[lithos]

"optimised for digital"

In the words of a fish-and-chips shop-owning bigot...please explain.

[e_hutchinson]

Better support for shooting wildlife with a DA* 400mm and 500mm. Maybe a DA* 600mm but personally I would probably stop with the 500mm if it was fast enough to successfully use a new Pentax 1.4 or 1.5x TC. I would want the 400mm to be light enough to hand-hold for shooting birds in flight, so it would probably be an f5.6. Of course an f4 would be even better if it met the weight criterion. Yes, I know this sounds like a Canon kit.

Ed Hutchinson
e_hutchinson

Edwin D Hutchinson Nature Photography
Dane PhotoImagery's Photo Galleries at pbase.com

[RBellavance]

In the words of a fish-and-chips shop-owning bigot...please explain.

I meant mostly updated coatings, like the D-FAs and DAs have, but the FAs lack.

[lithos]

I'm curious as to whether Pentax is still using SMC, or if it's just become a lens name only, like Nikkor or Zuiko. 'Spose the needed to upgrade the SMC sometime (hey, it's been kicking flare's arse for forty-odd years), but I hope they don't lose the name, at least.

At any rate, I wonder why Pentax is worried about having to build a new set of lenses for a FF DSLR. Manufacturing, maybe, but for lens designs?

Just blow the dust of some of the legendaries from the past, oh, fifty years. Whack an SDM motor in their, and Bob's your uncle.

Sadly, I don't think that the new "Super Protect" coating is a Pentax invention.

[Votesh]

I've thought so often about going to another system completely, or just going dual system for reasons such as that. Then I think about the great glass available for Pentax, although it might not be able to be had new, that can generally be had for somewhat comparable prices. At the moment I have all the lenses I "need", and I'd say that it's a fair bet that they'd do very well against competitors' lenses. Now, a full frame camera on the other hand would be nice, but I'd have to sacrifice my whole collection and end up with a smaller range of lenses.

I'm glad I didn't as well. I found out that you can get a 135/2 in Canikon for $1K new...and used ones for $750. Makes the argument for a dual system arrangement better

[Jonson PL]

300mm f2.8!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

in WHITE!!!

They already have that one :

A* 300/2.8 ED [IF]

24 or 25mm f1.2, f1.4 and f1.7, preferably full-frame. Not necessarily pancake-sized (but it would be a coup!), but not huge. Aspherical elements. 9 aperture blades, minimum.
Polycarbonate bodies, or at least filter rings.

They cannot make a pancake 24/1.2. But a 25/1.7 would be very welcome.

Else just put the K 20/1.4 AL into production, with AF :




A 18/2 would also be very sweet.

Creampuff pretty much nailed it and saved me a bunch of typing time, I'd personally swap the 400mm with a 600mm and while I personally wouldn't use the 18-135, it'd make a great kit lens and travel lens especially for folks thinking about heading to Pentax for the first time. The 24 TS would be especially valuable for me and that 24 and 135 especially is long past due.

If Pentax do not feel that they would sell a lot of 24 mm tilt and shift lenses, then just make them built to order, like some of the old super teles. Then it would still be available for the people wanting it.


DA* 400mm f/4 or a 500mm f/4.5; would be very welcome.
Sure wouldn’t mind a 135/2, either.
Else, how much does the Takumar 135/3.5 weigh ?

Edit :
I found some info on the Tak :

"Lens element 4
Minimum aperture f/22
Minimum distance 5 ft. (1.5m)
Angle of view 18°
Weight 12.1 ozs. (343gr)"
http://whitemetal.com/pentax/smct_135_35/index.htm

Doesn't seem like a compact lens though

[Geyst]

for me the FA 200/4 macro and the FA 400/5.6. There is no need to remake them just take them in production again.

Guido

[wtlwdwgn]

I'd like something like this in a DA*. For wildlife, birds, and sports cars.

[RonMexico]

Well, looks like quite a few people want Pentax to make a 135mm f1.8.

Pentax, are you listening?

Hahaha.

[photapioca]

Make a 35mm WR

[24X36NOW]

In the words of a fish-and-chips shop-owning bigot...please explain.

I meant mostly updated coatings, like the D-FAs and DAs have, but the FAs lack.

Amazing how little issue shots exhibited here and elsewhere have shown problems with the "old coatings."

I'm curious as to whether Pentax is still using SMC, or if it's just become a lens name only, like Nikkor or Zuiko. 'Spose the needed to upgrade the SMC sometime (hey, it's been kicking flare's arse for forty-odd years), but I hope they don't lose the name, at least.

At any rate, I wonder why Pentax is worried about having to build a new set of lenses for a FF DSLR. Manufacturing, maybe, but for lens designs?

Just blow the dust of some of the legendaries from the past, oh, fifty years. Whack an SDM motor in their, and Bob's your uncle.

Sadly, I don't think that the new "Super Protect" coating is a Pentax invention.

Pentax's "worry" is a combination of excuse making for failing to produce a FF dSLR combined with a little FUD regarding old lenses not being "good enough" for digital. The real irony here is that the deficiencies (to the extent that any real vs. imaginary issues exist) are not deficiencies of the lenses, but deficiencies of immature digital imaging technology, i.e., the poor light gathering ability of existing digital sensors. This is, in short, part of a large scale effort to convince you to buy new lenses to ensure optimum compatibility with cameras that will be obsolete in 2 years.

[kthung]

FA 35mm f/2.0

[SteveM]

FA 85 1.4 ltd....

[PentHassyKon]

Else just put the K 20/1.4 AL into production, with AF :

In addition to the 20 1.4-
How about the 35mm f1.4?

[wolfier]

To make: DA* 11-16/2.8
To remake AF versions of: 200/4 macro, 135/2, 28/2