[BarryE]

What's with this desire for a fast 85 ? How much better is it going to be than the FA 77, which if I recall was members' favourite lens. The 77 is fast, metal, light robust screw drive focus and clearly well loved. It's not WR. Is this the main issue ? Guess we've reckoned this is a wished for upgrade for years now. Just a little confused ...

I can see some point in the 135 variants, but personally the DFA 100 macro almost takes that space, but yes it's slow to focus and 35mm is a little more tele, but not massively.

I would have guessed, having seen many conversations, that the wide angles would be the most requested, as that's where I see the hole, along with the longer telephotos eg, 200mm, 300mm, etc.

Again confused ...

[clackers]

.

I would have guessed, having seen many conversations, that the wide angles would be the most requested, as that's where I see the hole, along with the longer telephotos eg, 200mm, 300mm, etc.

Just shows the conversations don't match the feelings of the poll respondents, and probably Ricoh's formal market research.

[aurele]

What's with this desire for a fast 85 ? How much better is it going to be than the FA 77, which if I recall was members' favourite lens. The 77 is fast, metal, light robust screw drive focus and clearly well loved. It's not WR. Is this the main issue ? Guess we've reckoned this is a wished for upgrade for years now. Just a little confused ...

I can see some point in the 135 variants, but personally the DFA 100 macro almost takes that space, but yes it's slow to focus and 35mm is a little more tele, but not massively.

I would have guessed, having seen many conversations, that the wide angles would be the most requested, as that's where I see the hole, along with the longer telephotos eg, 200mm, 300mm, etc.

Again confused ...

The problem is mainly the price of a lens that is expensive considering focal and aperture.

It is small, yes, but that ain't a criteria for which some would pay a premium.

The simple 85mm 1,8 from Canikon is cheap and awesome, and not that bigger than the 77.

[beholder3]

The simple 85mm 1,8 from Canikon is cheap

Cheap is the only positive here though.
They are plastic build (poor). They are substantially larger (poor). They suffer from even more purple fringing and CA than the old 77 or the old Sigma 85/1.4. The 85/1.8s are real purple monsters.
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens Image Quality
Basically they represent DA 50/1.8 with less image quality and longer focal length.

Since the vast majority here doesn't want this type of cheap lenses but premium ones and a 85/1.4 is in the pipeline I don't think Pentax will consider a cheapo 85 in the next 10 years. And quite rightfully so.

[ffking]

What's with this desire for a fast 85 ? How much better is it going to be than the FA 77, which if I recall was members' favourite lens. The 77 is fast, metal, light robust screw drive focus and clearly well loved. It's not WR. Is this the main issue ? Guess we've reckoned this is a wished for upgrade for years now. Just a little confused ...

I can see some point in the 135 variants, but personally the DFA 100 macro almost takes that space, but yes it's slow to focus and 35mm is a little more tele, but not massively.

I would have guessed, having seen many conversations, that the wide angles would be the most requested, as that's where I see the hole, along with the longer telephotos eg, 200mm, 300mm, etc.

To me, it looks like they are simply focusing on the 'must have' 'pro' lenses -starting with the 24-70 and 70-200 zooms. It's not so much about filling the gaps as starting a new system from scratch.

[BarryE]

To me, it looks like they are simply focusing on the 'must have' 'pro' lenses -starting with the 24-70 and 70-200 zooms. It's not so much about filling the gaps as starting a new system from scratch.

That's probably correct from a pro/marketing perspective. Good news if that is their approach as it implies long term. They do have to back up this pro approach in a few other areas, of course. Being aware of their base enthusiast/semi-pro market is also fundamental, I'd say.

[aurele]

Since the vast majority here doesn't want this type of cheap lenses but premium ones and a 85/1.4 is in the pipeline I don't think Pentax will consider a cheapo 85 in the next 10 years. And quite rightfully so.

0- PF don't represent Pentax User, it represent probably the most voicy part of it, that may spend some money on new lenses (and that's not even sure).

1 - The key here is that when you get a cheap lens like the DA35/2.4 // 50/1.8 // Canikon 85/1.8, is that it helps you to decide wether or not you like the FL and you will use it.

Then if you like it, you decide to upgrade. If you don't like it, well, it costed you probably hundred bucks and it's ok.

Would you be ready to spend 1k $ to get a 85mm 1.4 if you never used one, and you think that, maybe, it can suits you ? I'm pretty sure most wouldn't.

2 - The bigger picture is to bring people into Pentax eco-system. If Pentax offers all the classical FL for en entry price, and higher end, people will more likely come into it, instead of discarding it because there no lenses like the one [insert Instagram famous user name] use.

[Kunzite]

Cheap is the only positive here though.
They are plastic build (poor). They are substantially larger (poor). They suffer from even more purple fringing and CA than the old 77 or the old Sigma 85/1.4. The 85/1.8s are real purple monsters.
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens Image Quality
Basically they represent DA 50/1.8 with less image quality and longer focal length.

I wouldn't pay 550 euro for that (lack of) quality. I'd rather pay more for something good. Not necessarily f/1.4, but good.

[normhead]

Just shows the conversations don't match the feelings of the poll respondents, and probably Ricoh's formal market research.

This poll was so dominated by FF users, I doubt it represents any formal market research. Although as one APS-c shooter said, "everything I need is already out there for APS_c" SO this ends up being an FF discussion. How relevant that is to Pentax marketing overall is another question.

[Dan Rentea]

Cheap is the only positive here though.
They are plastic build (poor). They are substantially larger (poor). They suffer from even more purple fringing and CA than the old 77 or the old Sigma 85/1.4. The 85/1.8s are real purple monsters.
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens Image Quality
Basically they represent DA 50/1.8 with less image quality and longer focal length.

Since the vast majority here doesn't want this type of cheap lenses but premium ones and a 85/1.4 is in the pipeline I don't think Pentax will consider a cheapo 85 in the next 10 years. And quite rightfully so.

I don't think that Pentax will release in the first place an 85mm f1.8 afordable lens. And I do think that an 85mm f1.4 lens will be more apealing to portrait photographers who want top quality when comes to performance and build quality. The new Canon 85mm f1.4L lens is sold a lot acording to the salesmans from our local photo stores.

The main differences between FA77mm (which I owned and sold because DA70mm was faster to focus, lighter, half the price and had less CA than the FA77mm) and the Canon 85mm f1.8 are:
- build construction; Pentax is much better build
- dimensions and weight (Canon weights 425g while FA 77mm weights 270g)
- different rendering, better in this regard than Canon lens, at least in some circumstances

On the other hand, Canon 85mm f1.8:
- costs half the price of FA 77mm (396$ at B&H while FA77mm costs 797$)
- it's noticeably faster to focus
- it's sharper than the F77 from f1.8 to f2.8

If I have to choose which version of the 85mm I would like to see first from Pentax (the f1.8 version or the f1.4 version), then an 85mm f1.4 lens would be my choice without hesitations. But this mean that you can't do the job quite well with a cheap 85mm f1.8 if Ricoh decide to release such a model first? I'm pretty happy with the performance of the 85mm f1.8 which cost me 270$ new (Canon cashback offer) and I have to rent the new released 85mm f1.4L lens to see if I'm going to buy it or stay with the cheap 85mm lens and when the space gives me options, to put the 135mm f2L lens on the body.


The image with the viking male it's a crop from larger image of him and it was taken at f2.2. I think it's good enough for someone who wants to go out and shoot rather than stay in front of the computer and searching for graphs or pixel peeping images from flicker. It's very good also in the studio, at corporate portraits. It may not be good if you go out in the rain to take portraits.

[builttospill]

The main differences between FA77mm (which I owned and sold because DA70mm was faster to focus, lighter, half the price and had less CA than the FA77mm) and the Canon 85mm f1.8 are:
- build construction; Pentax is much better build
- dimensions and weight (Canon weights 425g while FA 77mm weights 270g)
- different rendering, better in this regard than Canon lens, at least in some circumstances

On the other hand, Canon 85mm f1.8:
- costs half the price of FA 77mm (396$ at B&H while FA77mm costs 797$)
- it's noticeably faster to focus
- it's sharper than the F77 from f1.8 to f2.8

The photo of the woman on the horse above is fantastic.

As someone who has used the Canon 50 1.8 and 1.4, and the Canon 85 1.8 extensively, I'll always take the FA 77 for the "different rendering" alone.Then add the other things like build quality, size, and colors and you have a winner. Also as someone who spends more for nicer lenses, I'd agree a cheap Pentax 85 may not be something many of us here want. But then I see the 24-70 vs 28-105 threads here and many people are too cheap to opt for the 24-70, so a cheap 85 may do okay. It would serve as an entry to the FL and some would upgrade to the 1.4 later. But then again, if people are happy with a cheap 85, why would they buy an expensive 85?

FA 77:

[normhead]

But then I see the 24-70 vs 28-105 threads here and many people are too cheap to opt for the 24-70,

It's not a question of cheap. It's question of usability. My current preferred package, would be DFA 15-30, DFA 28-105 and DA* 60-250 on FF. I have 50 1.8 a 40 2.8 and a 70 2.8. Overall I have 7 lenses that cover the range of the 24-70, some faster some slower. The versatility and weight of the 28-105 are simply more desirable. Just like I would buy a 15-30 f4 if one was amiable just to try and cut that weight in half.

Let's not assume everyone who doesn't want the 24-70 is cheap. The forum rating has it .05 points ahead of the 28-105. Whether 28-105 users are cheap or 24-70 users have been hoodwinked is open to debate.

[pres589]

This poll was so dominated by FF users, I doubt it represents any formal market research. Although as one APS-c shooter said, "everything I need is already out there for APS_c" SO this ends up being an FF discussion. How relevant that is to Pentax marketing overall is another question.

You know, you say that, and then here I was over the last week looking for a fast ultra-wide that could handle astrophotography and not make a hash of it. Again, crop shooter, what's the Pentax lens to do that with? I ended up looking at the Samyang 14mm and should have that transaction handled by the end of today.

Perhaps that upcoming 11-18 DA* lens will handle this in the future. I've not been that enamored with what I know of the DA 14 for this, and everything else is a bit too slow. Was I missing something in the lineup?

Also there's no fast normal in the mid-20's which is still weird since Pentax gave the world the 43mm for fast normal purposes.

[normhead]

You know, you say that, and then here I was over the last week looking for a fast ultra-wide that could handle astrophotography and not a hash of it. Again, crop shooter, what's the Pentax lens to do that with? I ended up looking at the Samyang 14mm and should have that transaction handled by the end of today.

Perhaps that upcoming 11-18 DA* lens will handle this in the future. I've not been that enamored with what I know of the DA 14 for this, and everything else is a bit too slow. Was I missing something in the lineup?

Also there's no fast normal in the mid-20's which is still weird since Pentax gave the world the 43mm for fast normal purposes.

Astrophotography... I just use my Sigma 8-16 for astro-photography I wasn't aware you had to have really fast lenses for that, but what do I know?

As for "perhaps the upcoming DA* 11-18 might handle it" . It's a DA* so, ya, that might be a possibility.

Ya, I agree, Pentax doesn't make lenses for every situation, and you won't find one more obscure than astrophotgrphy. Companies like Samyang that can tap into every brand out there are probably more suited for that.

[pres589]

See, and I've not heard of the 8-16 being used that way much. Definitely less than the Sy 14 f2.8, which seems to be the go-to for a lot of folks for astro and general ultra-wideness. I've got a vision for a camping & travel two lens kit, and while I love my DA 15 and will miss its small size and general convenience, I wanted something faster than f4. My 18-135 will handle everything else.

I would have loved to get the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 instead, but, it's not available for k-mount, and I'm not switching systems for that lens. The 11-18 should help.

---------- Post added 01-30-18 at 10:21 AM ----------

See, and I've not heard of the 8-16 being used that way much. Definitely less than the Sy 14 f2.8, which seems to be the go-to for a lot of folks for astro and general ultra-wideness. I've got a vision for a camping & travel two lens kit, and while I love my DA 15 and will miss its small size and general convenience, I wanted something faster than f4. My 18-135 will handle everything else.

I would have loved to get the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 instead, but, it's not available for k-mount, and I'm not switching systems for that lens. The 11-18 should help.