[rvannatta]

Going from f4 to f3.5 surely wouldn't make me go "Wow"...

...maybe "wow that's expensive"!

I think it sort of depends on where pentax is headed with ISO If they cough with a sensor
that works as well at ISO 6400 as it does as IS) 100, whadda I care about whether the glass is f/3.5 or f/4.

by now Pentax R & D should already know what the K30D is going to look like. they should know if major improvements in the ISO performance are likely in the next couple of generations.
In turn this trajectory can feed back into what the lens family needs to look like.

One opportunity by being late to market with the lens family is that they can balance
the cost/f stop against the need for fast lenses based on the expected technological advances in sensors.

We all dream of having a 600 mm F4 lens but few of us will have them in our bags because they cost $8-12,000 dollars. If improved sensor technology will allow us to obtain the performance we expects of an $8,000 lens with a $1000 lens we all win. Pentax sells a boat load of them, and we all get one for our bags and likely it will actually fit in the bag....

One of the things that suddenly becomes possible when sensors have ISO to burn
and megapixles to burn, is that there can be dynamically adjustable 'sensor size'
allowing the use of half frame and even .25% frame lenses, with f stops say starting at f16 or f32. why have monster glass if the computer can manage the sensor to work with much less light.

Similarly we may have zoom lenses that zoom the foot print on the sensor in order to
manage their size and complexity while zooming other things. If the sensor is 20 or 40 mps
who cares. the output is standardized in the developing and life is good. IT's really just a variation of digital zooming that is already being used in the P & S world.

My point is this---either the cost structure of the SLR's has to get closer to
that of the P & S, or someday somebody will build a P & S that takes photos as well
as the SLR (if they haven't all ready) and the entire SLR market will collapse to the tune of 'why pay thousands or an SLR when I can get the same photo on $250 P & S.

It hasn't happened yet because the SLR's have managed to stay ahead of the P & S in quality and flexibility, but they are gaining.

[mutley]

Going from f4 to f3.5 surely wouldn't make me go "Wow"...

And, unfortunately f2.8 is out of the question

...maybe "wow that's expensive"!

Unless they don't price it expensively and take advantage of Hoya glass savings. The K10D offered much more for less money. Why can't they use the same philosophy for lenses especially since they can pay less for larger lens blanks than anyone else.

[nosnoop]

It is extremely expensive at $800, but it incorporates a fast ring motor (instead of Pentax low-torque, not faster, micro motors - And this Pentax will not have a motor).

This has been stated a number of times, but I never saw any proof of this. Do you have any data to back up your claim? I don't see why micro motors has to slower or have less torque. The gearing design surely could give them flexibility to adjust to the torque required.

[thibs]

The Oly 12-60 f2.8-4 is equivalent to an APS-C 16-80mm! Better on both ends than the 17-70. It is extremely expensive at $800, but it incorporates a fast ring motor (instead of Pentax low-torque, not faster, micro motors - And this Pentax will not have a motor). The 17-70 is only f/4, and will only be gear driven, but it would be great if they saw the need for that extra range.

How can you conclude what AF solution will be implemented in the 17-70 is beyond me. Stop pulling that BS.

Since the Sigma does the 17-70 range already, but gives you f2.8-3.5 through most of the range at $350, I assume the dimmer Pentax 17-70 can't be more than $350.

Oh sure, manufacturers usually look at third parties, especially those that do not license the original mount and use reverse engneering to decide what lens they need to add to their line up. That's a good one.

At least compromise and make it a continuous f3.5 which won't be as huge. That way it would be a great value "wow" lens, rather than one people are already explaining away, though "missing the mm at the wide end", etc. Pentax should stop aiming for "sorta OK" range zooms, and aim for "WOW" zooms at greater value while taking advantage of being owned by glass blank maker Hoya.

Sure /4 to /3.5 is very WoW. You should stop aimaing for "sorta OK" posts and come with something actually not made up.

[SCGushue]

The road map is all we have had. while it has some deficiencies, the most glaring is that Pentax hasn't delivered most of what's on it. I should think that everything in the future should be SDM in anticipation of the day when they can abandon the screw drive motor on the low end models. I suspect there are lots of folks like me that have a closet full of
screw drive lenses, but if we do--we aren't likely to buy the low end model body either.

True. The roadmap that we have all seen in the past year or two is all we have had to go on. True also is that Pentax has failed to deliver on these "commitments" in a timely and responsible manner. I will chalk most of those problems up to the transition of ramping up new factories and the quasi hostile takeover by Hoya.

I think those days and of trial and tribulation are nearly at an end, and many lenses that people are not even remotely be aware of will appear on a new, forthcoming roadmap.
And it may well be possible that they will not all be straight DA lenses.

Stephen