[pres589]

Realistic rumor: Pentax K1 silver edition with leather , at fotokina.

Someone with better image manipulation skill than I have should work up a gold & brown version of the K-1 ala the special LX and get that rumor started.

[RonHendriks1966]

Realistic rumor: Pentax K1 silver edition with leather , at fotokina.

I vote for gunmetal.

[mecrox]

Here is a list of the 6 modern Pentax K-mount lenses, none of the them just screw-drive, none of them old-SDM, all WR or better, all very good for Pentax APS-C cameras, released in the last 16 months or so:

Pentax DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE
Pentax D FA 15-30mm F2.8 ED SDM WR
Pentax D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR
Pentax D FA 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR
Pentax D FA* 70-200mm F2.8ED DC AW
Pentax D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC AW

I have all 5 of the D FA lenses in this list, and I use both the 70-200mm and 150-450mm a lot for action photography such as motorsports and "things in flight". (I used both of these on K-3-series APS-C cameras for those subjects before I had a K-1).

Note: 6 lenses for APS-C cameras; only 5 lenses for the K-1.

That's mostly an FF list, lol. Very big, very expensive and focal lengths which don't fit well in crop format in some cases. I think you have kindly proved my point. My guess is from now on the lens catalogue is going to go Canonikony style which is likely to mean that the benefits of increasingly sophisticated AF will not filter through all that well to crop format cameras. Modern lenses that make sense for APS-C will be the limiting factor. That's fine by me, incidentally, but what I don't understand is why some folks insist on pretending otherwise. In this regard, it will be interesting to see whether Pentax continue to make high-end APS-C bodies and then do a Canonikon by trying to sell APS-C buyers those more profitable FF lens items or whether APS-C is gradually downgraded to mass-market status with the goodies reserved for FF.

[redrockcoulee]

Are you seriously suggesting that 15-30mm and 24-70mm are suitable focal lengths for APS-C? It's quite hard to imagine. The 70-200mm is stretching it, imho, and quite a few folks would find 28-105mm pretty limiting as well. I think you have kindly proved my point. This is mainly an FF list, with very high sticker prices and size/weight to match in some cases, which can be presented as APS-C one by virtue of the mount, but few are going to be taken in, I would suggest, and at these prices even fewer will bite. Where is, for example, a modern 12-24mm, a fast-focusing 50-135mm or a prime with a lens motor that comes out at 35mm or 50mm equivalent in crop format? My guess is that they are not going to be made, because from now on the lens catalogue is going to go Canonikony style which is likely to mean that the benefits of increasingly sophisticated AF will not filter through all that well to crop format cameras. Lenses will be the limiting factor. That's fine by me, incidentally, but what I don't understand is why some folks insist on pretending otherwise.

I would think that more people are likely to have a different idea of the future then are simply pretending not to agree with you. AS a APS-C user I would be very disappointed if Pentax was currently putting as much effort on DA lenses are they are on D FA ones. There are still lots of DA lenses on the market and they need more D FA ones right now. If Pentax does not come out with a DA lens in the next two years then maybe you are correct except that they did this year. Once a company is making large expensive lenses then it makes no sense to make a DA only version. How much smaller would a 400 2.8 DA only be over a 400 2.38 D FA? Not enough to make two versions.

When I shot with Nikon all their cameras were DX but most of the big lenses, if not all of them were FX ones and that is prior to the FF coming out.

[mecrox]

I would think that more people are likely to have a different idea of the future then are simply pretending not to agree with you. AS a APS-C user I would be very disappointed if Pentax was currently putting as much effort on DA lenses are they are on D FA ones. There are still lots of DA lenses on the market and they need more D FA ones right now. If Pentax does not come out with a DA lens in the next two years then maybe you are correct except that they did this year. Once a company is making large expensive lenses then it makes no sense to make a DA only version. How much smaller would a 400 2.8 DA only be over a 400 2.38 D FA? Not enough to make two versions.

When I shot with Nikon all their cameras were DX but most of the big lenses, if not all of them were FX ones and that is prior to the FF coming out.

The problem is this: what do you do if most of your users are on APS-C and it is clear they intend to stay there? Canon and Nikon have spent many years now putting their APS-C users on bread-and-water rations in lens terms and spending a fortune on promoting FF as the answer to the life, the universe and everything else. Users don't seem impressed so far and mostly they aren't budging. This has also been a problem because meanwhile 25 per cent or so of users have drifted away to mirrorless cameras, an unknown number have drifted out of cameras all together, and Sigma and Tamron have reinvented themselves and taken a much bigger slice of aftermarket lens sales.

So far as I can see, it is a profits ramp by the three DSLR camera companies. When digital arrived, they did not repurpose their businesses but soldiered on, bolting on bits of digital here and there as they turned up. And as soon as sensible FF sensors arrived, Canon and Nikon adopted them and started aiming their lens catalogues at the FF market above all because they believed that FF is where all the money is. But most of their customers aren't in this market and there is no evidence they ever will be.

I don't think this promises a happy outcome, because I suspect that there aren't enough FF users to go round. The old DSLR companies have got themselves into a position where they need all those APS-C users to go on buying cameras but at the same time the companies seem to have convinced themselves that satisfying APS-C customers beyond the basics is bad for business because a satisfied APS-C customer isn't going to move up to FF. Short term it probably all looks so good - just look at those FF margins, the sticker prices, the publicity, etc. - but long term I think it is probably a trap. I'm rather with Thom Hogan on this: the future doesn't lie in bigger cameras, which for the most part customers don't want, but in better cameras. I just hope Pentax doesn't join Canon and Nikon in the naughty corner

[reh321]

I don't think this promises a happy outcome, because I suspect that there aren't enough FF users to go round. The old DSLR companies have got themselves into a position where they need all those APS-C users to go on buying cameras but at the same time the companies seem to have convinced themselves that satisfying APS-C customers beyond the basics is bad for business because a satisfied APS-C customer isn't going to move up to FF. Short term it probably all looks so good - just look at those FF margins, the sticker prices, the publicity, etc. - but long term I think it is probably a trap. I'm rather with Thom Hogan on this: the future doesn't lie in bigger cameras, which for the most part customers don't want, but in better cameras. I just hope Pentax doesn't join Canon and Nikon in the naughty corner

We will have better information in just nineteen days {can everyone hold on that long??}

The most recent announcements from Pentax have been APS-C .... K-70 and the new 55-300mm PLM lens, so pessimism is by no means justified.

[clackers]

The problem is this: what do you do if most of your users are on APS-C and it is clear they intend to stay there? Canon and Nikon have spent many years now putting their APS-C users on bread-and-water rations in lens terms and spending a fortune on promoting FF as the answer to the life, the universe and everything else.

With all due respect, @Mecrox, you are the one creating this artificial divide, not us.

I use the DA*55 as the normal walkaround prime on my K-1. Am I supposed to not do that?

I use the FA 77 as a fantastic portrait lens on my K-S2 - it's probably a more useful FoV for head and shoulders than it is on FF, where it's a little short, to be quite frank.

The new longer lenses like the modern, sharp, WR and quick AF D FA 70-200 and D FA 150-450 become even longer and better for wildlife and sport on APS-C than they are on FF. WIth the K-3II they'd make for a much better action combination than on the K-1. Somewhere Normhead is screaming in agreement.

The converse is that the D FA 15-30 isn't super wide by APS-C standards, but that's why lenses like the 12-24, Sigma 10-20 and 8-16 exist.

[mecrox]

With all due respect, @Mecrox, you are the one creating this artificial divide, not us.

I use the DA*55 as the normal walkaround prime on my K-1. Am I supposed to not do that?

I use the FA 77 as a fantastic portrait lens on my K-S2 - it's probably a more useful FoV for head and shoulders than it is on FF, where it's a little short, to be quite frank.

The new longer lenses like the modern, sharp, WR and quick AF D FA 70-200 and D FA 150-450 become even longer and better for wildlife and sport on APS-C than they are on FF. WIth the K-3II they'd make for a much better action combination than on the K-1. Somewhere Normhead is screaming in agreement.

The converse is that the D FA 15-30 isn't super wide by APS-C standards, but that's why lenses like the 12-24, Sigma 10-20 and 8-16 exist.

The difference between crop and full formats looks pretty real to me. One is distinctly larger than the other. Artificial, you say ...

You keep forgetting that this started with a consideration of the question of modern lenses in the context of steadily improving AF on APS-C. Something tells me that most APS-C customers are unlikely to buy the DFA 70-200mm as their go-to telephoto on crop format, unless they wanted lumbago and and had a pocket book of large proportions. No one questions its top-drawer quality but isn't the point. The DA* 55mm was designed as a portrait lens. It has a high price, a long focus throw and by modern standards an out-of-date motor. My guess is that it would not be many people's first choice of walkaround lens on a crop-format Pentax with AF to the standard of a D500. What they'd be more likely to prefer would be around 35mm f1.8 on FF (50mm on APS-C) with a fast motor. But there isn't one. Looking forward to its release over here.

[alamo5000]

Just for the record I can't stand these damn 'rumor' threads.

I've never purchased a rumor.

A rumor has never helped me become a better photographer.

And even if the rumors turn out to be true (whatever they are) it doesn't assist me even in the slightest bit until whatever they are supposedly making comes to market and I can MAYBE get it.

These rumor mill threads are like dealing with a bunch of teenage girls...

[asahi man]

Realistic rumor: Pentax K1 silver edition with leather , at fotokina.

Don't think so.
Till now the silver edition was starting during the last production run of the current model.
The K-1 is still in the beginning of its model life.
But,Ricoh is a little bit special for sure.
Maybe they make a step near the regular walk,cause of the successful K-1.
But till today nothing to hear about a silver one.
The current important building side for Ricoh is the Pentax lens line up.
There are a lots of prototypes and studies of nice pro lenses and also amateur line.
And the last Pentax poll was showing what's going on.
Best regards

[clackers]

The difference between crop and full formats looks pretty real to me. One is distinctly larger than the other. Artificial, you say ....

You're being obtuse - we were talking about the lenses and their mounts, not the size of the sensor. I shoot both formats, you - well, I don't know about.

On other platforms, you can find for instance that older Nikon F lenses can mount but not be autofocused by a Nikon APS-C camera - only the top models have screwdrives in their bodies. This is not a Pentax problem. I don't think you can put Canon EF-S lenses on Canon FF bodies, either. Again, this is not a Pentax problem.

The new Pentax zooms are not DA or FA, they are D FA.

You keep forgetting that this started with a consideration of the question of modern lenses in the context of steadily improving AF on APS-C. Something tells me that most APS-C customers are unlikely to buy the DFA 70-200mm as their go-to telephoto on crop format.

Why not? Its performance, weight and price is completely typical of a professional f2.8 70-200 lens.

If you want a cheapie, the upcoming 55-300 is APS-C, has internal motor and a new aperture mechanism. I thought you said Pentax were doing nothing new in APS-C? It can pair up with the 18-50 collapsible, yet another new Pentax APS-C lens, for a standard two lens kit.

You might not think much of the DA*60-250 or DA* 50-135, but I do ... I've bought the latter.

And read the D FA 28-105 review here. It's sharp across the frame, internal motor, affordable, and a great size - practically an update of the beloved 18-135mm.

The DA* 55mm was designed as a portrait lens. It has a high price, a long focus throw and by modern standards an out-of-date motor. My guess is that it would not be many people's first choice of walkaround lens on a crop-format Pentax with AF to the standard of a D500. What they'd be more likely to prefer would be around 35mm f1.8 on FF (50mm on APS-C) with a fast motor. But there isn't one. Looking forward to its release over here.

I find it to be a sensational portrait lens on APS-C. You talk about a walkaround, but remember I use it as that on my K-1. On my K-S2 I resort to the FA31. Poor me! :-D The beauty of the K-mount is that for that FoV there's a great lens for everyone - it can be the DA35 Macro or the Sigma 35mm Art or the old K28 f3.5. Note that two of those three are actually full frame.

It sounds like you have not read about the Pentax D FA roadmap. Let me quote:

"The D FA roadmap above hints at five new D FA lenses expected in 2017 or later: wide-aperture ultra-wide, standard, and short telephoto primes, a wide-angle prime, and a fish-eye zoom. The exact specs of these lenses remain unknown, but it would make sense for them to cover popular focal lengths such as 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, etc."

Are you still wringing your hands with worry?

As for the D500 comparison, shame on you! You're asking Pentax owners to pony up $2000 for a cropped sensor camera? I suspect that's a very small percentage of a very small percentage who are willing to do that.

[reh321]

....
I don't think you can put Canon EF-S lenses on Canon FF bodies, either. Again, this is not a Pentax problem..

You are correct.

The mount is specifically designed to make that a physical impossibility, because the mirror of a FF body would hit the rear of an EF-S lens.

[Nicolas06]

The APSC line overall has many lenses. We may not need neither dedicated APSC teles. After all DA*200, DA*300 seems to be FF design and nobody complained back in time. What would be nice to me overs the next years:

- DA16-50, DA50-135 f/2.8 lens to be upgraded with fast focussing and for the 16-50 also better optics if possible. And of course reliability.
- The successor of 12-24, promized for years to actually come with DC and WR.
- Maybe a new version DA15 with less field curvature.

If the first point hasn't been done in the 5 next years, then we will be able to say that Pentax don't focus on APSC anymore.

[biz-engineer]

A lot of people still use apsc dslr, but this is legacy. A camera company for doing business is more interested in new purchases vs maintenance of legacy. Camera company consider if someone would select a new camera model, what would it mean in terms of selection and how to manage that the new product is being chosen versus another one. Since mirrorless has taken off , nowadays it makes no sense to reduce size on dslr lenses because dslr and smaller lenses never compete with mirrorless for size, except when used with lenses >150mm. The way I see it, rationally, the market for dslr and mirrorless now split in two: small size = mirrorless, firepower for longlenses = DSLR. It makes no sense to save size on a mirrorless body and lose that advantage with mounting a 3kg lens on it, and even, small mirrorless is really not convenient to handle long lenses. In terms of being able to fit a camera and lenses into a camera bag, the concept of small apsc lenses for dslr has lost some appeal versus mirrorless. I could certainly fit a mirrorless and pancake lens without carrying an camera bag; with is not possible with a apsc dslr or ff dslr. When I go shooting with dslr + walkaround zoom, I need an extra bag, this is not different is the DSLR is full frame or apsc. Then of course, legacy being, there will always be users having heterogeneous camera systems such as large dlsr with tiny standard prime and super fast AF for shooting a flower, landscape or cityscapes, tiny mirroless with slow af tracking mounted on 400mm lens for shooting birds in flight... but that won't be me :-)

[Barry Pearson]

That's mostly an FF list, lol. Very big, very expensive and focal lengths which don't fit well in crop format in some cases. I think you have kindly proved my point. My guess is from now on the lens catalogue is going to go Canonikony style which is likely to mean that the benefits of increasingly sophisticated AF will not filter through all that well to crop format cameras. Modern lenses that make sense for APS-C will be the limiting factor. That's fine by me, incidentally, but what I don't understand is why some folks insist on pretending otherwise. In this regard, it will be interesting to see whether Pentax continue to make high-end APS-C bodies and then do a Canonikon by trying to sell APS-C buyers those more profitable FF lens items or whether APS-C is gradually downgraded to mass-market status with the goodies reserved for FF.

Those focal lengths are very good for APS-C cameras, with the possible exception of the D FA 15-30mm (which I've never used on an APS-C camera).

24-70mm: When I bought a Pentax *istD, one of the early lenses I bought for it was a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 for studio work. (It was FF, but not the latest such Sigma). I used that for years for that purpose. I bought the D FA version, long before I had a K-1, for similar reasons.

70-200mm: I pre-ordered the D FA version for use on the K-3-series in February 2015, long before there was a K-1 to seriously think about. It took a long time arriving, but I still used it (typically for motorsports) on a K-3II.

150-450mm: I pre-ordered the D FA version for use on the K-3-series in February 2015, long before there was a K-1 to seriously think about. It was then my most used lens (for motorsports and "things in flight"), from May 2015 for nearly a year until I got the 70-200mm to take over for motorsports.

28-105mm: This is probably not very useful as a single carry-around lens on an APS-C camera, (although it does make sense on a K-1), but it would make sense to accompany a wide angle prime or zoom as part of a two-lens set.

Note how I exploited the 70-200mm and 150-450mm for action shooting on K-3-series. They would be very useful for many of the people who want to shoot action on any future APS-C camera with better AF and burst rate. I think the next APS-C flagship camera will have the same or better AF as the K-1, (SAFOX 12 at least), and a burst rate higher than the K-3-series, so it will be a useful improvement (although not at D500 level) over the K-3II for action photography. And these two lenses will work well with it.

It is seen that, for me, these lenses enhanced the K-3-series cameras. They will enhance the next APS-C flagship camera for many people too, as will the new D FA primes to be launched next year or so.

Observation: you complained earlier about "screwdrive lenses, older film-era lenses and SDM lenses" and said "if people want markedly improved AF performance, then one needs modern lenses that are up to this more demanding task". I've showed that Ricoh have recently delivered lenses that match your criteria. But .... your second sentence in your quote above is a criticism about price. Is it price, rather than the technical factors you mentioned, that is really behind your criticisms?

---------- Post added 2nd Sep 2016 at 07:41 AM ----------

That is a very expensive list.

Chuckle!

But it is worth noting that no lenses were withdrawn as a result of launching those 6 new lenses.

What I'm seeing is that Ricoh are increasing the breadth and depth of the total K-mount range. (Lenses especially. But also cameras, although with some rationalisation).

I'm not seeing signs that Ricoh simply want to churn their current customer base.