[JoepLX3]

Pentax made photocamera, not video. It's cool!

Is this K-r photo (see above)? Looks good!!! (any K-x comparison?)

[hegedus]

I wonder why Pentax left only 25 fps video mode? Why didn't leave the option to choose 24 or 25 fps?
Personally I like 25 fps because I live in Europe, and have 25 fps PAL standard.
K-r looks very good to me. Can't wait the full review, specially AF test.
New 35mm lens is, in my opinion, unnecessary cost. Well, if it have been a f1.8 lens I would consider buying one for me, but f2.4 is just not good enough for me. I consider myself as amateur, not even a serious one. But I bought myself tamron 17-50 f2.8, and I am so satisfied with its performance, I have no need for 35mm lens just a bit faster than f2.8.
On the other hand, I regret that Pentax never revived production of 85mm lense. This is FL that I really miss since I left Canon and its cheap, plastic 85mm f1.8.

[johnmflores]

You want full metal lenses for free...

Now that's funny!

At f/2.4 it's just useless.

Now I realize how useless my DA Limiteds are. Anyone want them? Free full metal lenses!* All I ask is that you pay shipping.**








* WARNING: Lenses are useless. Don't take them out in public and try to do anything like take photos with them. Don't talk about them online. You will be mocked by other camera owners.

** NOTE: Shipping costs for DA21/35/40/70 Limited is approximately $1500.

[haoto]

I'm surprised some people here are not happy about the new DAL35! To me f/2.4 is good and the price is right. My only complaint is it comes with too many colors - I'll probably end up with more than one

[JohnBee]

Pentax made photocamera, not video. It's cool!

What are these images from?!?

[rparmar]

Come on, this is not true at all. A DA-L 35mm f/1.8 would have been good, up to par with the competition. At f/2.4 it's just useless. Sony, Canon, Nikon, Oly, Panasonic and even Samsung all have better options. And then Pentax think f/2.4 will cut it in this market? But it's available in a lot of colors you know...

The 35mm f/2.4 is only good for starved Pentaxians when all their options are the ultra expensive 31mm Ltd, the gone FA 35mm f/2 or the slow DA 35mm ltd and DA 40mm Ltd.

From this I can assume you are not a photographer but a number chaser. Better then for you to be with another brand. If you are a photographer, please prove me wrong by taking a photo at 35mm using f/2.4. Maybe even an excellent photo.

See? The lens is not useless now, is it?

P.S. That DA40 you hate is smaller and cheaper than any lens of its quality. The DA35 has been called an exemplary lens with no peer by people who are photographers (Mike Johnston for example). The FA31 has no peer in its focal length. And you forgot to mention the rather crappy (to you I am sure) FA43, FA77, DA100 macro, etc. etc.

[Blue]

You evidently don't like the lens. That's fine - no one is forcing you to buy it. And contrary to popular belief, an aperture slower than f/2 *isn't* useless at all - I've got a sneaking suspicion that this new 35mm is sharp across the frame at f/2.4. Do the other manufacturers have faster lenses? Sure. Does that make this new lens any less useful? Not really - it'll still take damn fine pictures, especially for individuals who were reluctant to buy a prime at a higher price. A launch price of $219 could very well translate to under $180 over the next couple of months. Basic users who before stuck only to their kit lenses or dual zoom kits might be willing to give this new lens a try. I think it'll do just fine, sales-wise.

The 1 remain difference in the Plasti-mount lens and the FA 35 is whether or not he elements are the same size, i.e. will it work with a 24x36 film/sensor. Pentax Imaging hasn't mentioned a price on it yet. The bottom line is Pentax dumped a better lens and replaced it with a lesser lens. Had the based this new lens on the F 28/2.8, they would have something. However, I won't get this one unless I pick it up for a few bucks used because I have the DA 35/2.8 ltd. For those people new to photography and Pentax, it will likely be a good gateway lens given if its optics are from the FA 35.

---

Last edited by Blue; 09-09-2010 at 06:04 AM.

[ewalk]

From this I can assume you are not a photographer but a number chaser. Better then for you to be with another brand.

if you are a photographer, please prove me wrong by taking a photo at 35mm using f/2.4. Maybe even an excellent photo.

See? The lens is not useless now, is it?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I've got a Sigma 30mm and I'm can't wait to order the new DA. Cheap, lightweight and relatively inexpensive. It's Pentax's own "plastic fantastic."

[ManuH]

From this I can assume you are not a photographer but a number chaser. Better then for you to be with another brand.

Great, now onto the personal attacks. You should know that I have been a defender of the slow DA 40mm f/2.8 in the past. I don't think we always need very fast lenses. But I also bought a FA 35mm f/2 for those times where 1 stop is making a difference.

if you are a photographer, please prove me wrong by taking a photo at 35mm using f/2.4. Maybe even an excellent photo.

See? The lens is not useless now, is it?

This is all irrelevant. My point is Pentax vs the competition. How can you seriously advise a Pentax camera with a 35/2.4 when the competition offers a cheap 35/1.8. Do you really think Pentax is not able to build a good f/2 lens in this range? It's a pure marketing decision and Hoya should be criticized for this, not excused in any way.

[r0ckstarr]

Looks good to me too.
DA 35 also looks like a winner for a kit prime lens.
Good choice, Pentax, I say...

I agree. For entry level, that's a pretty good starter kit for anyone.

[Blue]

Are you saying Pentax is a no name?
. . .

At Bad Buy, WalFart etc. where the sheeple meet, the are unknown to most and the ones that remember Pentax assume they aren't around anymore.

[Blue]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I've got a Sigma 30mm and I'm can't wait to order the new DA. Cheap, lightweight and relatively inexpensive. It's Pentax's own "plastic fantastic."




Now that confuses me - how on earth do we know it's a poor performing lens? In what way is it a POS? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "Pentax can do no wrong" guy, but I fail to see how this lens can be labelled as crap before anyone has had a chance to even use it.

Nothing confusing about it. You are assuming this thing is as good as the FA 35. How can you label it better? Go back and look at my complete post. I also like how you ignored my edited post.

[bfo]

The new K-r is clearly a solid and well thought-out photographers camera. Instead of making some sort of hybrid DSLR with advanced video - Pentax choosed to make an entry camera for aspiring photographers.

The new version of the 12.4 sensor promises the best high ISO performance in it's class. The negative comments about "only 12Mp" is funny. I have seen many postings about the K-7 needed to have the 12Mp sensor and not the 14Mp because of the 12Mp performing better at high ISO, and now the complaints about "only 12Mp"...
The K-r has even better high ISO performance than the K-x had, and the K-x was best in class. Sure Pentax could have opted for a 14Mp sensor like the new competition, but Pentax listened to the customers that shouted "we want better high ISO, we want better high ISO" so they wanted to deliver the best high ISO performance money can buy instead of playing the most Mp game.

The improved autofocus must be seen as positive, and you folks got the separate AF assist lamp that you wanted so much.

Faster fps and with larger buffer.
AF adjustment.
A clever solution to the "I like AA" and "I hate AA"-solution. Now everyone will be happy.

Yeah, lot of improvements here and there. A solid and well constructed beginners camera with concentration on image quality and photographic usefullness.

Funny is the negative comments about the DA L 35.
You complained about Pentax lenses being too expensive compared to the plastic lenses from the competition. You said you didn't wanted the build quality of the DA Limiteds. That Pentax should lower their prices. Well, to lower the prices Pentax had to release full plastic lens without quick-shift focus and without distance info - just like the all plastic lenses from the competition. And now when Pentax has done just that, you complain about the new DA L 35 being all plastic and not metal and without distance info markings...

You want full metal lenses for free...

If the DA L 35 has similar optical formula as the FA 35 f/2, then it will be a great lens!

You talk a lot about technical specifications here, but nothing about *performance*.
Some buys equipment after how well they perform in the technical specification list, others buys equipment after how well they perform in real life, out in the field. Pentax has by tradition always concentrated on the latter.

+1
and a few extra words to get it posted

[Miserere]

Nikonians NEED such a lens because of the lack of SR in the body. With the K-r you can shoot hand-held scenes with the DA 35/2.4 where you can't with a Nikon 35/1.8 unless you want serious movement blur.

What about subject movement blur? ISO is not a substitute for a fast lens when you're shooting things other than landscapes. If you can shoot it at f/2.4 and high ISO, you can shoot it with even better IQ at f/1.8 and 1 stop lower ISO.

Some of us care about better IQ. The target audience of this lens doesn't or can't tell the difference. Where is the lens for those that do care? Pentax has let those shooters down once again.

...

[rparmar]

Great, now onto the personal attacks.

Call that an attack? Get a grip. You threw the first stone by saying...

The 35mm f/2.4 is only good for starved Pentaxians when all their options are the ultra expensive 31mm Ltd, the gone FA 35mm f/2 or the slow DA 35mm ltd and DA 40mm Ltd.

"You made your bed and you must lie in it" is I think the appropriate saying.

How can you seriously advise a Pentax camera with a 35/2.4 when the competition offers a cheap 35/1.8.

Many reasons, which I am sure are obvious to you now I have stated them:

• The Pentax lens comes stabilised via the body.
• The Pentax lens comes bundled real cheap with the body, so the total cost of ownership is in fact lower.
• The IQ of the DA35/2.4 might well be superior to the competition. Who can know at this time?
• It fits on the same camera as the FA Limited series.
• It comes in nifty colours.

Best of all, by bundling a fixed focal length lens with a body, Pentax is making a clear statement about photographic priorities. Forget slow zooms. Get a prime lens and train your eye. Get one or two stops of extra light for free. How can all of these things be anything but a brilliant statement of the Pentax Way?

Do you really think Pentax is not able to build a good f/2 lens in this range?

When did I make any such claim? Please stop putting word in my mouth to make your own frail arguments. Obviously Pentax can do so, since they have done so. It's called the FA31 and there is no better lens in its focal range.

It's a pure marketing decision and Hoya should be criticized for this, not excused in any way.

All product releases are the result of marketing decisions so what the heck is your point?