[Tonto]

DA* 8-16 mm F3.5 FISHEYE (49 mm rear filter)

DA* 11-24 mm F4 (77 mm front filter)

DA* 24-60 mm F4 (67 mm front filter)

DA* 250-500 mm F 4.5 (49 mm rear filter)

DA* 11-16 mm F 2.8 (77 mm front filter)

DA* 135-400 mm F 4.5-5.6 (77 mm front filter)

All with WS & SDM

We already have.

DA* 16-50 mm F 2.8

DA* 50-135 mm F2.8

DA* 60-250 mm F4

I know someone has prob said this before but I LOVE your sig image!!!!
It sums up why I didn't really wan't to go Canikon
To stay on topic +1 for a DA* 70-200 2.8 with matching TCs , perfect zoo lens!

---

Last edited by Tonto; 04-26-2010 at 01:16 AM.

[ivoire]

DA* 250-500 mm F 4.5

DA* 11-16 mm F 2.8

DA* 135-400 mm F 4.5-5.6

[nfiduccia]

I would like them to resurrect the optically excellent 24-90/f4 but make it mechanically more sturdy. Otherwise, go for a 20-60/f4.

[Clinton]

I really would like to see a remake of the FA* 250-600 as a DA lens, albeit perhaps a bit more affordable.

[twitch]

A 70-200mm f4 weighing <800g would be nice. Just like the Canon.

[Tuner571]

I would like to see a updated version of the SMC-A* 135mm f/1.8, I really would like to own this lens in the future and a modern version would be much appreciated!

[writeb]

Is the right answer "D" none of the above?

I'd like to see an FA* line re-introduced, if solely for the availability of the Aperture ring. Call me stubborn.

However, if I need to play by the rules, I only want one:

DA* 100-400 f/2.8 - 4

And yes, I'd pay good money for it. It's the only gap in my theoretically possible lens collection for Pentax. I'm happy with the wide angle availability, I have the mid range on lock down. It'ls all about the AF, Sharp, fast incredi- zooms for me at this point.

[davidvcd]

for a DA*, and what should be easily possible,
11-16mm f2.8

and a fantasy
200-400mm f as wide open as possible

[Aristophanes]

Pentax DA*TC 1.7x

...or whatever has been on/off the lens roadmaps

[Arpe]

Pentax DA*TC 1.7x

...or whatever has been on/off the lens roadmaps

Not exactly a DA* zoom! But I concur, the lack of a SDM compatible TC is absurd!

[GeneV]

DA* 80-400/4-5.6

That would be my top priority, if they get the IQ right. Should be a good balance between reach/speed/money.

Otherwise, there need to be longer lenses, but mostly primes, I think (400/4, 600/5.6)

Ben

Definitely those two long primes before too many more zooms.

[ajuett]

DA 24-70mm f/2.8
No SDM or WS required, just good ol' SMC. That would be great for everything from landscapes to portraits.

[rustynail925]

Pentax just needs to have a reliable standard zoom
16-50 2.8 improved SDM or no SDM is fine

[northcoastgreg]

I really would like to see a remake of the FA* 250-600 as a DA lens, albeit perhaps a bit more affordable.

That's the one gaping hole in the DA lineup. While Pentax has not made an APS-C equivalent zoom for every FA zoom, they still have managed to cover the FOV range of everything in the FA lineup except the 250-600. The APS-C equivalent of 250-600 would be about a 170-400, which would make it significantly lighter and less expensive.

[wlachan]

Even Canon USM have problems.. SDM needs to be reworked. But when you have electronics there will be a fail rate..

Flickr: Discussing AF problem in Canon 50mm/f1.4 USM

That particular lens is known to have prone to fail motor. Everyone knows that and Canon users have been asking for an update model, instead of defending it to death. Have Pentax improved the SDM? If they did, SDM still deserves all the bad rep because Pentax have kept everyone in the dark. Not a good way to do business.