[GeneV]

it would be sweet wide enough for most scenes but not too wide for the others. make a great street shooter....

After almost 30 years of using an XA/XA2 for that purpose (same FOV), I can say that has been proven to be true. I can just about shoot that lens from the hip.

[audiobomber]

I only have two issues with the K-01 so far -

1.) why did they have to change the orientation of the 4 way functions again? It is different on my K-5, which doesnt match my K-x - does it use the K-r configuration?
I think the engineers are having fun at our expense

I really hate that. I hate that they reversed buttons on the K20 vs the K-x. It's something I haven't gotten accustomed to after two years and probably never will.

I often wonder if they do this because of sloppy design, or was there is an actual reason.

[Raffwal]

I would like a 28mm lens, since I already own 21mm.

I agree, a 28mm would make a beautiful normal lens on APS-C.

[monochrome]

I didn't read the posts that "hammered" you, but I hope they weren't too abusive.

Meh on the slap down. I'm an "other." (There are serious photographers and . . .others). Dripping with sarcasm was all, as if I should have known that a group of 5 lenses, each less than 12mm FL, was issued by and for Nikon for the F-mount. I'd be surprised if 1000 of the lenses combined were manufactured.

Come to think of it, you could probably say the same about the Rear Converter Ls as well, as they clearly have a protruding element, and shouldn't be fitted to lenses that don't have a recessed rear element, but I don't know if anyone's damaged something in attempting to do so. However, the odds of someone trying this are probably less than trying to fit an XS lens to a DSLR, but both are fairly remote, in my view.

The Rear Converter mounts to a stationary part (lens rear element, so damage is pretty hard to do) - the greater risk is spending money for an accessory that turns out not to fit - so you'd be out a restocking charge. Tamron had 'em - lots of companies had them for specialty extreme-telephoto lenses.

World of difference between that Nikon example and a company known for a 47 year old lens mount, marketing a new camera body as usable with 25,000,000+ legacy lenses, and then making a mass-market lens not usable with 1,000,000 legacy bodies.

It would be at the least good citizenship to make a flange change.

Besides, few have noticed the mystery lens is specifically described as "Production decision not yet made." It could be Vapor-glass.

[isaacc7]

if the retro focus one pictured everywhere is a 24 it will be an excellent companion to the 40

Just a slight nitpick, we've always used retrofocus lenses with Pentax, they never had a rangefinder or mirror less camera before so all of the wide angles had to be retrofocus designs. It isn't clear to me what the advantage of a more symmetrical design would be from an optics point of view on a digital camera. Putting the rear element closer to the sensor will increase the amount of vignetting and color fringing. Is there enough room to out the lens farther back and still be far enough away to avoid those problems?

[sjwaldron]

Well would you look at that... This post I made back in July 2011 was pretty close on the mark:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/151953-k-mount-mirrorl...ill-works.html

[audiobomber]

Well would you look at that... This post I made back in July 2011 was pretty close on the mark:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/151953-k-mount-mirrorl...ill-works.html

Definitely hit the mark. Has your source told you anything about full-frame or new DSLR's?

[isaacc7]

Difference is that deep-recess XS lenses not only won't work on (d)SLR bodies, but could foul or damage the mirrors on such bodies. So a safely-designed XS body must have an XC (extra-crippled) mount to accept XS lenses that WILL NOT MOUNT on PK bodies. Otherwise... somebody please tell me if there's a precedent for this: Has any camera maker ever produced a lens system that would physically damage their previous cameras with the same mount?

Nikon and a couple of other companies made circular fisheye lenses that could only be used with the mirror up. You could easily damage the camera and/or lens if you tried mounting it with the mirror down. Nikon also made a system that was compatible one way and incompatible going the other way. That was the Nikon Pronea. The lenses made for the Pronea wouldn't fit on a regular Nikon SLR, but regular Nikon lenses fit on the Pronea. I think there was an extra flange on there or something that physically prevented you from mounting the IX lenses on a 35mm Nikon.

[sjwaldron]

Definitely hit the mark. Has your source told you anything about full-frame or new DSLR's?

Nope

[audiobomber]

Nope

Well, could you ask again?

[enoxatnep]

I don't really get why they went with the K-0x designation, because the numbering might get confusing eventually. Hopefully they're consistent going froward, though.

They haven't been consistent with *ist D, K10D, K20D, K-5 line (except for the middle two), so I imagine they won't be consistent with the K-0x series.

If there's one thing I've learned about Pentax, they aren't big on consistency. Examples: making D FA and still some FA lenses but no full-frame DSLR, coming out with a 560mm lens that is perfect for outdoor and wildlife photography but not weather-resistant yet making a lens like the DA* 50mm that is, making all of their SDM lenses weather-resistant except for the DA 17-70mm.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I don't really get why they went with the K-0x designation, because the numbering might get confusing eventually. Hopefully they're consistent going froward, though.

With the old scheme, you could only have 9 high end models (K-1 ... K-9) and 26 entry level ones (K-a ... K-z). People were already able to guess that the next model number may be K-3.

Now they can use 99 model numbers K-01 through K-99. It becomes more challenging to guess the next model number. Imagine the discussions - "What will be Pentax's next camera? K-18, K-45, or K-81?"

Also, this speaks of confidence in the long life of the K-mount, a fact that should be comforting to Pentax users everywhere. With this scheme, Pentax shows us they are in for the long run.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I got hammered yesterday for saying Pentax would be irresponsible to allow this.

One thing is clear - Pentax will soon be introducing a new style of rear lens cap!

[Paul MaudDib]

How does Canon do it with the EF-S lenses?

It's the same flange distance, but you put it in the socket at a different angle. There's a white dot for EF lenses and a red one for EF-S, you match the dot on the lens to the body just like normal. It's off by maybe 15 or 30 degrees. Some EF-S lenses (e.x. Tamron 17-50) will actually mount on some FF bodies and can be used with vignetting. That may involve some dremel surgery for some lenses.

[monochrome]

Nikon and a couple of other companies made circular fisheye lenses that could only be used with the mirror up. You could easily damage the camera and/or lens if you tried mounting it with the mirror down.

Yes, as discussed, Nikon and Voigtlander made such lenses, all beneath 11mm, as specialty lenses. We're talking about a mass-market maker selling mass market lenses to mass market consumers.

I cannot imagine Pentax releasing lenses that could damage a K-5 mirror - the K-5 is the current top-of-line dSLR - with just a "Be Careful" warning stuck somewhere in the instructions. All they'll neesd to do is extend one of the ears on the lens flange and make the mirrorless body mount correspond. Traditional K-mount lenses would fit [EDIT:] both mirrored and mirrorless bodies, but new lenses wouldn't fit mirrored bodies.