[Supernaut]

Is there no patent found in this ~135-380 range?
There seems to be lots of patents that never finds its way into real products but too often it's the other way around

[Clavius]

This prediction isn't all that crazy, I think. Pairs up nicely with the DA 18-135. If that 135-380 is released you would almost say that it was the original planning when the 18-135 was initiated.

[repaap]

I'd say that 135-380/4-5.6 seems pretty plausible.
Unlike,
135-380/4.

And even if it would be f 4-5,6 what is called as variable aperture, it is not bad. Better still if it would be good from wide open.

[gazonk]

I see no reason for what would be basically redundant to the 55-300.

It might be sharper than the 55-300 wide open at 300mm, and the extra range is also nice.

(Anyone else think the 55-300 performs poorly at 300mm at almost infinity? I'm very satisfied with the results I get at close range, but far away subjects end up looking pretty "mushy").

[Zygonyx]

I am just assuming the lens "road map" prediction, I would be happier with 72mm objective and 400mm personally, just "reverse guessing" based on Pentax history and strengths...

+1, and please f/4 continuous !
Don't care if this generates 77mm or more (actually 100mm for f/4.... and 72mm filters for f/5.6 !) filters.

[Heie]

A $6500 lens isn't going to do many of US any good, apart from giving us a warm fuzzy feeling that we're tied into a PROFESSIONAL system. I want better IQ and reach than the 55-300, but a fast constant aperture is probably too much to realistically hope for, especially at any sort of sensible size.

I'm apparently not communicating well because I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree that a consumer 400mm zoom is necessary, and both Nikon and Canon have had them for a while to great success. But I'm thinking long term and the secondary and tertiary effects of the pro f/4 zoom. Here's the difference as I see it long term.

• HD DA 135-380mm f/4-5.6 DC WR (MSRP $1999?)
  • Purchased by few current Pentax system owners
  • Not seen as overly tempting to the majority of Canikon observers watching Pentax
    • Little change in overall market share perception of the brand/K-mount system

• HD D FA * 135-380 f/4 ED DC [IF] AW (MSRP $6499, free HD 1.4x AW TC bundled when purchased new)
  • Purchased by very, very few current Pentax system owners
  • Immediately grabs attention of entire professional sport and wildlife photography industry
  • Many rent the combination to "give this and the K-3 a whirl"
    • Fall in love - new Crop Sensor King declared among professional shooters for both body and lens - "Canikon has abandoned the pro crop shooter, Pentax has answered our pleas"
      • Purchase the K-3 + 135-380 f/4 for professional use
        • "I wonder how the K-3 does for travel? This HD 15mm looks quirky but uber tiny, and my D800 + 14-24 is just f'ing HUGE"
          • Gets HOOKED on Pentax premium grade lenses, possibly considering using the K-3 + DA* and Limited line for all purposes

Now magnify that across many, many shooters. More money brought into the system, huge attention and legitimacy across the professional side of the industry (which is what drives the brand perception - that and marketing are the only reason Canikon continue to sell garbage entry level cameras over the K-30 and K-50). Which then leads to more 3rd party support, for example Sigma's eye gets caught and the 120-300 f/2.8 SPORT is now made available for K-mount, bringing even more pro/advanced amateur shooters to the brand - further increases brand legitimacy. More money = more R&D, more marketing, and the 135-380mm f/4-5.6 eventually brought into the mix as well (yes, later than this seemingly imminent arrival).

I'm thinking long term. Not what *I* personally want in a lens right now, because yes, the f/4-5.6 is absolutely more appealing and practical to me personally. But I am not what matters individually to the long term prosperity of the brand and its attractiveness to those who still shun Pentax with "Pentax?! They still make cameras?!"

Lastly, I feel my point is still valid - right now anyone can buy a brand new DA* 60-350 f/4-5.6. And for several hundred dollars less (and still smaller) than the Nikon 80-400 VR, with proven weather sealing and IQ.

Everyone knows that I champion the hell out of Pentax, so much so that it probably has annoyed some of you and made you convinced I was a paid lackey (I'm not ). But if I had any influence at Ricoh R&D, I would persuade them to think top-down every once and a while, and the 135-380 f/4 (f/3.5 is what I'd strive for) is what I would push. They don't have to abandon the consumer WR and Limited line, but there needs to be that pro-grade halo product that entices the pro to have a K-3 + Pentax AW lens at the Super Bowl/Olympics/whatever. The DA 560 flopped at this attempt - there's no kidding outselves in that regard, despite what we all hoped at it's initial leaking.

We have the K-3 guys. It's undisputed that it kicks the crap out of every crop camera out there, competing with some at the FF level for IQ and features. But the lenses aren't there to persuade the vast majority of pros from giving the K mount a chance. How many times have you heard "I wish the K-3 had an F/EF mount." ?

Just the view from my fox hole, anyway. I won't belabor the point further.

(Anyone else think the 55-300 performs poorly at 300mm at almost infinity? I'm very satisfied with the results I get at close range, but far away subjects end up looking pretty "mushy").

This was the HD 55-300 when I tested it for the in-depth review here (not the full review, just one picture, but too large to embed here). All of the moons are 100% crops for each combination in that picture. I recommend saving that to your desktop and then viewing it - opening it up in your browser will likely not show the full resolution of the image (over 2400px wide).

-Heie

[Sandy Hancock]

I hear ya Alex. I just don't think it's gonna happen.

[Clavius]

I'm apparently not communicating well because I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree that a consumer 400mm zoom is necessary, and both Nikon and Canon have had them for a while to great success. But I'm thinking long term and the secondary and tertiary effects of the pro f/4 zoom. Here's the difference as I see it long term.

• HD DA 135-380mm f/4-5.6 DC WR (MSRP $1999?)
  • Purchased by few current Pentax system owners
  • Not seen as overly tempting to the majority of Canikon observers watching Pentax
    • Little change in overall market share perception of the brand/K-mount system

• HD D FA * 135-380 f/4 ED DC [IF] AW (MSRP $6499, free HD 1.4x AW TC bundled when purchased new)
  • Purchased by very, very few current Pentax system owners
  • Immediately grabs attention of entire professional sport and wildlife photography industry
  • Many rent the combination to "give this and the K-3 a whirl"
    • Fall in love - new Crop Sensor King declared among professional shooters for both body and lens - "Canikon has abandoned the pro crop shooter, Pentax has answered our pleas"
      • Purchase the K-3 + 135-380 f/4 for professional use
        • "I wonder how the K-3 does for travel? This HD 15mm looks quirky but uber tiny, and my D800 + 14-24 is just f'ing HUGE"
          • Gets HOOKED on Pentax premium grade lenses, possibly considering using the K-3 + DA* and Limited line for all purposes

Now magnify that across many, many shooters. More money brought into the system, huge attention and legitimacy across the professional side of the industry (which is what drives the brand perception - that and marketing are the only reason Canikon continue to sell garbage entry level cameras over the K-30 and K-50). Which then leads to more 3rd party support, for example Sigma's eye gets caught and the 120-300 f/2.8 SPORT is now made available for K-mount, bringing even more pro/advanced amateur shooters to the brand - further increases brand legitimacy. More money = more R&D, more marketing, and the 135-380mm f/4-5.6 eventually brought into the mix as well (yes, later than this seemingly imminent arrival).

I'm thinking long term. Not what *I* personally want in a lens right now, because yes, the f/4-5.6 is absolutely more appealing and practical to me personally. But I am not what matters individually to the long term prosperity of the brand and its attractiveness to those who still shun Pentax with "Pentax?! They still make cameras?!"

Lastly, I feel my point is still valid - right now anyone can buy a brand new DA* 60-350 f/4-5.6. And for several hundred dollars less (and still smaller) than the Nikon 80-400 VR, with proven weather sealing and IQ.

Everyone knows that I champion the hell out of Pentax, so much so that it probably has annoyed some of you and made you convinced I was a paid lackey (I'm not ). But if I had any influence at Ricoh R&D, I would persuade them to think top-down every once and a while, and the 135-380 f/4 (f/3.5 is what I'd strive for) is what I would push. They don't have to abandon the consumer WR and Limited line, but there needs to be that pro-grade halo product that entices the pro to have a K-3 + Pentax AW lens at the Super Bowl/Olympics/whatever. The DA 560 flopped at this attempt - there's no kidding outselves in that regard, despite what we all hoped at it's initial leaking.

We have the K-3 guys. It's undisputed that it kicks the crap out of every crop camera out there, competing with some at the FF level for IQ and features. But the lenses aren't there to persuade the vast majority of pros from giving the K mount a chance. How many times have you heard "I wish the K-3 had an F/EF mount." ?

Just the view from my fox hole, anyway. I won't belabor the point further.



This was the HD 55-300 when I tested it for the in-depth review here (not the full review, just one picture, but too large to embed here). All of the moons are 100% crops for each combination in that picture. I recommend saving that to your desktop and then viewing it - opening it up in your browser will likely not show the full resolution of the image (over 2400px wide).

-Heie

One vote for Heie to become head of Pentax marketing from me.

[gazonk]

This was the HD 55-300 when I tested it for the in-depth review here (not the full review, just one picture, but too large to embed here).[/URL] All of the moons are 100% crops for each combination in that picture. I recommend saving that to your desktop and then viewing it - opening it up in your browser will likely not show the full resolution of the image (over 2400px wide).

Thanks! I've been pretty satisfied with moon shots with the SMC DA 55-300 with the K-5 myself, but it's interesting to see how the 60-250 actually provides more detail.

I think the kind of subjects that have disappointed me is remote landscapes (foliage etc.) - but I may of course have been unlucky with the focus.

[repaap]

I have noticed that if you miss focus with DA 55-300 WR, you will end up with hazyness. does not have to be much oof. But if spot on, it will be good.

[GlassJunkie]

I'm apparently not communicating well because I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree that a consumer 400mm zoom is necessary, and both Nikon and Canon have had them for a while to great success. But I'm thinking long term and the secondary and tertiary effects of the pro f/4 zoom. Here's the difference as I see it long term.

• HD DA 135-380mm f/4-5.6 DC WR (MSRP $1999?)
  • Purchased by few current Pentax system owners
  • Not seen as overly tempting to the majority of Canikon observers watching Pentax
    • Little change in overall market share perception of the brand/K-mount system

• HD D FA * 135-380 f/4 ED DC [IF] AW (MSRP $6499, free HD 1.4x AW TC bundled when purchased new)
  • Purchased by very, very few current Pentax system owners
  • Immediately grabs attention of entire professional sport and wildlife photography industry
  • Many rent the combination to "give this and the K-3 a whirl"
    • Fall in love - new Crop Sensor King declared among professional shooters for both body and lens - "Canikon has abandoned the pro crop shooter, Pentax has answered our pleas"
      • Purchase the K-3 + 135-380 f/4 for professional use
        • "I wonder how the K-3 does for travel? This HD 15mm looks quirky but uber tiny, and my D800 + 14-24 is just f'ing HUGE"
          • Gets HOOKED on Pentax premium grade lenses, possibly considering using the K-3 + DA* and Limited line for all purposes

Now magnify that across many, many shooters. More money brought into the system, huge attention and legitimacy across the professional side of the industry (which is what drives the brand perception - that and marketing are the only reason Canikon continue to sell garbage entry level cameras over the K-30 and K-50). Which then leads to more 3rd party support, for example Sigma's eye gets caught and the 120-300 f/2.8 SPORT is now made available for K-mount, bringing even more pro/advanced amateur shooters to the brand - further increases brand legitimacy. More money = more R&D, more marketing, and the 135-380mm f/4-5.6 eventually brought into the mix as well (yes, later than this seemingly imminent arrival).

I'm thinking long term. Not what *I* personally want in a lens right now, because yes, the f/4-5.6 is absolutely more appealing and practical to me personally. But I am not what matters individually to the long term prosperity of the brand and its attractiveness to those who still shun Pentax with "Pentax?! They still make cameras?!"

Lastly, I feel my point is still valid - right now anyone can buy a brand new DA* 60-350 f/4-5.6. And for several hundred dollars less (and still smaller) than the Nikon 80-400 VR, with proven weather sealing and IQ.

Everyone knows that I champion the hell out of Pentax, so much so that it probably has annoyed some of you and made you convinced I was a paid lackey (I'm not ). But if I had any influence at Ricoh R&D, I would persuade them to think top-down every once and a while, and the 135-380 f/4 (f/3.5 is what I'd strive for) is what I would push. They don't have to abandon the consumer WR and Limited line, but there needs to be that pro-grade halo product that entices the pro to have a K-3 + Pentax AW lens at the Super Bowl/Olympics/whatever. The DA 560 flopped at this attempt - there's no kidding outselves in that regard, despite what we all hoped at it's initial leaking.

We have the K-3 guys. It's undisputed that it kicks the crap out of every crop camera out there, competing with some at the FF level for IQ and features. But the lenses aren't there to persuade the vast majority of pros from giving the K mount a chance. How many times have you heard "I wish the K-3 had an F/EF mount." ?

Just the view from my fox hole, anyway. I won't belabor the point further.



This was the HD 55-300 when I tested it for the in-depth review here (not the full review, just one picture, but too large to embed here). All of the moons are 100% crops for each combination in that picture. I recommend saving that to your desktop and then viewing it - opening it up in your browser will likely not show the full resolution of the image (over 2400px wide).

-Heie

I Hear Ya Alex #2,,,,, But I agree, the "Base" may hold off the "wideies" for a bit. I love primo glass and still have to use a FA*300mm F2.8 for the long reach. Haven't seen a 250-600 for a year that was in good shape. Or a 200mm F4 Macro in 2yrs.....

BTW: I believe that the K3 structurally shanged the viability of the sector. There are no reduced size pro lenses in CaNikon. Want tough, small, High IQ.... Pentax for sure. although it cound be a soldier that's 5'8", boxes, and is a Mensa member too...

I am so riding in the back seat of the MRAP you are driving! THX

[Uluru]

No one said a 135-380 variable aperture wouldn't be desireable or high IQ. But it isn't "pro."
...
-Heie

I am not saying that what you desire is not justified in some way.
But don't expect too much as it is obvious by now they have no desire to be more than a value brand.
Good value, low profile, minimum expense for marketing, simplest possible lineup, minimum investment in new lenses, etc.
Not pro.

[repaap]

um, Well pentax has many areas that could say that it is pro.

Looking at interviews, main interest is not speed in lenses, because greater ISO speed advantage/old days. Not because being as value brand/pro.

[GlassJunkie]

A debate issue... IMHO...

Isn't "Pro" something someone makes money with? There are photojournalists out there with Lumix "pocket rockets", Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, and Olympus (decline).... And a GOOD number of reporters and "paid photogaphers use Pentax for size. Not everyone uses "white" or Canikon. Then there are the MF guys. Simply stated... IQ and portability for outdoors, IQ and light (MF) indoors. Product photogs are the widest variants, since everything is "washed" in a PC or Mac later.

"Pro" gear is the most hyped, fleece the consumer, stroke the "gear head" ego, pay more for an inferior product play out there. Unless you have a DOF need, FF doesn't cut it. You need 50+ mp in a FF to TOUCH an APSC at 24mp. Simple physics and optical engineering. Yesteryear's "large formats" are today's MFs. The top scans of 645 were 40mp, what Hassy and Pentax already deliver....

More military and surveillance types use K mounts, (DUE TO SIZE, COST, TOUGHNESS). I see a ton of Pentax (modern day) glass from military and mountaineers than others. Why? Weight and IQ acceptability.... Same with Kayakers. IMO- Heie, our US Military Friend in Germany is DOBA - dead on b@!!z accurate....) in his marketing assessment and also what is practical.... WE all love big apertures..... Some have financial constraints, some "bad backs".

Composition and a steady technique, decent glass, and now a PC, makes the FF argument look like "kook aid" drinking...

IMHO

[jeffshaddix]

@Heie, I agree - it's interesting to me that they'd release a gigantic 560mm prime lens that's essentially in that same "pro" class before a pro sport telephoto zoom. I think the latter would serve as a better loss-leader to raise sales of bodies and other lenses.

As for the OP, my requirements are DC and WR. I want something compelling enough to compete with the Sigma 100-300/4 - doubtful that the IQ would be as good, but if it was close and had the features I'd be interested. Of course what I'm describing really is just the 60-250/4 but longer and DC; I like the idea of a two zoom kit with the 18-135.