[TwoUptons]

In the end, it looks like my and Normhead's points of view are not that dissimilar - with the exception that I'm quite excited about the new high-end lenses; I believe the so-called "Kenspo lenses" will push the brand forward.

And what do you know, I'm also waiting for a smaller (than the 15-30, at the very least) and hopefully less expensive - yet high quality - ultra wide. There's the one from the roadmap, but it's near the end... how much waiting?
In the spring I'll decide if to temporarily get a third party.

Getting back to the OP:
I do no believe we'll see a return of the aperture rings. On the contrary, KAF4 is the future (but I guess an aperture ring can be electronic...)
Going back to history is not a solution, and Pentax is not a Kickstarter operated fraud company. I'm sorry, M42 is too unrealistic, as is K-mount manual focus - even Leica would want to add autofocus to their M line.

I agree that modern lenses are the future, and as much as I would like to see aperture rings on new lenses, I do actually accept that it isn’t terribly likely (though a mechanism to allow aperture selection on a reversed lens would be nice).

But I’d also like, in the short term, an affordable ultra-wide for the K1.

In the long run, I’d like to see a path to bring more folks to Pentax. Ricoh can’t advertise ‘nearly as many of the good lenses as Canikon’ and get many converts...It won’t happen without something special.

My thought is that lenses are the easiest path to that.

And a really sturdy HD Takumar out of fancy polycarbonate? Sure, as long as it has tactile excellence to go with strong optical performance...

-Eric

[mee]

If K mount offered a sharp 16/17/18-35 f4 that accepted front ring filters (and an 80/90/100-400mm f/variable if I had my druthers) I probably would have never sold the K-1!


However, the real asset to K mount FF is EVERY SINGLE PRIME (well lens in general) is stabilized. That is the one place weak with CaNikon - Only a few of their primes have IS since their system is In-lens IS and, for whatever reason, most of the primes don't have any form of IS... even a lot of the pricier models.

[SteveinSLC]

Agree with that. A sharp 18-35 F4 that was not too big would pair very well with the 28-105 for travel.

[pres589]

In my book, a true Normhead 18-35 would be variable aperture, to allow the lens designer further ability to reduce the lens size while keeping general image quality up for a given lens size. Plus there's that effect that a variable aperture has on paper, where some folks would turn up their nose at the idea, making the lens even more of an underdog.

A plasticy 18-35 f3.5-4.something with WR seals and good sharpness stopped down, seems pretty cool to me, if I had a K-1.

[mee]

In my book, a true Normhead 18-35 would be variable aperture, to allow the lens designer further ability to reduce the lens size while keeping general image quality up for a given lens size. Plus there's that effect that a variable aperture has on paper, where some folks would turn up their nose at the idea, making the lens even more of an underdog.

A plasticy 18-35 f3.5-4.something with WR seals and good sharpness stopped down, seems pretty cool to me, if I had a K-1.

f/4 is a nicety. In the end it doesn't REALLY matter.. since it will be set to f/8 or f/11 for most shots.. well at least mine. lol

The bigger issue is a lens that allows for a sharp image on a K-1 or better at around f/8 pretty much corner to corner. And one that offers threads... 82mm 77mm ... not picky.

But this is just dreaming. I really doubt Pentax is offering something like this anytime soon. I suspect we get a giant 20mm eventually instead.

[Pål Jensen]

Pentax is moving upmarket.

[normhead]

Pentax is moving upmarket.

But my income isn't.

Looking at the cost of the Pentax 15-30 and 24-70 on other mounts, I think you could also make the case that Pentax is charging outrageous prices for lenses that are 1/3 less on other mounts. Premium prices, but not premium product. I paid $700 for my 28-105 kit lens. Who pays $700 for a kit lens? What an act of desperation. They boxed me into a corner with no other options, then took my money.

The sad thing for me with the K-1 is based on my experience, I can't really recommend it to fellow shooters. Want to go premium, fine, but I don't recommend Lieca either. There you go, they must be a premium brand. Personally, I'm intellectually opposed to paying for "premium" which usually means a lot of cost increase for a little bit of functional increase. But I can kill my whole savings, just by buying the DFA 15-30 or DFA 24-70.



In Pentax's case it means a lot more money for the exact same thing where the Tamron rebadges are concerned.

The body is cheap enough if you buy one or two lenses you're still ahead. Any lenses after that will put you seriously behind in the cost effectiveness game.

I got a $4000 CAD camera, for $3000. Then paid $700 for a $350 lens, I'm still $650 to the good, and I intend to stay that way. And if I bought both of those, I would have been smarter buying a D810, at least from a cost perspective. Only legacy glass is making the K-1 a good purchase.

Premium prices is for sure, premium quality is debatable.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-29-2017 at 08:10 AM.

[savoche]

I thought Norm just wanted a mixture of f4 stuff and variable aperture lenses that would be smaller size (and hopefully cheaper), but still decent quality.

I should appoint you to be my spokesman.

And mine! I have no problems accepting that I will have to go APS-C for compact tele lenses, but I find it really odd that there is no compact WA for the 35mm sensor.

I have solved that with an A20/2.8, but would prefer a DFA20/4 if it existed.

I see APS as the obvious choice for small size and low weight. Compact, high quality lenses are available from Pentax with the largest APS lens line-up there is.

Yes, that is quite obviously how Ricoh thinks right now. And had I been anywhere near sensible I would've stuck with APS-C. Or gone µ4/3.

Still, at least one fairly compact WA would be nice

[pathdoc]

And had I been anywhere near sensible I would've stuck with APS-C.

LOL.

I just had to have a K-1. And to tell you the truth, I love the tilty screen and the mode knob and the third dial. All these things have so thoroughly smoothed and eased my workflow for digitising film it isn't funny; it's almost sickening to think that this alone almost justifies the cost of the camera.

It'll soon get to the point where it's digitised more images from film cameras than it's actually shot in its own right. Full Frame by Pentax, yay!

At least the film bodies are almost all Pentax.

[sibyrnes]

Pentax is moving upmarket.

So "upmarket" people don't use wide angle primes?

[pres589]

LOL.

I just had to have a K-1. And to tell you the truth, I love the tilty screen and the mode knob and the third dial. All these things have so thoroughly smoothed and eased my workflow for digitising film it isn't funny; it's almost sickening to think that this alone almost justifies the cost of the camera.

It'll soon get to the point where it's digitised more images from film cameras than it's actually shot in its own right. Full Frame by Pentax, yay!

At least the film bodies are almost all Pentax.

Wouldn't a dedicated scanner make more sense?

[Kunzite]

The D FA 28-105 is not a $350 lens, and it's definitely not a 350 CAD lens. It's better than that.
In a kit with the K-1 it's a steal.

[normhead]

The D FA 28-105 is not a $350 lens, and it's definitely not a 350 CAD lens. It's better than that.
In a kit with the K-1 it's a steal.

Ya, I agree, and really it's about the same I paid for my DA*18-135, even though it's a lot cheaper than that now, it's a "step above kit" lens plus a little extra.. But, I'd be happy with it at say $550 CAD.

---------- Post added 11-29-17 at 12:32 PM ----------

I just had to have a K-1. And to tell you the truth, I love the tilty screen and the mode knob and the third dial. All these things have so thoroughly smoothed and eased my workflow for digitising film it isn't funny; it's almost sickening to think that this alone almost justifies the cost of the camera.

Ya, that's what I hate about it. I'm not sure it makes a manful difference to IQ, I just don't print that large anymore, but the back screen, large viewfinder and high ISO performance make it a joy to use. I'd just love to hate enough to sell, it but, I don't think it will ever get to that point, because I like shooting with it. If there's any chance I might be able to use it, I take it with the 28-105.

[pres589]

Norm, do you feel like the control layout is good enough to justify the small (to me, a K-5 II owner) top LCD display?

[pathdoc]

Wouldn't a dedicated scanner make more sense?

It would, but while I do my agonising over which one to get, how much to pay, and where it's going to live on my already-crowded study desk, this arrangement actually works pretty well.