Pentax Q 07 Prime 15mm f/1.4 and 08 Macro 18mm f/2.0

NeilGratton · 12-27-2012, 03:42 AM

The Pentax Q 07 Prime 15mm f/1.4 and 08 Macro 18mm f/2.0 lenses?

Okay, right now, that's just wishful thinking. (Sorry if I got you over-excited by the thread title).
But I'd love to see the above, and also a nice 3-6mm ultrawide.

What native Q-system lenses would you most like to see Pentax produce?

I personally don't think there's a real need for a longer range telephoto than the 45mm, as there's so many adapted options to achieve that.

Last edited by NeilGratton; 12-27-2012 at 03:47 AM.

Docrwm · 12-27-2012, 05:24 AM

A prime of the 01's quality that is wider, say 5mm at f1.4. Yes, that would do nicely.

VisualDarkness · 12-27-2012, 05:32 AM

It seems like it's not just me that wants an ultrawide and a macro.

NeilGratton · 12-27-2012, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by VisualDarkness

It seems like it's not just me that wants an ultrawide and a macro.

Looks like you have plenty of company. As with ultrawide and particularly macro shots, you typically want to maximise the depth of field, it's somewhere the small sensor may be more advantage than liability.

In the absence of a macro, it'd be good to see Q extension tubes.

**Clinton** · 12-27-2012, 08:20 AM

I would like to see some superfast glass. A 12mm/F0.7 would be neat.

snostorm · 12-27-2012, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by NeilGratton

I personally don't think there's a real need for a longer range telephoto than the 45mm, as there's so many adapted options to achieve that.

I disagree. AF and super compact and light weight makes a difference -- but I'm primarily an ultra tele + shooter, and at this point, I seem to be the only one who voted for this option. . .

Even I don't see this as a priority, and would like to see a fast wide prime, a faster std zoom and a dedicated macro first for the sake of a well rounded system, but would like to see a fast ultra/super tele prime to fill out the lens lineup eventually.

Scott

Docrwm · 12-27-2012, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by snostorm

I disagree. AF and super compact and light weight makes a difference -- but I'm primarily an ultra tele + shooter, and at this point, I seem to be the only one who voted for this option. . .

Even I don't see this as a priority, and would like to see a fast wide prime, a faster std zoom and a dedicated macro first for the sake of a well rounded system, but would like to see a fast ultra/super tele prime to fill out the lens lineup eventually.

Scott

On the fast wide prime - please make it AF. I like my Fish-Eye but would prefer AF on any non-FE lenses in the future.

wpvv · 12-27-2012, 11:37 AM

Telephoto lenses are easily 'made' by the use of a K-adapter. The lack of lenses is on the wide side.

snostorm · 12-27-2012, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by wpvv

Telephoto lenses are easily 'made' by the use of a K-adapter. The lack of lenses is on the wide side.

I do no dispute this -- wides would probably make the Q more desirable for a segment of shooters, especially those that seem to like photo fora. Wides and ultra wides will require low single digit FLs, will more difficult to design and build, and will undoubtedly show significant barrel distortion, emphasizing how larger formats are superior for the styles of shooting requiring these lenses. For these, you're fighting the crop factor built into the Q.

AF would allow me to use a spotting scope bracketed on the side as an optical viewfinder to shoot in real time, and a Red Dot with an AF lens would allow me to track in real time using AF to shoot long tele for moving subjects with a very light and nimble camera that's easy to hold up to the eye for long periods of time. With an AF lens, I can work around LCD lag and take advantage of the extreme reach allowed by the Q. The growth of the super zoom/travel zoom classes of compact cameras, especially since the first Panasonic FZs and TZs illustrates how the mass market responds to ultra tele and super tele shooting.
For these, you're taking advantage of the crop factor of the Q.

I've already stated that Pentax should, as a priority, take care of the wide side first, but to dismiss the usefulness of the long side in AF system lenses is to deny the inherent advantage of the format the system is built around.

Scott

wpvv · 12-27-2012, 03:04 PM

Hi Scott,

I am certainly not disagreeing that longer dedicated Q lenses are welcome. I was mainly thinking about the next lens now the 15-45 is there.

Classico · 12-27-2012, 03:53 PM

I really want the body cap lens to come out the most

lecoupdejarnac · 12-27-2012, 04:07 PM

Something like a 100mm 2.8 (or longer, or faster!) for the Q would be awesome. With 550+mm equivalent and autofocus, and reasonably small (compared to adapted lenses, at least), that would be very useful.

Right now I plan to travel with my Q + 06 Telephoto, in the same bag as my full-frame Canon 5dMkII. Since long telephoto lenses for my full-frame camera are way too big (and expensive), I can pull out the Q if I see something that requires more reach. Having something that goes beyond the 06 lens would be even better.

snostorm · 12-27-2012, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by wpvv

Hi Scott,

I am certainly not disagreeing that longer dedicated Q lenses are welcome. I was mainly thinking about the next lens now the 15-45 is there.

Hi wpw,

I think we can all agree that Pentax should work to fill out the lens line to expand the Q system. Hopefully all the lenses that Qusers (did I just coin a new word?) want to see will become a part of the plan.

Scott

Edit: Pentax -- make them fast, (max aperture wise. . . and quickly wouldn't hurt either) with very good optics as I know you can, and I'll buy all of them!

emergo · 12-27-2012, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Qusers (did I just coin a new word?)

it looks like you'll have to pay for that URL, though...

Qusers.com

VisualDarkness · 12-27-2012, 09:01 PM

I would also love a tele prime and a faster normal zoom (the current sadly hits diffraction) but at the same time I don't see them as the most lacking areas.

Originally posted by emergo

it looks like you'll have to pay for that URL, though...

Qusers.com

Haha, I wonder if somebody from here will buy it? If I only knew how to make a webpage I would!

View Poll Results: Which native Pentax-Q lenses would you most like to see?
Faster Standard Prime	11	16.42%
Ultrawide	30	44.78%
Wide Prime	32	47.76%
Short Telephoto (Portrait) Prime	17	25.37%
Long Telephoto Prime	9	13.43%
Macro	33	49.25%
Faster Standard Zoom	13	19.40%
Tilt and Shift Lens	6	8.96%
Superzoom (e.g. 5-50mm)	8	11.94%
Other	1	1.49%
100% happy with the current range	0	0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

12-27-2012, 03:42 AM	#1
NeilGratton Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Exeter, Devon Posts: 137	Pentax Q 07 Prime 15mm f/1.4 and 08 Macro 18mm f/2.0 The Pentax Q 07 Prime 15mm f/1.4 and 08 Macro 18mm f/2.0 lenses? Okay, right now, that's just wishful thinking. (Sorry if I got you over-excited by the thread title). But I'd love to see the above, and also a nice 3-6mm ultrawide. What native Q-system lenses would you most like to see Pentax produce? I personally don't think there's a real need for a longer range telephoto than the 45mm, as there's so many adapted options to achieve that. Last edited by NeilGratton; 12-27-2012 at 03:47 AM.

12-27-2012, 04:15 PM	#13
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Originally posted by wpvv Hi Scott, I am certainly not disagreeing that longer dedicated Q lenses are welcome. I was mainly thinking about the next lens now the 15-45 is there. Hi wpw, I think we can all agree that Pentax should work to fill out the lens line to expand the Q system. Hopefully all the lenses that Qusers (did I just coin a new word?) want to see will become a part of the plan. Scott Edit: Pentax -- make them fast, (max aperture wise. . . and quickly wouldn't hurt either) with very good optics as I know you can, and I'll buy all of them! Last edited by snostorm; 12-27-2012 at 04:40 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 645 A 120mm f/4.0 Macro and A 55 mm f/2.8	hinman	Sold Items	9	11-11-2011 12:20 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax *ist DL, FA 50mm f/1.4, DFA 100mm f/2.8 macro, DA 18-55mm, A 50mm f/2.0	chemxaj	Sold Items	14	05-31-2010 09:34 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K 100mm f/4.0 1:2 Macro, Schneider 135mm f/3.5 (m42), Pentax M 50 f/1.7	hinman	Sold Items	13	10-13-2008 11:14 AM

12-27-2012, 05:24 AM	#2
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	A prime of the 01's quality that is wider, say 5mm at f1.4. Yes, that would do nicely.

12-27-2012, 05:32 AM	#3
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	It seems like it's not just me that wants an ultrawide and a macro.

12-27-2012, 06:07 AM	#4
NeilGratton Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Exeter, Devon Posts: 137 Original Poster	Originally posted by VisualDarkness It seems like it's not just me that wants an ultrawide and a macro. Looks like you have plenty of company. As with ultrawide and particularly macro shots, you typically want to maximise the depth of field, it's somewhere the small sensor may be more advantage than liability. In the absence of a macro, it'd be good to see Q extension tubes.

12-27-2012, 08:20 AM	#5
Clinton Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,910	I would like to see some superfast glass. A 12mm/F0.7 would be neat.

12-27-2012, 10:24 AM	#6
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Originally posted by NeilGratton I personally don't think there's a real need for a longer range telephoto than the 45mm, as there's so many adapted options to achieve that. I disagree. AF and super compact and light weight makes a difference -- but I'm primarily an ultra tele + shooter, and at this point, I seem to be the only one who voted for this option. . . Even I don't see this as a priority, and would like to see a fast wide prime, a faster std zoom and a dedicated macro first for the sake of a well rounded system, but would like to see a fast ultra/super tele prime to fill out the lens lineup eventually. Scott

12-27-2012, 10:56 AM	#7
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by snostorm I disagree. AF and super compact and light weight makes a difference -- but I'm primarily an ultra tele + shooter, and at this point, I seem to be the only one who voted for this option. . . Even I don't see this as a priority, and would like to see a fast wide prime, a faster std zoom and a dedicated macro first for the sake of a well rounded system, but would like to see a fast ultra/super tele prime to fill out the lens lineup eventually. Scott On the fast wide prime - please make it AF. I like my Fish-Eye but would prefer AF on any non-FE lenses in the future.

12-27-2012, 11:37 AM	#8
wpvv Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 251	Telephoto lenses are easily 'made' by the use of a K-adapter. The lack of lenses is on the wide side.

12-27-2012, 02:42 PM	#9
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Originally posted by wpvv Telephoto lenses are easily 'made' by the use of a K-adapter. The lack of lenses is on the wide side. I do no dispute this -- wides would probably make the Q more desirable for a segment of shooters, especially those that seem to like photo fora. Wides and ultra wides will require low single digit FLs, will more difficult to design and build, and will undoubtedly show significant barrel distortion, emphasizing how larger formats are superior for the styles of shooting requiring these lenses. For these, you're fighting the crop factor built into the Q. AF would allow me to use a spotting scope bracketed on the side as an optical viewfinder to shoot in real time, and a Red Dot with an AF lens would allow me to track in real time using AF to shoot long tele for moving subjects with a very light and nimble camera that's easy to hold up to the eye for long periods of time. With an AF lens, I can work around LCD lag and take advantage of the extreme reach allowed by the Q. The growth of the super zoom/travel zoom classes of compact cameras, especially since the first Panasonic FZs and TZs illustrates how the mass market responds to ultra tele and super tele shooting. For these, you're taking advantage of the crop factor of the Q. I've already stated that Pentax should, as a priority, take care of the wide side first, but to dismiss the usefulness of the long side in AF system lenses is to deny the inherent advantage of the format the system is built around. Scott

12-27-2012, 03:04 PM	#10
wpvv Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 251	Hi Scott, I am certainly not disagreeing that longer dedicated Q lenses are welcome. I was mainly thinking about the next lens now the 15-45 is there.

12-27-2012, 03:53 PM	#11
Classico Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Grand Haven, MI Posts: 119	I really want the body cap lens to come out the most

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-27-2012, 04:07 PM	#12
lecoupdejarnac New Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 8	Something like a 100mm 2.8 (or longer, or faster!) for the Q would be awesome. With 550+mm equivalent and autofocus, and reasonably small (compared to adapted lenses, at least), that would be very useful. Right now I plan to travel with my Q + 06 Telephoto, in the same bag as my full-frame Canon 5dMkII. Since long telephoto lenses for my full-frame camera are way too big (and expensive), I can pull out the Q if I see something that requires more reach. Having something that goes beyond the 06 lens would be even better.

12-27-2012, 05:11 PM	#14
emergo Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Coloroado Photos: Gallery Posts: 271	Quote: Qusers (did I just coin a new word?) it looks like you'll have to pay for that URL, though... Qusers.com

12-27-2012, 09:01 PM	#15
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	I would also love a tele prime and a faster normal zoom (the current sadly hits diffraction) but at the same time I don't see them as the most lacking areas. Originally posted by emergo it looks like you'll have to pay for that URL, though... Qusers.com Haha, I wonder if somebody from here will buy it? If I only knew how to make a webpage I would!