What (feasible) lens is missing from Pentax's lineup?

GLXLR · 07-06-2009, 09:14 AM

Don't think they will make a 70-200mm. Already have the DA* 50-135mm and 200mm for that, but it would be nice if they just put the FA* 80-200mm back into production!

The few lenses I want to see in the Pentax mount:
Replace the 60-250mm with a 135mm or 100mm-300mm f/4 DA* (the 60-250mm overlaps with the 50-135mm too much)
DA* 400mm or 500mm f/4 (probably would cost like $3000-$40000 unless it is a DEDICATED APS-C
DA* 11-16mm like a lot of ya'll mentioned
135mm f/2.0 or f/2.8 LTD

Get to work you lazy Pentax engineers!!!

jkjkjk
Of course I wouldn't be buying the 400mm in the near future (maybe once I;m out of college)

Blue · 07-06-2009, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Votesh

DA* 85mm 1.4 and DA* 200mm 4.0 Macro. They already have 2 optical designs for each, so would just need to design weather sealed lens bodies and work out the SDM focusing.

I'd also like a Tilt/Shift lens option.

Especially the macro. I think they could probably do it in f3.5.

Miserere · 07-06-2009, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by PentHassyKon

Based on lenses they've already done in MF:

50mm 1.2
85mm 1.4
135mm 1.8
200mm 2.5

These 4 come to mind quite readily, who knows why they don't just reissue them. Heck, I bet some of us wouldn't mind them being MF

Those came to my mind too

Together with the DA* 135mm f/1.8 (or even f/2 would be good) they could also spring for a Limited 135mm f/2.8. If they make the image circle smaller for APS-C sensors, they could make it reasonably small.

Miserere · 07-06-2009, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Miguel

400mm f 5.6 for photographing birds and wildlife. That's really the starting point for serious bird shooting these days. Of course the retail cost would be > $2000US.

Not at all, Miguel. A DA* 400mm f/5.6 should come in around the same price as the DA* 300mm f/4. You can buy used AF Tokina or Sigma 400mm f/5.6 lenses for well under $500. A 400mm f/4, however, would definitely come in at $2,000. The question is: Would they sell enough of them to justify the cost of production?

Blue · 07-06-2009, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Miserere

Not at all, Miguel. A DA* 400mm f/5.6 should come in around the same price as the DA* 300mm f/4. You can buy used AF Tokina or Sigma 400mm f/5.6 lenses for well under $500. A 400mm f/4, however, would definitely come in at $2,000. The question is: Would they sell enough of them to justify the cost of production?

One of my favorite lenses is the A 400mm f5.6. However, for birds, it is sometimes pushing it.

Case in point, the warbler was taken with the lens at f5.6 (wide open) and 1/200 shutter speed.

**madison_wi_gal** · 09-29-2016, 08:37 AM

24mm for walking around.

Nass · 09-29-2016, 08:45 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by brecklundin

A dedicated macro like the MP-E 65mm which is a 1x-5x macro only lens. I am not sure anyone other than Canon makes such a lens. But it's an amazing tool for those of us who enjoy macro.

seconded - you could do better than mpe65 though

BrianR · 09-29-2016, 07:38 PM

Interesting comparing some of the wishes from this old thread to what's happened in the past few years.

I'd also like to see the 200mm macro put back into production. Probably a small market for it, but I'd save up for a no holds barred macro lens of awesomeness.

Originally posted by Nass

seconded - you could do better than mpe65 though

This is also something I'd love to see in a Pentax mount. iirc you have one, no? I'd be interested to know how you've gotten along with it. Have you done a review of it anywhere? I couldn't find it on your site

.

Nass · 09-30-2016, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by BrianR

This is also something I'd love to see in a Pentax mount. iirc you have one, no? I'd be interested to know how you've gotten along with it. Have you done a review of it anywhere? I couldn't find it on your site

.

Yes I do - it's hard to use but it does work no other lens can match. I hadn't intended doing a review but hmmm come to think of it not a bad idea

totsmuyco · 09-30-2016, 04:39 AM

An 80-400 f3.5-4.5. WR or AW. Smaller and much lighter than the 150-450, with better AF and at the very least the image quality of the 16-85. I don't know if it's possible. After all, it's just a wish. But who knows? It might come true.

aurele · 09-30-2016, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by totsmuyco

An 80-400 f3.5-4.5. WR or AW. Smaller and much lighter than the 150-450, with better AF and at the very least the image quality of the 16-85. I don't know if it's possible. After all, it's just a wish. But who knows? It might come true.

Tokina and Nikon did both build such a lens. The results were very good in the 80-200, good in the 300, but very average beyond 300.

Well, it was light, but not cheap. A very good option for someone who don't need fast aperture, but a good range and light option.

Doundounba · 09-30-2016, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by Nass

seconded - you could do better than mpe65 though

Also something I would love to see! To me, an even better range than 1:1 to 5:1, as the MP-E does, would be 1:2 (or 1:3) to 3:1. That is, from near-macro to three times lifesize. F/4 is enough, and make it at least 80mm and WR please...

Nass · 09-30-2016, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Doundounba

Also something I would love to see! To me, an even better range than 1:1 to 5:1, as the MP-E does, would be 1:2 (or 1:3) to 3:1. That is, from near-macro to three times lifesize. F/4 is enough, and make it at least 80mm and WR please...

yeah more or less what I was thinking too, that mag range. Lighter would be good too, mpe65 is a brick.

**Des** · 09-30-2016, 04:20 PM

I'd like to see the AF system replaced on all the SDM lenses with a more reliable system. And if it's going to be PLM, firmware upgrades to allow KAF4 lenses to be used on non-current bodies.

totsmuyco · 09-30-2016, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by aurele

Tokina and Nikon did both build such a lens. The results were very good in the 80-200, good in the 300, but very average beyond 300.

Well, it was light, but not cheap. A very good option for someone who don't need fast aperture, but a good range and light option.

I wish they could really make the images good throughout the range. Even if it won't be that cheap. I think it's a good range.

07-06-2009, 10:17 AM	#35
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Miserere Not at all, Miguel. A DA* 400mm f/5.6 should come in around the same price as the DA* 300mm f/4. You can buy used AF Tokina or Sigma 400mm f/5.6 lenses for well under $500. A 400mm f/4, however, would definitely come in at $2,000. The question is: Would they sell enough of them to justify the cost of production? One of my favorite lenses is the A 400mm f5.6. However, for birds, it is sometimes pushing it. Case in point, the warbler was taken with the lens at f5.6 (wide open) and 1/200 shutter speed. Attached Images

09-29-2016, 07:38 PM	#38
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	Interesting comparing some of the wishes from this old thread to what's happened in the past few years. I'd also like to see the 200mm macro put back into production. Probably a small market for it, but I'd save up for a no holds barred macro lens of awesomeness. Originally posted by Nass seconded - you could do better than mpe65 though This is also something I'd love to see in a Pentax mount. iirc you have one, no? I'd be interested to know how you've gotten along with it. Have you done a review of it anywhere? I couldn't find it on your site.

09-30-2016, 01:21 AM	#39
Nass Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The British Isles Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,402	Originally posted by BrianR This is also something I'd love to see in a Pentax mount. iirc you have one, no? I'd be interested to know how you've gotten along with it. Have you done a review of it anywhere? I couldn't find it on your site. Yes I do - it's hard to use but it does work no other lens can match. I hadn't intended doing a review but hmmm come to think of it not a bad idea

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Looking at the current lens lineup, ISO seems to be Pentax strategy.	Reportage	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	10-05-2010 02:28 PM
Those were the days - when Pentax had a comprehensive lens lineup	rawr	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	11-24-2009 05:34 PM
Best Lens Lineup	IronWolf	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	02-21-2009 06:33 AM
help with changes to lens lineup	sholtzma	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	03-12-2008 03:34 AM
Travel lens lineup?	d.bradley	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	12-12-2007 10:34 PM

07-06-2009, 09:14 AM	#31
GLXLR Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Sugar Land, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 684	Don't think they will make a 70-200mm. Already have the DA* 50-135mm and 200mm for that, but it would be nice if they just put the FA* 80-200mm back into production! The few lenses I want to see in the Pentax mount: Replace the 60-250mm with a 135mm or 100mm-300mm f/4 DA* (the 60-250mm overlaps with the 50-135mm too much) DA* 400mm or 500mm f/4 (probably would cost like $3000-$40000 unless it is a DEDICATED APS-C DA* 11-16mm like a lot of ya'll mentioned 135mm f/2.0 or f/2.8 LTD Get to work you lazy Pentax engineers!!! jkjkjk Of course I wouldn't be buying the 400mm in the near future (maybe once I;m out of college)

07-06-2009, 09:50 AM	#32
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Votesh DA* 85mm 1.4 and DA* 200mm 4.0 Macro. They already have 2 optical designs for each, so would just need to design weather sealed lens bodies and work out the SDM focusing. I'd also like a Tilt/Shift lens option. Especially the macro. I think they could probably do it in f3.5.

07-06-2009, 09:52 AM	#33
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	Originally posted by PentHassyKon Based on lenses they've already done in MF: 50mm 1.2 85mm 1.4 135mm 1.8 200mm 2.5 These 4 come to mind quite readily, who knows why they don't just reissue them. Heck, I bet some of us wouldn't mind them being MF Those came to my mind too Together with the DA* 135mm f/1.8 (or even f/2 would be good) they could also spring for a Limited 135mm f/2.8. If they make the image circle smaller for APS-C sensors, they could make it reasonably small.

07-06-2009, 09:59 AM	#34
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	Originally posted by Miguel 400mm f 5.6 for photographing birds and wildlife. That's really the starting point for serious bird shooting these days. Of course the retail cost would be > $2000US. Not at all, Miguel. A DA* 400mm f/5.6 should come in around the same price as the DA* 300mm f/4. You can buy used AF Tokina or Sigma 400mm f/5.6 lenses for well under $500. A 400mm f/4, however, would definitely come in at $2,000. The question is: Would they sell enough of them to justify the cost of production?

09-29-2016, 08:37 AM	#36
madison_wi_gal Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: Madison WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 926	24mm for walking around.

09-29-2016, 08:45 AM - 1 Like	#37
Nass Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The British Isles Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,402	Originally posted by brecklundin A dedicated macro like the MP-E 65mm which is a 1x-5x macro only lens. I am not sure anyone other than Canon makes such a lens. But it's an amazing tool for those of us who enjoy macro. seconded - you could do better than mpe65 though

09-30-2016, 04:39 AM	#40
totsmuyco Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Iloilo City Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,276	An 80-400 f3.5-4.5. WR or AW. Smaller and much lighter than the 150-450, with better AF and at the very least the image quality of the 16-85. I don't know if it's possible. After all, it's just a wish. But who knows? It might come true.

09-30-2016, 04:47 AM	#41
aurele Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Paris, France Photos: Albums Posts: 3,217	Originally posted by totsmuyco An 80-400 f3.5-4.5. WR or AW. Smaller and much lighter than the 150-450, with better AF and at the very least the image quality of the 16-85. I don't know if it's possible. After all, it's just a wish. But who knows? It might come true. Tokina and Nikon did both build such a lens. The results were very good in the 80-200, good in the 300, but very average beyond 300. Well, it was light, but not cheap. A very good option for someone who don't need fast aperture, but a good range and light option.

09-30-2016, 04:55 AM	#42
Doundounba Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Montréal QC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,351	Originally posted by Nass seconded - you could do better than mpe65 though Also something I would love to see! To me, an even better range than 1:1 to 5:1, as the MP-E does, would be 1:2 (or 1:3) to 3:1. That is, from near-macro to three times lifesize. F/4 is enough, and make it at least 80mm and WR please...

09-30-2016, 06:19 AM	#43
Nass Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The British Isles Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,402	Originally posted by Doundounba Also something I would love to see! To me, an even better range than 1:1 to 5:1, as the MP-E does, would be 1:2 (or 1:3) to 3:1. That is, from near-macro to three times lifesize. F/4 is enough, and make it at least 80mm and WR please... yeah more or less what I was thinking too, that mag range. Lighter would be good too, mpe65 is a brick.

09-30-2016, 04:20 PM	#44
Des Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Victoria Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 6,423	I'd like to see the AF system replaced on all the SDM lenses with a more reliable system. And if it's going to be PLM, firmware upgrades to allow KAF4 lenses to be used on non-current bodies.

09-30-2016, 05:13 PM	#45
totsmuyco Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Iloilo City Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,276	Originally posted by aurele Tokina and Nikon did both build such a lens. The results were very good in the 80-200, good in the 300, but very average beyond 300. Well, it was light, but not cheap. A very good option for someone who don't need fast aperture, but a good range and light option. I wish they could really make the images good throughout the range. Even if it won't be that cheap. I think it's a good range.