New Lenses Announcement (K and Q mount)

Asahiflex · 02-08-2012, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

My 2cts about the tele lens ...

Falk, my question to you: why would Pentax even bother with a simple spotting scope design? We all know that Pentax is all about IQ, and it's 30 years ago that the last non-ED tele lens was made for the Pentax system (and for a reason; I hated ALL old long tele lenses with regards to sharpness, CA and PF).

Why bring out a lens which will exhibit the dreaded CA around branches and leaves when birding? That would be a step backwards. I'd rather have no tele lens at all than such a "bad" tele lens...

Caat · 02-08-2012, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

Falk, my question to you: why would Pentax even bother with a simple spotting scope design? We all know that Pentax is all about IQ, and it's 30 years ago that the last non-ED tele lens was made for the Pentax system (and for a reason; I hated ALL old long tele lenses with regards to sharpness, CA and PF).

Why bring out a lens which will exhibit the dreaded CA around branches and leaves when birding? That would be a step backwards. I'd rather have no tele lens at all than such a "bad" tele lens...

I really hope you are right and that this is the way that Pentax is thinking. My only concern would be how much price is dominating the picture.

I have my fingers crossed that Pentax won't go the K-mount spotting scope route as a result of trying to reduce costs to an absolute minimum

falconeye · 02-08-2012, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

Falk, my question to you: why would Pentax even bother with a simple spotting scope design?

I don't expect a design this simple. But I also don't expect a good glass design like in a true FA* lens. Not anymore after thinking about why they made reference to astronomical scopes and dropped the Star designation ...

And that the design will indeed be based on a scope because it is a 4" aperture exactly.

I think they want to fill the 500mm gap with a lens still "affordable" to their target audience, i.e, something in the $1500 price range. Something like the 50-200mm kit zoom.

Unfortunately, this is not what Pentaxians kept requesting all the years

OTOH, I am speculating here and I wholeheartely hope to be proven wrong

Asahiflex · 02-08-2012, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

OTOH, I am speculating here and I wholeheartely hope to be proven wrong

Thanks for clarifying. I'm with you on this. It makes no sense to bring out crap in that focal length. I can tolerate some CA and PF (my A* 300/4 has some too, but not excessively) so let's see how it performs...

Caat · 02-08-2012, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

Thanks for clarifying. I'm with you on this. It makes no sense to bring out crap in that focal length. I can tolerate some CA and PF (my A* 300/4 has some too, but not excessively) so let's see how it performs...

Pentax could get away with making a budget 560mm /f5.6 if they brought out a DA* 500mm f/4 at the same time. But that's not happening.

Erik · 02-08-2012, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Asahiflex

so let's see how it performs...

Yeah, let's.

ogl · 02-08-2012, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

Ok, I very much welcome Pentax to embrace the technical possibilty to recess "special" lenses into the mirror box left empty by K-01 and successors.

The particular lens depicted above may be in the ~20 mm focal range and seems to be rather fast.

If Pentax develops XS lenses line for K-01, the body size will be secondary thing. XS - it seems to me EXTRA SMALL - the smallest pancakes.

ogl · 02-08-2012, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Caat

Pentax could get away with making a budget 560mm /f5.6 if they brought out a DA* 500mm f/4 at the same time. But that's not happening.

pay attention that all names of lenses are tentative...

DA560/5.6 could be DA*560/5.6 DC WR (IF) IMO

Erik · 02-08-2012, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by ogl

If Pentax develops XS lenses line for K-01, the body size will be secondary thing. XS - it seems to me EXTRA SMALL - the smallest pancakes.

I think that's exactly the plan. Pentax already has a reputation for making supreme, very small lenses, so why not make it a unique selling point for the K-01?

I for one like Pentax's approach (chunky body, tiny lenses) more than Sony's (tiny body, mega-huge lenses)

Kunzite · 02-08-2012, 05:41 AM

Let's wait until we'll find out some details about the 560mm f/5.6 before complaining, ok?

About the new K-01 lens; I'm curios if Pentax did something to prevent it to be mounted on a DSLR/SLR without touching the mirror. Or maybe they didn't? The K-01 mount looks like a SLR one.

ogl · 02-08-2012, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Steelski

its an 16 or 18mm f2- 2.8 lens. that is my guess. If I were putting money on..........

I think - from 12 till 18 mm.

Sinister · 02-08-2012, 06:03 AM

Hope that's any kind of wide angle. something between 18 and 24mm. F2 would be awesome. In that case, I'd buy the KaiserOne and this lens without any hesitation...

Caat · 02-08-2012, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by ogl

pay attention that all names of lenses are tentative...

DA560/5.6 could be DA*560/5.6 DC WR (IF) IMO

Yes I know.

That's why I said budget DA 560/5.6 vs. a DA* 500mm f/4. The 560 could be a DA* rather than a DA but in which case it wouldn't be a budget lens. Currently we don't know what standard this lens is aimed at.

My point was that if this 560mm was designed to hit the lowest price point possible that's fine, as long as Pentax also provide a higher cost telephoto as well. I say this because people haven't been asking for a budget telephoto they've been asking for an FA* style remake.

To my mind it makes more sense, from a marketing perspective, to hit 400 or 500mm as a Bigma style zoom if you are aiming for the lowest price point. Such a lens could then be badged simply as DA without raising or lowering expectations.

Also I should say that although the discussion has been couched in terms of DA* versus DA. DA* immediately adds an expectation of a certain leve of performance, cost and features but it's perfectly possible for DA lens to be very good.

gazonk · 02-08-2012, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Erik

I for one like Pentax's approach (chunky body, tiny lenses) more than Sony's (tiny body, mega-huge lenses)

If you like carrying a lot of lenses, with the Sony system you end up carrying quite a bit extra weight for the shake reduction system in (some of) the lenses, and for longer lenses you also have to carry a lot of tubes that you only need once on a K-mount system

Clavius · 02-08-2012, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by twitch

Don't get too excited by the 560 yet.... it might be a mirror lens

An autofocus mirrorlens?! With only f5.6? That would be an engineering miracle. Let's hope it IS a mirror lens.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
adapters for non-K-mount lenses to Pentax K-mount DSLRs: new dimensions for LBA	Douglas_of_Sweden	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	154	07-10-2020 10:57 AM
For Sale - Sold: 4 K mount lenses and 1 M42 screw mount lens (US/CAN)	alanjoke	Sold Items	8	07-20-2011 06:05 AM
Utilizing Old K mount and Bayonet Mount Lenses	jk333	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	08-15-2010 01:30 AM
K-x lens mount with old k-mount lenses	sipper	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	03-18-2010 05:45 PM
List of announcement dates for Pentax lenses and bodies	clawhammer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	07-27-2008 02:05 AM

02-08-2012, 04:11 AM	#91
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Originally posted by falconeye My 2cts about the tele lens ... Falk, my question to you: why would Pentax even bother with a simple spotting scope design? We all know that Pentax is all about IQ, and it's 30 years ago that the last non-ED tele lens was made for the Pentax system (and for a reason; I hated ALL old long tele lenses with regards to sharpness, CA and PF). Why bring out a lens which will exhibit the dreaded CA around branches and leaves when birding? That would be a step backwards. I'd rather have no tele lens at all than such a "bad" tele lens...

02-08-2012, 04:17 AM	#92
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by Asahiflex Falk, my question to you: why would Pentax even bother with a simple spotting scope design? We all know that Pentax is all about IQ, and it's 30 years ago that the last non-ED tele lens was made for the Pentax system (and for a reason; I hated ALL old long tele lenses with regards to sharpness, CA and PF). Why bring out a lens which will exhibit the dreaded CA around branches and leaves when birding? That would be a step backwards. I'd rather have no tele lens at all than such a "bad" tele lens... I really hope you are right and that this is the way that Pentax is thinking. My only concern would be how much price is dominating the picture. I have my fingers crossed that Pentax won't go the K-mount spotting scope route as a result of trying to reduce costs to an absolute minimum

02-08-2012, 04:18 AM	#93
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Asahiflex Falk, my question to you: why would Pentax even bother with a simple spotting scope design? I don't expect a design *this* simple. But I also don't expect a good glass design like in a true FA* lens. Not anymore after thinking about why they made reference to astronomical scopes and dropped the Star designation ... And that the design will indeed be based on a scope because it is a 4" aperture exactly. I think they want to fill the 500mm gap with a lens still "affordable" to their target audience, i.e, something in the $1500 price range. Something like the 50-200mm kit zoom. Unfortunately, this is not what Pentaxians kept requesting all the years OTOH, I am speculating here and I wholeheartely hope to be proven wrong

02-08-2012, 04:21 AM	#94
Asahiflex Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,795	Originally posted by falconeye OTOH, I am speculating here and I wholeheartely hope to be proven wrong Thanks for clarifying. I'm with you on this. It makes no sense to bring out crap in that focal length. I can tolerate some CA and PF (my A* 300/4 has some too, but not excessively) so let's see how it performs...

02-08-2012, 04:23 AM	#95
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by Asahiflex Thanks for clarifying. I'm with you on this. It makes no sense to bring out crap in that focal length. I can tolerate some CA and PF (my A* 300/4 has some too, but not excessively) so let's see how it performs... Pentax could get away with making a budget 560mm /f5.6 if they brought out a DA* 500mm f/4 at the same time. But that's not happening.

02-08-2012, 04:24 AM	#96
Erik Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Umeå, Sweden Posts: 755	Originally posted by Asahiflex so let's see how it performs... Yeah, let's.

02-08-2012, 05:38 AM	#97
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by falconeye Ok, I very much welcome Pentax to embrace the technical possibilty to recess "special" lenses into the mirror box left empty by K-01 and successors. The particular lens depicted above may be in the ~20 mm focal range and seems to be rather fast. If Pentax develops XS lenses line for K-01, the body size will be secondary thing. XS - it seems to me EXTRA SMALL - the smallest pancakes.

02-08-2012, 05:40 AM	#98
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Caat Pentax could get away with making a budget 560mm /f5.6 if they brought out a DA* 500mm f/4 at the same time. But that's not happening. pay attention that all names of lenses are tentative... DA560/5.6 could be DA*560/5.6 DC WR (IF) IMO

02-08-2012, 05:40 AM	#99
Erik Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Umeå, Sweden Posts: 755	Originally posted by ogl If Pentax develops XS lenses line for K-01, the body size will be secondary thing. XS - it seems to me EXTRA SMALL - the smallest pancakes. I think that's exactly the plan. Pentax already has a reputation for making supreme, very small lenses, so why not make it a unique selling point for the K-01? I for one like Pentax's approach (chunky body, tiny lenses) more than Sony's (tiny body, mega-huge lenses)

02-08-2012, 05:41 AM	#100
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Let's wait until we'll find out some details about the 560mm f/5.6 before complaining, ok? About the new K-01 lens; I'm curios if Pentax did something to prevent it to be mounted on a DSLR/SLR without touching the mirror. Or maybe they didn't? The K-01 mount looks like a SLR one.

02-08-2012, 05:41 AM	#101
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Steelski its an 16 or 18mm f2- 2.8 lens. that is my guess. If I were putting money on.......... I think - from 12 till 18 mm.

02-08-2012, 06:03 AM	#102
Sinister Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Berlin Posts: 1,045	Hope that's any kind of wide angle. something between 18 and 24mm. F2 would be awesome. In that case, I'd buy the KaiserOne and this lens without any hesitation...

02-08-2012, 06:13 AM	#103
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by ogl pay attention that all names of lenses are tentative... DA560/5.6 could be DA560/5.6 DC WR (IF) IMO Yes I know. That's why I said budget DA 560/5.6 vs. a DA 500mm f/4. The 560 could be a DA* rather than a DA but in which case it wouldn't be a budget lens. Currently we don't know what standard this lens is aimed at. My point was that if this 560mm was designed to hit the lowest price point possible that's fine, as long as Pentax also provide a higher cost telephoto as well. I say this because people haven't been asking for a budget telephoto they've been asking for an FA* style remake. To my mind it makes more sense, from a marketing perspective, to hit 400 or 500mm as a Bigma style zoom if you are aiming for the lowest price point. Such a lens could then be badged simply as DA without raising or lowering expectations. Also I should say that although the discussion has been couched in terms of DA* versus DA. DA* immediately adds an expectation of a certain leve of performance, cost and features but it's perfectly possible for DA lens to be very good.

02-08-2012, 06:16 AM	#104
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by Erik I for one like Pentax's approach (chunky body, tiny lenses) more than Sony's (tiny body, mega-huge lenses) If you like carrying a lot of lenses, with the Sony system you end up carrying quite a bit extra weight for the shake reduction system in (some of) the lenses, and for longer lenses you also have to carry a lot of tubes that you only need once on a K-mount system

02-08-2012, 06:41 AM	#105
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by twitch Don't get too excited by the 560 yet.... it might be a mirror lens An autofocus mirrorlens?! With only f5.6? That would be an engineering miracle. Let's hope it IS a mirror lens.