[pinholecam]

Yes, those look very tempting + the new A55. All you would need is the Sigma 10-20mm and you'd be set. Given what I've read about the A55, it looks like that's a better option than a new Pentax body. That said I don't need anything longer than 85mm so I'm probably an exception.

You should really see its floor wiping 'DPR GOLD' high ISO JPEG performance.
Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

[stanleyk]

You should really see its floor wiping 'DPR GOLD' high ISO JPEG performance.
Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

I dunno, I never really shoot JPEG files on the K7 or KX. I do shoot JPEGS on the E-P2 because it's kind of a toy camera in a way. One that I really like though. I also never shoot over ISO 400 so I'm not really sure that high ISO files are important to me. That's probably why I've stuck with Pentax all these years. I'm not too much into to comparing files and crops. I print everything so if it prints OK between ISO 200 and 400 then I'm fine with it.

I tend to trust review sites like Luminous Landscape. Their initial review of the A55 was quite positive. I'm in the market for a ASPC body to go with the E-P2. The Sony looks very tempting. I really like the E-P2 viewfinder since I only manual focus. The Sony appears to be similar. I'm going to probably try one out and if I like the viewfinder that's the one I'll go with. The nice thing about the E-P2 is I can still use my old mount Pentax lenses (K and M42). Then all I'll have to do is get a 3-4 set of Sony prime lenses.

Sad thing is I probably can't get too much for the KX or K7. I have all the DA Limiteds but I use them on the E-P2 except the 40mm. You just can't manual focus that lens. The focus ring is too small. That's probably the only Pentax product I've ever bought that I've really regretted.

[pinholecam]

I dunno, I never really shoot JPEG files on the K7 or KX. I do shoot JPEGS on the E-P2 because it's kind of a toy camera in a way. One that I really like though. I also never shoot over ISO 400 so I'm not really sure that high ISO files are important to me. That's probably why I've stuck with Pentax all these years. I'm not too much into to comparing files and crops. I print everything so if it prints OK between ISO 200 and 400 then I'm fine with it.

I tend to trust review sites like Luminous Landscape. Their initial review of the A55 was quite positive. I'm in the market for a ASPC body to go with the E-P2. The Sony looks very tempting. I really like the E-P2 viewfinder since I only manual focus. The Sony appears to be similar. I'm going to probably try one out and if I like the viewfinder that's the one I'll go with. The nice thing about the E-P2 is I can still use my old mount Pentax lenses (K and M42). Then all I'll have to do is get a 3-4 set of Sony prime lenses.

Sad thing is I probably can't get too much for the KX or K7. I have all the DA Limiteds but I use them on the E-P2 except the 40mm. You just can't manual focus that lens. The focus ring is too small. That's probably the only Pentax product I've ever bought that I've really regretted.

Well if that does it for you

There is also the Samsung NX10 with a EVF, APS-C, nice small lenses and Pentax adapter.

[alexeyga]

Slow APS-C lens - is it what we want? it's ridiculously....Everyone can afford FA35/2 for USD250, but marketing killed this lens.

Wow... I'm sure everybody could afford it at 250$... that is if it was selling for 250$ as last time i've checked, somebody was unloading a whole bunch of brand new ones at 550$ on the marketplace... and used ones go for 400-475...

Somehow Nikon's 35/1.8 at 200$ (160-180$ used) seems a lot more attractive... Nevermind the AF-D 35/2 (225-275$US used), which is a far superior lens...

Unfortunately Pentax marketing appears to be killing a lot of great things lately... including the company...

[ogl]

Wow... I'm sure everybody could afford it at 250$... that is if it was selling for 250$ as last time i've checked, somebody was unloading a whole bunch of brand new ones at 550$ on the marketplace... and used ones go for 400-475...

Somehow Nikon's 35/1.8 at 200$ (160-180$ used) seems a lot more attractive... Nevermind the AF-D 35/2 (225-275$US used), which is a far superior lens...

Unfortunately Pentax marketing appears to be killing a lot of great things lately... including the company...

I said about old prices for FA35/2...

[alexeyga]

I said about old prices for FA35/2...

At old prices Pentax gear was very attractive over the C/N... But Today one must think 100 times before choosing Pentax for the same price (and often more expensive) than Canon and Nikon offerings...

[stanleyk]

Well if that does it for you

There is also the Samsung NX10 with a EVF, APS-C, nice small lenses and Pentax adapter.

I thought about the Samsung. The one reason I'm considering the Sony is I might at some point want to graduate to their A900. That's a very nice camera it's just really big and heavy so.....

I used one recently. Unfortunately it had this huge zoom lens on it so I'd like to hold off judgement on the camera until I could try it out with a prime lens.

I just prefer smaller cameras. Basically if I have a wide, normal, portrait and 100mm Macro, I'm pretty set on lenses. The only zoom I use is the Sigma 10-20 for K mount and the Panasonic 7-14 for M 4/3.

I've been a loyal Pentax user for years but at this juncture, I'm not sure if Sony isn't a better option for me for ASPC given the A55. I find the KX to be fundamentally useless for me due to it's bad viewfinder.

Now if someone (besides) Leica would make a digital rangefinder......... I have an M3 I got second had. Now that's a camera!

[deejjjaaaa]

You can forget the cheap 24. That's an FF FL and was never really cheap in 35mm days.

really ? I purchased 24-60/2.8 FF zoom from Sigma was like $200 (EX, metal one)... now get rid of extra glass, etc that makes it a zoom and FF one and you can get a better 24/2.8 APS-C fix for less... that is just a marketing decision about price - nothing about actual cost.

[Uluru]

What about Pentax?

Slow DA70/2.4, DA35/2.8, DA40/2.8, non-cheap DA*55/1.4....Hmmmmm.

It's not slow. That's thinking form ages ago, from film days, and people still believe that crazy myth for some odd reason. Same as thinking big Cray supercomputer is better because it's bigger than today's iMac, which is better than Cray in every other way than in its size.

Give me "slow" but optically excellent DA40 f2.8 and I'll give you tons of cheap 50mm/1.4 for a swap. Take all of them. It's Canon, Nikon and especially old dog Zeiss who still play that old, boring game for people who haven't changed their thinking yet.

All Pentax primes will be three times faster and three times more valuable on a new body with several extra clear f-stops gained from capable sensor alone. We're just stepped into the territory that shifts digital photography away from film by a second huge step ahead: 1. not just with clearer / more defined image (for those who like that feature), but also 2. super hi-iso capability, unthinkable before. So far with our K20Ds, K-7s, etc. we have had just that first step ahead and thus same need for big, super-fast lenses. Big, prestige glass. Something we can be proud of and gloat about. But with K-x and new toys around .. it changes.

With Pentax now you actually have more better, smaller and capable choices, but many people don't realise that. All this was unthinkable in an old world where f1.4 was a paragon of a good photography. But those extra digital f-stops ahead change our needs and perceptions about lenses too, size of our DSLR equipment, etc. Yet we refuse to see it. There's something romantic about it, I admit. Makes us look like brontosauruses in love. :-)

PS. I know, I know, someone will jump in and say it's also about DoF, not just light gathering. However, optically excellent f2.8 lens will have a far better bohkeh and clarity from start than some mediocre 1.4 lens stepped down, but priced and produced to catch sales only. It's quality, baby, it always shines, even if its small. ;-)

PPS. Hoya got this right, my friend. They bet on future, not on past thinking.

[Ratmagiclady]

We will see...DA-L30/2.1 - not bad.

Yeah, I'd rather see a 30ish, f2 ish new lens, give people an entry-level Pentax prime to start really blowing away all the other entry level cameras.

I'd really be a good candidate for an FA 31, (Money, though) it's quite reasonable in size, and would fit pretty well into how I like to carry. I'm presently using a big Sigma 28/1.8, which suits me, but is just so huge there'd even be room for something smaller in my kit... for days when it's too much to carry heavy.

I do think Pentax will do well to get an affordable normal prime out there.

[ewalk]

If Hoya/Pentax release a 30mm f/2ish prime, I'd buy it right away, especially if it's small, light and compact.

I've got the Sigma 30mm, but it's a monstrous lens, especially compared with the much more compact Limiteds.

[Aristophanes]

It's not slow. That's thinking form ages ago, from film days, and people still believe that crazy myth for some odd reason. Same as thinking big Cray supercomputer is better because it's bigger than today's iMac, which is better than Cray in every other way than in its size.

Give me "slow" but optically excellent DA40 f2.8 and I'll give you tons of cheap 50mm/1.4 for a swap. Take all of them. It's Canon, Nikon and especially old dog Zeiss who still play that old, boring game for people who haven't changed their thinking yet.

All Pentax primes will be three times faster and three times more valuable on a new body with several extra clear f-stops gained from capable sensor only. We're just stepped into the territory that shifts digital photography away from film by a second huge step ahead: 1. not just with clearer image (for those who like that feature), but also 2. super hi-iso capability, unthinkable before. So far with our K20Ds, K-7s, etc. we have had just that first step ahead and need for big, super-fast lenses, but with K-x and new toys around .. it changes.

With Pentax now you actually have MORE better choices, but many people don't realise that. All this was unthinkable in an old world where f1.4 was a sign of a good photography. But those extra digital steps ahead change our needs and perceptions about lenses, size of our DSLR equipment, etc. Yet we refuse to see it.

PS. I know, I know, someone will jump in and say it's also about DoF, not just light gathering. However, optically excellent f2.8 lens will have a far better bohkeh even from start, than some mediocre 1.4 lens stepped down a bit. It's quality, baby, it always shines, even if its small.

PPS. Hoya got this right, mate. They bet on future, not on past thinking.

+1 to that commentary.

Stop and think about why we are starting to see primes in inexpensive plastic mounts at moderate f-stops with some very low prices considering their optical qualities.

It's because of ISO advances. The $$ doesn't have to go into the glass at silly apertures like 1.2. The latter models from other brands have bragging points for $$ spent, not quality of photos. They are routinely soft at the edges, rely on centre point focus, and are no sharper at 2.8 than many of those starting at 2.8. Worse, they lose contrast rapidly which makes colour focus much harder on the thin digital plane.

So the trend in lens design now is that fast is at about f-2.0/2.8 retaining 95% contrast, low distortion, and extremely sharp 1/3 of a stop down. This is what digital needs and is how design is moving towards more quality across the frame and colour band using ISO as the low-light gambit. Aperture is out, ISO is in. Consumers win precisely because what's being engineered in the camera will actually make it less expensive to get outstanding glass in the long run.

[JoepLX3]

... less expensive to get outstanding glass in ...

Less expensive to manufactor or the buy for you and me?

How about auto focusing the sensor in the camera on old manual focus primes (as well as new "cheap" lenses)?

[glanglois]

really ? I purchased 24-60/2.8 FF zoom from Sigma was like $200 (EX, metal one)... now get rid of extra glass, etc that makes it a zoom and FF one and you can get a better 24/2.8 APS-C fix for less... that is just a marketing decision about price - nothing about actual cost.

You're exactly right: the $200 you paid for that Sigma was not driven by manufacturing costs but instead by marketing requirements.

When I got mine for $200, it was clear that I was getting the closeout price as the 24-70mm had been introduced. The street price prior to discontinuance was, IIRC, somewhat around USD $500.

It's not clear that Sigma made any profit at the $200 price; the clearance price should not be the basis for speculation about normal street prices.

But we're happy - we got fine glass at a fine price!

[StephenMerola]

+1....Also the 17-35mm EX DG for $200.00

You're exactly right: the $200 you paid for that Sigma was not driven by manufacturing costs but instead by marketing requirements.

When I got mine for $200, it was clear that I was getting the closeout price as the 24-70mm had been introduced. The street price prior to discontinuance was, IIRC, somewhat around USD $500.

It's not clear that Sigma made any profit at the $200 price; the clearance price should not be the basis for speculation about normal street prices.

But we're happy - we got fine glass at a fine price!