[savoche]

1 vote for not gutted.



---------- Post added 02-23-17 at 04:29 PM ----------



An f4 20(ish) WR pancake that's razor sharp at f8 would be a killer lens for the system.

Now we're talking. I'm not opposed to Pentax making huge ugly lenses as well, but I really hope they're not abandoning their tradition of jewel making.

[bobbotron]

Now we're talking. I'm not opposed to Pentax making huge ugly lenses as well, but I really hope they're not abandoning their tradition of jewel making.

I *totally* get the need for giant lenses for the 50mm and 85mm for portraits and event photography, but for wide angle landscape, you really don't need (or in my case want) monster glass. Outside or on a tripod, f2 @ 20mm is not at all necessary or wanted.

[DeadJohn]

...2.0/28...

Not arguing, but curious because I don't see much of a use case for that lens. Why do you need f2.0?

28mm is a good wide walkaround for landscapes and street photography. Thin DoF isn't especially important for that.

f2.0 is nice to have for Milky Way photos, but 28mm is a bit long for that use.

Low light handheld street photography? Based on my experience with a Ricoh GR plus a little with my still new K-1, f2.8 or even f4.0 seems fine for that, unless in a neighborhood with no street lights where no amount of aperture will help.

[HopelessTogger]

Not arguing, but curious because I don't see much of a use case for that lens. Why do you need f2.0?

28mm is a good wide walkaround for landscapes and street photography. Thin DoF isn't especially important for that.

f2.0 is nice to have for Milky Way photos, but 28mm is a bit long for that use.

Low light handheld street photography? Based on my experience with a Ricoh GR plus a little with my still new K-1, f2.8 or even f4.0 seems fine for that, unless in a neighborhood with no street lights where no amount of aperture will help.

Got the Sony FE 2/28. It's small and sharp (but ghastly distortion).

I'm no fan of big super fast lenses designed to be sharp from max aperture, but it seems to be what the market demands for full frame these days.

[mee]

So, is it just me or is anyone else gutted by the news of only a 50mm and 85mm prime at the opening day of the CP+? Is was really really hoping to see atleast a few mockups of some more interesting wide angle primes such as a 20mm. The k1 (being the best landscape camera in its class) is crying for such a lens in my opinion

I too was expecting to see a WA prime for D-FA first. I expected the 50 to come closer to the end of the new lens roadmap. with the WA and the 85 to arrive first.

As long as it doesn't end up in the same situation as the DA WA zoom...

I hope, when it is released (the prime), it is pretty sharp corner to corner and accepts filters (not a bulbous front element). The filter system for the 15-30mm is another 200-300 dollars. Plus the huge 150mm filters.. a lot of extra expense when I already have perfectly nice screwon filters.

[automorphism]

What's really needed in the primes line up?

2.8/14
2.8/21
2.0/28
1.4/35
1.4/50
1.4/85
2.0/135
2.8/200 + macro
2.8/300
4/400
4/600

Yes for the 400 f/4 - the one reason why I am considering a second Canon/Nikon body.

[luftfluss]

4/400

Yes for the 400 f/4 - the one reason why I am considering a second Canon/Nikon body.

Yup, I was campaigning for this lens a little bit yesterday in another thread.

[normhead]

I like my 40XS, I want a 1.4 40... just saying. It will do for both the 35 and 50, nice versatile FL. Better for bouncing kids in the basement shots.

[clackers]

I *totally* get the need for giant lenses for the 50mm and 85mm for portraits and event photography, but for wide angle landscape, you really don't need (or in my case want) monster glass. .

If you're serious, you do.

It reduces distortion and vignetting, both of which lead to less resolution at the edges and corners of your pic.

[shardulm]

Ricoh could decide the Pentax line isn't worth the investment and put it to bed forever literally tomorrow. Not saying it's likely to happen, but being "gutted" over not having all your lens wishes fulfilled exactly when you want them to be shows a pretty serious lack of perspective.

Pentax is a small brand with a limited number of engineers , and they are presumably busy putting the finishing touches on their first digital and full frame optimized standard and portrait primes right now. Everything currently available is either designed for APS-C or film-era. These are probably the two most basic prime lengths, and they had nothing modern in those spaces. Wide (28-35 range) will likely be next, followed by ultrawide (20mm or less). And yes, they are both on the road map.

---------- Post added 02-23-17 at 08:27 PM ----------

Depends on your style and approach. In many landscape applications, distortion can be quite desirable in order to make landscapes look "bigger" and to emphasize foreground details. Resolution's not the be all and end all. And yes, you can be "serious" and decide the tradeoff is worth it.

Vignetting and distortions desirable? I thought people trashed a lens for bad corner sharpness. Amy lens suffers corner sharpness. So the smaller the lens the less usable area on the image circle that is sharp. To achieve great sharpness across the frame the image circle has to be large enough to maximize on the usable area. Across the frame sharpness implies bigger lenses or front elements.

[bobbotron]

If you're serious, you do.

It reduces distortion and vignetting, both of which lead to less resolution at the edges and corners of your pic.

Normally I agree with your sentiments here, not sure I do in this case, not sure. Edit! There is a lot of opinion posing as fact in these lens threads, drives me crazy, few people on here really are qualified to discuss lens optics with precision. I will definitely admit, this is just my opinion.

---------- Post added 02-23-17 at 11:00 PM ----------

Vignetting and distortions desirable? I thought people trashed a lens for bad corner sharpness. Amy lens suffers corner sharpness. So the smaller the lens the less usable area on the image circle that is sharp. To achieve great sharpness across the frame the image circle has to be large enough to maximize on the usable area. Across the frame sharpness implies bigger lenses or front elements.

As with anything technical... there are a lot of ways to get to a desired result. Reducing your maximum aperture is one of them.

[DeadJohn]

re. big glass and image quality, the DA 15 Limited is IMO one of Pentax' best lenses for APS-C. Sharpness and corners are not perfect but the overall output is special, and flare resistance is legendary. There are a lot of variables in lens design.

That doesn't mean the new 50 and 85 should have been small. Ricoh decided that those new lenses would have a wide aperture with sharpness across the frame. They also have internal focus motors and weather sealing. Their engineers had to go large to satisfy all those requirements.

[clackers]

Normally I agree with your sentiments here, not sure I do in this case, not sure. Edit! There is a lot of opinion posing as fact in these lens threads, drives me crazy, few people on here really are qualified to discuss lens optics with precision. I will definitely admit, this is just my opinion.

Bigger is better for IQ, Bobbotron.

I like my DA15, but it can't match my Samyang 14mm. And it's why there's a DA14.

UWAs are much harder to get right than teles.

Roger Cicala wrote a very good column about this. I can find it if you like.

[clackers]

Depends on your style and approach. In many landscape applications, distortion can be quite desirable in order to make landscapes look "bigger" and to emphasize foreground details. Resolution's not the be all and end all.

Sharpness corner to corner and lack of distortion is super important to landscapers. Apertures are less than f8 -Adams' f64 club, etc.

Many will even put together several 35mm shots in Photoshop rather than use an UWA.

Personally, I'm not a purist and *love* distortion for exaggeration in both landscape and event photos, like this at a local festival:

[grispie]

So, is it just me or is anyone else gutted by the news of only a 50mm and 85mm prime at the opening day of the CP+?

Personally i'd wish them to come out with a wide prime first, but it seems logic to me, to gain professionals, the classic 50 & 85 need to be there first..
No?