the difference between K3 + FA77 & F135 on one side and K1 + 70-200 on the other side, the biggest difference would be the photographer skills, the quality of the light, the compositiion, the subject... Not the gear. And for the gear, I think the biggest difference might come to the zoom vs prime for handling as well as the weight... rather than picture quality.

Going the 70-200 + FF route make sense if you need to deal with the noise, mostly.

Well for what it's worth, I have DA*50-135, FA77, FA135, and DFA*70-200 (by far the most expensive lens I have ever bought).
Now I have a K-1 as well as a K-3, I will be keeping options 2 and 4, and that boils down to picture quality. Make of that what you will.

[pathdoc]

I have DA*50-135, FA77, FA135, and DFA*70-200... Now I have a K-1 as well as a K-3, I will be keeping options 2 and 4

If you don't mind me asking, what did you find displeasing about option 3? Or is it a matter of technology marching on and it simply not being as good as a digital-optimised * lens?

[Sandy Hancock]

If you don't mind me asking, what did you find displeasing about option 3? Or is it a matter of technology marching on and it simply not being as good as a digital-optimised * lens?

Chromatic aberration. Otherwise it would be (and still might be) a keeper.

[pathdoc]

Chromatic aberration. Otherwise it would be (and still might be) a keeper.

I'll live with it, at least until the first-generation D-FA 135mm f/2.8 lens drops to an affordable price. And even then, that one (when released) will almost certainly not have an aperture ring and will thus be either unusable or inflexible on most of my film bodies.

[Pål Jensen]

Pentax is definitely working on it. There are 4 new primes on the roadmap, plus a fisheye zoom.

Any chance of a 24mm lens?

[Adam]

Any chance of a 24mm lens?

Quite possibly, I'd say. If I were to guess, they'd be the following:

35mm F1.8
50mm F1.4
85mm F1.4 (star lens)
24mm F1.4 (star lens)

[Pål Jensen]

I'll buy that 24/1.4 promptly regardless of price