[FozzFoster]

Here goes a fun wish list:

First off, the lenses on the roadmap. I guess they will be:
DFA* 35mm f/1.4
DFA 70-300 SR

I hope to see:
DFA* 200mm f/2.8 PLM
DFA* 300mm f/4 PLM
DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 PLM
(^ or competent DC)

Full frame rear converter
Auto extension tubes

Maybe a replacement for the 560mm...
I'd love to see something what Canon has done with the 600mm f/11 or the 800mm f/11 - and with accompanying SR tech.

I don't think it'll come but I think a fast tilt/shift (50mm f/2.8) would suit the lineup/brand nicely too.


What lens would you like to see?

[jersey]

Pentax cleaning up the whole lineup mess.

But if I could dream then:


- DA* 60-250 or DFA* 55-300 PLM with IF and internal zoom and ILIS that can work coupled with IBIS Olympus style. I can live without internal zoom but rest is a must


- DA 10-17mm Fisheye WR/AW and DC/PLM

- set of DA* or DA Limiteds DC+WR with classical focal length equivalents (18, 23, 33 DA I suppose)

[jcdoss]

A DFA 24-150 f4.0 to match the 150-450... sort of.

[Simon K]

A DA 30 or 35mm 1.4 PLM WR and a DA 50mm 1.4 PLM WR with metal mount. Makes no real sense to have weather resistant crop bodies but no fast WR primes available.

[W412ren]

As this is a fun wishlist I have two lenses that are probably unlikely to see production:
I’d really like a nice little 49mm filter DA 28 Limited. The fov fills the gap perfectly between the 21 and 40 limiteds and I don’t always need WR. In the meantime I’ll have to make do with the M28/2.
An updated A 200/4 with its small form factor would be nice too, especially if built to the same standards as the DFA 100.

[UncleVanya]

I think an updated D FA* 200 would be difficult to justify vs the existing D FA* 70-200. But it does offer the possibility of a lower weight at this focal length.

As a counter example Sony has no 200mm prime since the zoom is so close in performance and with the new GM II the weight is much lower.

If I were Pentax I might do a minor update to the 200 and 300, not making them PLM but DC and removing the DA* designation and calling them D FA but not D FA*. I’m fairly certain that the DA* 200 doesn’t resolve at 200 as well as the D FA* zoom and removing the * designation isn’t saying it’s junk but that it isn’t the best at that focal length that they can design.

With the 300 - it might be useful to preserve the * designation but how much more useful is that lens vs the 150-450? A D FA* 300 f2.8 or D FA* 400 f4 might be a bigger draw.

At the other extreme adding seals to existing limited designs would be really nice - but I’m unclear how costly that would be. Adding in lens motors and electronic aperture control would be fun also but again the cost of such a change isn’t likely to pay dividends vs only introducing those on all new designs.

[Robot camera]

Okay, just for fun; how about a 45-90mm f/4 for APS-C? With a constant aperture and simple design because of the moderate angle of view and small 2:1 zoom range, it could be about the same size as the 18-55mm kit lens. It would make a versatile but not too big two-lens outfit with the 16-50mm, and also go well with a variety of wide to standard primes.

Also for APS-C I suggest an 18mm f/1.8 or f/2 wide angle and a 27mm f/2.8 pancake, the modern APS-C equivalent of the 40mm f/2.8 film era lens. For full frame I suggest a 24mm f/1.8 or f/2, which would of course also be a handy semi-wide angle for the smaller sensor.

[UncleVanya]

Okay, just for fun; how about a 45-90mm f/4 for APS-C? With a constant aperture and simple design because of the moderate angle of view and small 2:1 zoom range, it could be about the same size as the 18-55mm kit lens.

A 45-90/2.8-4 would match well with the 20-40 Ltd also. I like the idea of f2.8 on the “wide” end. But I struggle with how much it would get used vs say a 55-300 PLM.

[mbukal]

I only wish that Pentax in the FF format (because I use it) had a strict offer of lenses in the DFA* (HDFA*) and DFA (HDFA) series, covering the range from approx.15mm to approx.300mm, whether with primes/zooms/ in combination with af adapters is not important, it would be important if the user can put together a set of ranges from approx. 15mm to approx. 300 in a set of DFA* (HDFA*) or DFA (HDFA) without mixing DFA* with DFA to complete that range,
Pentax is now far, far away from such a serious selection of lenses in FF, and I sincerely doubt that Pentax will be able to do it if there is a DFA* (HDFA*) and DFA (HDFA) series covering the same range with different millimeter lenses, different quality characteristics (optics/autofocus/aperture...) and all this accompanied by a different amount of money for the same millimeter range from approx. 15mm to 300mm

p.s.
I already asked an informal question on one topic of this forum: "Does anyone have any/at least a little knowledge about DFA approx. 70-300/4.5-5.6", so I repeat it here as well

[FozzFoster]

I suggest a 24mm f/1.8

One of the only Sigma lenses I keep in my main kit is a 24mm f/1.8 Marco.
Would love to see a Pentax equivalent, but one of the main reasons I like the Sigma is that it has an aperture ring for use with my film cameras too. I don't think a new Pentax would come with an aperture ring so I'm still conflicted!

[JensE]

A wide angle full-frame WR zoom lens that accepts regular filters and is much more compact than the DFA15-30mm. F/4 and as wide as it gets while not needing a bigger than, say, 72mm front thread. So basically a successor of the SMC Pentax-FA 20-35mm F4 AL, possibly a bit wider.

[texandrews]

My fun wish list is a slow but steady revamping of the 645 lens line, plus a(or 2) key addition. I think most of the lenses are basically sound; a group of them could be rehabbed with just new coatings and seals. Some lenses are due for total overhauls: the 45, the 33-55 and 55-110. The 45 is a real hole in the lineup as one of the fast lenses at f2.8, but it underperforms at a very useful FL. The 2 zooms should be reworked as slow but light zooms with solid performance---great walk-around kit. Then re-introduce the 2 LS lenses, and even bring out the 135 as a regular lens---it's really good in LS, I've got one.


A necessary addition is a tilt/shift lens, and it should use the 67 45 design to start. Even better would be a wider T/S lens, but I would think using the 67 design would be easier/quicker to do. Then there also needs to be a new UWA lens for 645 to replace the 25, and it would be best if it was a tad wider.

For FF I'd like to see a Pentax T/S lens. A faster 35? Maybe bring forward some FA's as DFA's? The 24-70 could be better...

[jersey]

[...] without mixing DFA* with DFA to complete that range, Pentax is now far, far away from such a serious selection of lenses in FF

It is not like DA has it better. You have long range, we have UWA and normal. Which I why I wrote about them clearing the lens mess that is currently present in lens lineup.

Pentax would do good to just axe APS-C all together and just make single digital era lenses that are FF. They would work well on APS-C and judging by size comparison between 16-50 and 24-70 size difference is already negligible with top of the line, internal AF drive lenses. APS-C would need to live with slightly awkward zoom ranges, but it being action camera so more long-range oriented it would not hurt users all that much. Now that is my true "what I want from Pentax to do about lenses" dream.

It isn't gonna happen, sadly. My trio of weird Limiteds is more probable.

[mbukal]

Pentax in APAC format has a covered range with DA* from 11mm to 300mm as well as DA from 10mm to 300mm
in FF format, Pentax is far behind to have such an offer as in APSC, where the user can complete the range from approx. 11mm to 300mm without having to necessarily mix DA* and DA in order to do it, and he wouldn't want to Pentax cancels APSC, but only so that FF users have the same choice, when choosing APSC and FF formats, everyone will find easier what they expect and want from a photo with the same possibilities but again so different

[jersey]

Only Pentax DA* lenses currently are 11-18 and 16-50 and 300. 200 and 60-250 are out for sure, 55 and 50-135 supposedly (as another thread about lenses says). So no, we do not have it all so nice and rosy as it looks like Sure, you can buy them, for now, but as part of line up they are gone. When stock runs out, there will be no new ones.