[boriscleto]

I guess it was just pretty damned irresponsible by Voigtländer to create the 12mm f5.6 and the 15mm f4.5 for Nikon f-mount then. Not to mention Nikon with their own 6mm, 7.5mm, 8mm and 10mm fisheye lenses..

You really want to compare a niche product to one created for a mass market?

[Fogel70]

IMHO they would be pretty damned irresposinble to not make an XS lens unmountable on a legacy K-mount camera. Think if your K-5 mirror struck the rear element of an XS lens - it isn't a legacy body just yet.

Pentax could easily add a pin or flange to the XS lens mount to make them unmountable in legacy K-mount bodies, and modify the K-01 body mount (and any subsequent body) to allow XS. I don't see a special slot or hole in the K-01 images.
Would that then be a KAF3 mount?

KAF3 is KAF2 with no screw-drive, but so far only used on a few lenses.

[monochrome]

KAF3 is KAF2 with no screw-drive, but so far only used on a few lenses.

Missed that, but then the body mount isn't modified for the lenses (I assume SDM lenses).

[pinholecam]

If this lens is really a recessed 28mm - 50mm, and at least f2.8, it will be a nice move indeed for the K-01.

[Docrwm]

Duh, or I would have linked it. However, it would be odd for them to put out several XS lenses with some of the compatible with mirrors and some of them not. I would expect similarities in the mounts among the XS series. That was the point. The registration distance is the same.

Edit: Why don't you Singapore folk post some test images with 40XS and a dSLR for us backwoods hicks. :Hysterical:

DUH, you were completely unclear in your post - D-U-H

[RioRico]

My point is, an XS lens that extends over 10mm into the body is no longer a K-mount lens, no matter what the bayonet looks like. K-mount has certain standards and requirements. Mirror clearance is part of that. I don't know whether the K-01 has a re-crippled mount for deep-penetration XS lenses. I agree that Pentax-Ricoh is unlikely to create a new mount with a new lens line. But we'll have to wait and see, eh?

[Clinton]

My major assumption: Pentax-Ricoh won't make K-mount lenses that will stick so far into the mirror-box area that a SLR mirror will be fouled or damaged. To do so would totally screw-up Pentax's famed backwards compatibility. Another assumption: Pentax lens design engineers take a conservative approach to fittings. That means, adequate safety margin, and no radical designs.

Backwards compatibility is clearly important, but what we're talking about here is forward compatibility.

If they produce a few lenses that I cant use on my K-5, meh. If they produce a LOT, then it'll be an issue.

[Zygonyx]

Exactly, more-over, there are only a few potential candidates for this new in-wards extensions...
So i imagine this is just "opportunity engineering" to have a coherent new line of products aside the mainstream.
Why do people always think about the end of something ???
Isn't any pathologic ?

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Historically there are even examples of wide angles made for SLRs that forced the photographer to shoot with the mirror up.
Even with recessed elements one could use an XS lens on for example the K-5 while shooting video, but one would have to be careful not to lower the mirror with the lens mounted.

Here is a possible solution for how they may have solved this in a safe way. Let us assume that the lens elements are recessed enough into the mirror-box enough to interfere with the mirror when it moves, but not when it just sit there. You could then mount the lens with no problems. The camera could then simply refuse to fire because the camera will know that it is a recesses lens when it identifies the lens. That could be applied on all following DSLRs, and it could be applied with software upgrades on previous DSLRs. For what I know there may even already exist a code that the lens could send to prevent firing even with existing in-camera-software (though it would take a lot of hindsight). Problem remain with film SLRs, but not many people mount any DA lenses on film bodies.
But I think it is more likely that you will just get a warning note in the lens-box when you buy a lens with recesses lens elements.

[sheld]

I don't like the DA40xs, because 60mm film equivalent isn't an ideal focal length for single fixed focal length lens photography. I suspect that an "xs" version with recessed elements might allow for a recessed thin 28mm/F2 xs lens. If this is technically feasible, it would compete favorably in terms of size and function versus the Panasonic m43rds 20mm F/1.7 lens. So, this would allow allow for 2 lens, where the Pentax would be reasonably compact. Pentax X-01 mirrorless type cameras have the advantage of being compatible with the full lineup of Pentax lenses, plus a one or two micro-compacts.

I wonder if they could make a recessed micro-compact collapsible 18-55mm as well, that extended perhaps 30-40mm in front of the camera, instead of the current 68mm? This would make a very competitive K-mount mirrorless family, that IMHO, made at least as much sense as the Sony NEX family, especially since Pentax already has an excellent lineup of other compact limited lenses, like the 15mm, 21mm, 40mm, and 70mm lenses, plus the normal lenses, like the DA35/2.4, and the forthcoming DA50/1.8, and the full lineup of other Pentax lenses.
- Shel

[ogl]

I don't like the DA40xs, because 60mm film equivalent isn't an ideal focal length for single fixed focal length lens photography.
- Shel

Really...55-58 mm lenses were standart for FF many years ago. I started to make photos with Zenit E and Helios 44 58/2 lens more than 30 years ago.


Super-Takumar 55 mm f/ 1.8
Mamiya Sekor 55 mm f/ 1.4
Zuiko Auto-S 55 mm f/ 1.2
Carenar 55 mm f/ 1.4
Fujinon 55 mm f/ 1.8
Chinon MC 55 mm f/ 1.7
Porst Color Reflex Auto 55 mm f/ 1.4
Minolta MC Rokkor 58 mm f/ 1.2
Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58 mm f/ 2
Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 58 mm f/ 1.4
Voigtlander Nokton 58 mm f/ 1.4 SL II
Auto-Topcor 58 mm f/ 1.4
Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.4



it's not full list...

[Asahiflex]

You forgot the most elusive of them all, the 58mm f/2 Takumar (from the late 50's).

[sheld]

Really...55-58 mm lenses were standart for FF many years ago. I started to make photos with Zenit E and Helios 44 58/2 lens more than 30 years ago.


Super-Takumar 55 mm f/ 1.8
Mamiya Sekor 55 mm f/ 1.4
Zuiko Auto-S 55 mm f/ 1.2
Carenar 55 mm f/ 1.4
Fujinon 55 mm f/ 1.8
Chinon MC 55 mm f/ 1.7
Porst Color Reflex Auto 55 mm f/ 1.4
Minolta MC Rokkor 58 mm f/ 1.2
Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58 mm f/ 2
Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 58 mm f/ 1.4
Voigtlander Nokton 58 mm f/ 1.4 SL II
Auto-Topcor 58 mm f/ 1.4
Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.4



it's not full list...

The 55mm-58mm lenses are more symmetrical simpler Double Gauss designs, then the current more successful asymmetrical Double Gauss 50mm designs. The reason why they switched to the 50mm was that it better matched the focal length that photographers really wanted. Even the 50mm lens is still a little long, which is why the Pentax 43mm F/1.9 was a nice lens for film.

[ogl]

The 55mm-58mm lenses are more symmetrical simpler Double Gauss designs, then the current more successful asymmetrical Double Gauss 50mm designs. The reason why they switched to the 50mm was that it better matched the focal length that photographers really wanted. Even the 50mm lens is still a little long, which is why the Pentax 43mm F/1.9 was a nice lens for film.

tastes differ...yes. 43 mm is ideal for FF...but it's too wide for me

[Noisychip]

The distance numbers on the focus ring look exactly like those of the DA 40/2.8. However, the front element looks much larger, like the DA 70 or DA 21. And the rear element is definitely larger that the DA 21's, so my guess is a DA 70 2.4 XS