[RobA_Oz]

PLM AF is nice to have on some lenses, but not something I would like to have on all lenses. Focus-by-wire would be really bad on macro lenses IMO, and on most prime lenses I would prefer to have a mechanically connected focus ring. So on them I would prefer DC or SDM ring motors.

And also if a PLM motor fail you will not even be able to manually focus the lens. So if you are on an important job you probably want backup on PLM lenses, just like you want backup on the camera.

The 55-300 PLM has Quick Shift, which suggests to me that it can still focus manually if the AF drive fails.

[HoLun]

The 55-300 PLM has Quick Shift, which suggests to me that it can still focus manually if the AF drive fails.

the 55-300PLM is not mechanically linked to the focus ring, so you will not be able to focus if the af drive fails, the ring is a rotary encoder, to give manual focus electronically.
i have the 55-300plm, if you turn off the camera and rotate the focus ring it does nothing and just freewheels. the DC lenses like the 18-135 and 16-85 are mechanically linked and can be focused manually if the motor fails or with power off.

[Fogel70]

The 55-300 PLM has Quick Shift, which suggests to me that it can still focus manually if the AF drive fails.

It is easy to make QS on PLM lenses as the same motor is used for both AF and MF.

[RobA_Oz]

the 55-300PLM is not mechanically linked to the focus ring, so you will not be able to focus if the af drive fails, the ring is a rotary encoder, to give manual focus electronically.
i have the 55-300plm, if you turn off the camera and rotate the focus ring it does nothing and just freewheels. the DC lenses like the 18-135 and 16-85 are mechanically linked and can be focused manually if the motor fails or with power off.

OK. I hadn’t picked up on that, thanks.

It is easy to make QS on PLM lenses as the same motor is used for both AF and MF.

Right, so if the motor drive fails, so does QS.

[Madaboutpix]

I've owned and used the 55-300 PLM for less than a year and - despite it being "just" a consumer-grade lens - it has become one of my most valued lenses virtually overnight. It's that good, or at least my copy seems to be. Even on my trusty old K-3, the keeper rate with moving or quickly changing subjects has gone through the roof. PLM does make a difference.

I'd be the first to welcome PLM- and WR-updated screwdrive and old-SDM lenses. As long as I could afford them, I would even strive to buy several of those new over time.

Maybe it's just my more stoic temperament, or me not having to do photography to earn a living, but I do wish people could take a bit of the drama out of all of this and stop constantly painting this as a Ricoh-must-do-this-or-that-or-else-they-die situation.

Ricoh has consciously decided to not have Pentax being crushed between the likes of Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Fujifilm in the attempt to take the same road they have taken. With the resources that Ricoh can or is willing to commit to Pentax, that just wouldn't be sustainable. Hence the rather glacial pace at which they are releasing new or updated product. It's not that they're doing nothing - the 16-50 PLM is a stellar lens that really brings out what the K-3 III is capable of - and I understand that several other lenses are in the works. They're just working at a pace that the more jump-the-gun faction will find painfully slow, and I perfectly dig that you will be less patient for new product to materialize if you are a pro. I happen to be an amateur, and as long I see new product announcements and updates now and then, I'm just grateful for Pentax to survive in its deliberately chosen niche.

[BruceBanner]

I've owned and used the 55-300 PLM for less than a year and - despite it being "just" a consumer-grade lens - it has become one of my most valued lenses virtually overnight. It's that good, or at least my copy seems to be. Even on my trusty old K-3, the keeper rate with moving or quickly changing subjects has gone through the roof. PLM does make a difference.

I'd be the first to welcome PLM- and WR-updated screwdrive and old-SDM lenses. As long as I could afford them, I would even strive to buy several of those new over time.

Maybe it's just my more stoic temperament, or me not having to do photography to earn a living, but I do wish people could take a bit of the drama out of all of this and stop constantly painting this as a Ricoh-must-do-this-or-that-or-else-they-die situation.

Ricoh has consciously decided to not have Pentax being crushed between the likes of Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Fujifilm in the attempt to take the same road they have taken. With the resources that Ricoh can or is willing to commit to Pentax, that just wouldn't be sustainable. Hence the rather glacial pace at which they are releasing new or updated product. It's not that they're doing nothing - the 16-50 PLM is a stellar lens that really brings out what the K-3 III is capable of - and I understand that several other lenses are in the works. They're just working at a pace that the more jump-the-gun faction will find painfully slow, and I perfectly dig that you will be less patient for new product to materialize if you are a pro. I happen to be an amateur, and as long I see new product announcements and updates now and then, I'm just grateful for Pentax to survive in its deliberately chosen niche.

Well said, apologies for click bait titles but the truth of the matter is people don't click and watch without a very good hook. I try to make up for it by being semi rational with the actual content.

[yucatanPentax]

Ricoh has consciously decided to not have Pentax being crushed between the likes of Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Fujifilm in the attempt to take the same road they have taken. With the resources that Ricoh can or is willing to commit to Pentax, that just wouldn't be sustainable. Hence the rather glacial pace at which they are releasing new or updated product. It's not that they're doing nothing - the 16-50 PLM is a stellar lens that really brings out what the K-3 III is capable of - and I understand that several other lenses are in the works.
,,, as long I see new product announcements and updates now and then, I'm just grateful for Pentax to survive in its deliberately chosen niche.

This seems to be a key thought, to me anyway. And it isn't just Pentax finding a way to fit between So-Ca-Nik-Fi, but treading carefully through the minefield that the last three years have brought to the world. We're no longer in a smooth design, contract, build, sell process. Manufacturers for most products are struggling with logistics, shutdowns (still!!!), and roadblocks, let alone financial pressures.

Just within a couple weeks, more than 60 million people were in total lockdown in China. Tens of millions remain mired in that zero Covid policy. Every time that happens, everything from manufacturing, to raw materials transport, to delivery of parts, to people showing up at the factory all hits the speed bump again.

A day ago, I saw a photo of just one of Ford's storage areas for vehicles awaiting parts -- mostly electronics -- and thus not for sale. That one location has 40,000 pickup trucks. GM is said to have similar holding lots and volumes. Tens of thousands of brand new vehicles not for sale, stuck.

Pentax is navigating the waters of The Future of Photography as well as the roaring waves of global disruption and conflict.

While, yes, it would be wonderful to "take this fantastic lens of the past and give it every update," would anyone really accept a new, larger weather-resistant lens that still had the CA or PF of the classics? No, I imagine they'd say, "Why is Pentax selling this expensive lens with all these defects?" (the things we call Pixie Dust)

And so the "updated" lenses would have to be totally new. They'd have PLM or DC, be WR, and have more elements in a larger, heavier housing to contain all those additions. They'd be unrecognizable in comparison to the classics. They'd cost a mint in a world where fewer people are buying purpose-built cameras at all. Would the "improvements" kill the magic?

So, I understand Pentax moving slowly is frustrating and annoying. But how does the Pentax planning group argue to Ricoh that bigger sums must be poured into the brand for many more new lenses, while the total volume of all brands sold is declining?

Given all these pressures and disruptions, I think it is most likely that solid new lenses will be released on occasion. Every now and then. We all know the quality and capability of past lenses, including those Pentax is justifiably famous for. We probably just have to keep using what there is and appreciate the new when it can appear.

I appreciate that Ricoh didn't fold up shop at Pentax as volumes sold are decreasing in most camera lines everywhere. Maybe for the general corporation, it is a pride thing or a challenge thing, perhaps, to persevere. I appreciate that attempt. Slow and steady seems to be the only way to navigate right now.

Maybe we'll be out of this disruption hell and back to more rapid globalism soon, but realistically it seems that might be 3-10 years away.

[BruceBanner]

"...would anyone really accept a new, larger weather-resistant lens that still had the CA or PF of the classics?"

I would, in a heartbeat. People get so butthurt over CA but its part of optics and to 'solve' it comes at a price (weight, size and cost). This is why the FA ltds are so well revered because the CA is acceptable in terms of balanced benefits from an IQ performance and size footprint. Lenses that CA also tend to resolve depth rather well (pixie dust).

I'm not saying clinical lenses don't have their place, they absolutely do, but I think we're already seeing a bit of a backlash in the photography industry with modern 'boring' glass. There's a market ready for people wanting compact 'flawed' glass that has AF and character. Eventually you learn the weaknesses of lenses and can work around it or choose a different lens if it matters that much, but there is definitely a desire for 'art glass' to get the attention it deserves but this time lets get some AF inside and some weather sealing.

Arguably what matters more is marketing. I can imagine the likes of Christopher Frost giving the current FA Limited's a pretty bad rating from his barrage of tests, but then I have no idea if he is a good photographer and understands the strengths properly of such classic glass. We need inspirational photographers who can SHOW us what is capable with such glass, photos matter way more than test scores. What was Pentax's recent mantra? Something along the lines of being 'not measurable by numbers'? Honestly sounds like the perfect company to put their money where their mouth is and get cracking on with such glass (kudos to the DFA21 as it seems to be at least trying to follow in these footsteps).

[Joetitch]

For me the biggest desire is a reworked FAJ 18-35 with WR.
Or something like that. My current skill level and lack of time to practise makes the 15-30 to big a pill to swallow.(pun intended)
Have quite a range of the UWA zooms for my K1 from other manufacturers but would really appreciate WR to go with the K1.
That being said I am a bit of a whimp when it comes to wet weather so probably not as urgently required as my impulse demands😄

[Rondec]

New lenses have almost all had new drive systems. They have all been either PLM (55-300, 16-50), DC motors, or ring motors. The negative of the PLM system is that it is focus by wire (motor goes out and it no longer works at all till you replace the motor) and it requires small focusing group (PLM has a limit to the size of focus group it can move). As such, I don't know that it will be an option for all of the lenses that Pentax makes.

Honestly, part of the issue is that Pentaxians are unlikely to go out and buy new versions of lenses they already own, even if the focus speed is 25 percent faster and the focusing is more precise. This has been a big aggravation of mine -- people talk about issues with focus speed when they are still using old screw driven lenses. The 70-210 f4 and 70-200 f2.8 focus pretty fast -- not as fast the PLM lenses, but fast enough. Stick one of those on a K-3 III and you should be able to capture portraits without missing focus.

[c.a.m]

Honestly, part of the issue is that Pentaxians are unlikely to go out and buy new versions of lenses they already own, even if the focus speed is 25 percent faster and the focusing is more precise. This has been a big aggravation of mine -- people talk about issues with focus speed when they are still using old screw driven lenses. The 70-210 f4 and 70-200 f2.8 focus pretty fast -- not as fast the PLM lenses, but fast enough. Stick one of those on a K-3 III and you should be able to capture portraits without missing focus.

This makes sense to me.

I have a DA* 50-135, which I converted to screwdrive after a couple of SDM failures. It's my most-used lens. The AF Fine Adjustment is spot-on, and it rarely misses a sharp focus. Most of my subjects are static, but recently I used the lens on my K-3 Mark III at a local Fall Fair. Using AF.C and medium burst mode, images of moving subjects such as horses, wagons, parade participants, and midway rides were sharp. I'm not sure that I'd buy a 50-135 PLM, assuming it would be priced > CAD $1,500 like the recent 16-50 PLM.

- Craig

[RobA_Oz]

This seems to be a key thought, to me anyway. And it isn't just Pentax finding a way to fit between So-Ca-Nik-Fi, but treading carefully through the minefield that the last three years have brought to the world. We're no longer in a smooth design, contract, build, sell process. Manufacturers for most products are struggling with logistics, shutdowns (still!!!), and roadblocks, let alone financial pressures.

Just within a couple weeks, more than 60 million people were in total lockdown in China. Tens of millions remain mired in that zero Covid policy. Every time that happens, everything from manufacturing, to raw materials transport, to delivery of parts, to people showing up at the factory all hits the speed bump again.

A day ago, I saw a photo of just one of Ford's storage areas for vehicles awaiting parts -- mostly electronics -- and thus not for sale. That one location has 40,000 pickup trucks. GM is said to have similar holding lots and volumes. Tens of thousands of brand new vehicles not for sale, stuck.

Pentax is navigating the waters of The Future of Photography as well as the roaring waves of global disruption and conflict.

While, yes, it would be wonderful to "take this fantastic lens of the past and give it every update," would anyone really accept a new, larger weather-resistant lens that still had the CA or PF of the classics? No, I imagine they'd say, "Why is Pentax selling this expensive lens with all these defects?" (the things we call Pixie Dust)

And so the "updated" lenses would have to be totally new. They'd have PLM or DC, be WR, and have more elements in a larger, heavier housing to contain all those additions. They'd be unrecognizable in comparison to the classics. They'd cost a mint in a world where fewer people are buying purpose-built cameras at all. Would the "improvements" kill the magic?

So, I understand Pentax moving slowly is frustrating and annoying. But how does the Pentax planning group argue to Ricoh that bigger sums must be poured into the brand for many more new lenses, while the total volume of all brands sold is declining?

Given all these pressures and disruptions, I think it is most likely that solid new lenses will be released on occasion. Every now and then. We all know the quality and capability of past lenses, including those Pentax is justifiably famous for. We probably just have to keep using what there is and appreciate the new when it can appear.

I appreciate that Ricoh didn't fold up shop at Pentax as volumes sold are decreasing in most camera lines everywhere. Maybe for the general corporation, it is a pride thing or a challenge thing, perhaps, to persevere. I appreciate that attempt. Slow and steady seems to be the only way to navigate right now.

Maybe we'll be out of this disruption hell and back to more rapid globalism soon, but realistically it seems that might be 3-10 years away.

I think that, with the recent pandemic and the political upheavals and conflict occurring in various places, the very idea of globalism is undergoing a rethink in governments and industry. Relevant to this topic, that could mean a reconcentration of manufacturing capability in home countries and a greater guarantee of supply, but at an increased cost. Part of justifying a price increase could be the offering of new features to old product lines, so in the case of Pentax one strategy could be adding WR and in-lens AF to existing lenses.

It may not turn out quite that way, but in my reading of the situation, it’s a scenario that’s not without merit.

[sebberry]

This makes sense to me.

I have a DA* 50-135, which I converted to screwdrive after a couple of SDM failures. It's my most-used lens. The AF Fine Adjustment is spot-on, and it rarely misses a sharp focus. Most of my subjects are static, but recently I used the lens on my K-3 Mark III at a local Fall Fair. Using AF.C and medium burst mode, images of moving subjects such as horses, wagons, parade participants, and midway rides were sharp. I'm not sure that I'd buy a 50-135 PLM, assuming it would be priced > CAD $1,500 like the recent 16-50 PLM.

- Craig

I'd buy a new 50-135 PLM. It should come with improvements to the optics, but also importantly, quiet focus. The screw drive is embarrassingly loud, and when it misses focus and hunts all the way to the end and back, very frustrating. With +2 AF fine adjustment photos are mostly sharp, but in Liveview it's hopelessly out of focus when using the same center point. Not only that, in lower light (where a 2.8 shines), LV focus is excruciatingly slow, several seconds from one end to the other.


Back to the general topic, I think fast AF is important even with slower shooting like portraits. We see where some lenses on other systems will focus on the tips of eyelashes rather than the iris, and it's clearly noticeable in the final shot. Faster AF will help with this as the lens will be more responsive to the model moving a centimeter closer/further to/from the lens. But, AF accuracy in the body comes into play here too. No AF-C in LV is a disappointing omission on a $2500 body.

I bought my K3-3 as an upgrade to my K5. I have the 50-135 (3rd dead SDM motor, converted to screwdrive), the 16-50 (first dead SDM motor, converted to screwdrive), 12-24, FA50 and the 55-300PLM.

My experience with focus accuracy is all over the place and quite frustrating. I bought the K3-3 so as to avoid buying new lenses in another system, but I've been second guessing that decision ever since. It's a (mostly) great camera, and as Eddy said it seems to be catching up to DSLR bodies from other manufacturers before they went mirrorless, but the old lenses hurt overall performance. Sadly my 55-300PLM took a short tumble, didn't even scratch the polarizer but it was enough to de-center it so it'll likely be in the scrap heap with all the dead SDM motors that came before it.

It's a super tricky decision - save up for the 150-450, and posibly the 70-200 or a PLM/DC version of the 50-135, or ditch the platform altogether? I'm more frustrated than I thought I'd be by the lack of an articulating screen for getting photos from creative angles (don't even bother suggesting the mobile app, it's as slow and frustrating than a sticky SDM) so buying more lenses for an increasingly obsolete platform is hard to justify.

Perhaps a K1-3 is around the corner and would solve the articulating screen issue I have. That would make new lenses a worthy investment, but will we see an improved framerate over the K1-2, or will it remain strictly a landscape camera?

As a hobbyist who makes $0 from his photos, at the end of the day, there's too many holes in the system and the roadmap for me to have enough confidence in the platform to spend $2500 on a 150-450 or other lenses. The whole experience has been frustrating

[house]

Arguing for fast focussing lenses is fine, including new fast focussing primes. It is however nonsensical to mix the FA limiteds into that.

It would be silly to attempt such frankentech . Just release new D-FA limiteds. Actually no, even DFA ltd can't be focus by wire. So those will have to be a separate line of plain DFA lenses.

[mikesbike]

And also if a PLM motor fail you will not even be able to manually focus the lens. So if you are on an important job you probably want backup on PLM lenses, just like you want backup on the camera.

Another reason I am still very happy with my DC motor lenses, and these have proven themselves to be reliable as well as accurate. Quite fast too, though obviously not as fast as PLM lenses. I have yet to own a PLM lens. However, I believe my little DA-L 18-50mm DC lens is by-wire focusing, so it too might have a problem with MF if the motor failed.

That said, since the new K-3 III was designed with better, faster, and more accurate AF in mind to go with its higher FPS burst capability, it was appropriate to also come out with a DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 PLM replacement to go with this concept. Next should be an updated DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 lens as well. Updated DA* 200mm f/2.8 and DA* 300mm f/4 lenses should follow. Whether these should be PLM or DC is a question, but either would be a definite advancement over the old outdated SDM technology. Unlike the original DA* 16-50mm SDM, no change in optics would be necessary with these lenses, which are already of very high caliber, just the AF system.

The improved AF speed and overall performance, including with burst shooting, of the new K-3 III has been one of its most important advancements, but it is unclear if these advancements are there also with lenses of DC AF designs, or if AF speed would be about the same as say the KP unless using a PLM lens. Even then, a PLM lens has quicker AF on a KP then do other non-PLM lenses, so how much quicker is the new K-3 III using these same types of lenses?