[Clavius]

Look at one of my samples with the D800E I posted in the 36MP club. I can't see any difference in quality wrt my 645D samples.

Ah, I know what you mean. Sort of like the way I can't see any difference in IQ between images from 16 mp APSC and FF?

[starbase218]

Just off the top of my head, IIRC :

FA31ltd
FA43ltd
FA77ltd

FA35/2
DA35/2.4 (already proven on film by Frank and others)
DA40XS (and by extension DA40ltd) (already proven on film by Frank and others)
FA50/1.4
DA50/2.8 macro
DA100/2.8 macro
DA*200/2.8
DA*300/2.8

Short of a wide angle and UWA, the lenses are already avaliable for FF on either expensive (ie. FA ltds) or cheap (non ltds) budget options.
Of course this is a 'lenses avaliable NOW' list and not a 'optically excellent for digital FF' list, which some folks will begin to nit-pick over.

Ah, I forgot the 35/2 and FA limiteds. But still, to my knowledge, Pentax has not officially specified any of the DA lenses as suitable for their film cameras. You say compatibility of i.e. the 35/2.4 is proven by someone, and that may be, but that's different from Pentax describing them as FF-compatible.

But I do count 7 lenses in your list which are (the DA macros are actually DFA macros). So you are right that there are some officially endorsed FF-compatible lenses out there. However, if they are just primes, I still wouldn't but into a Pentax FF system. I like the flexible framing that a zoom offers.

[eddie1960]

Ah, I forgot the 35/2 and FA limiteds. But still, to my knowledge, Pentax has not officially specified any of the DA lenses as suitable for their film cameras. You say compatibility of i.e. the 35/2.4 is proven by someone, and that may be, but that's different from Pentax describing them as FF-compatible.

But I do count 7 lenses in your list which are (the DA macros are actually DFA macros). So you are right that there are some officially endorsed FF-compatible lenses out there. However, if they are just primes, I still wouldn't but into a Pentax FF system. I like the flexible framing that a zoom offers.

I would think the announcement of a FF will also include 3 zoom announcements to be competitive at minimum (UWA like a 12-24 {or 14-24}, 24-70, 70-200)
Without those 3 it's a touch sell. If they don't launch with the camera I imagine they will be announced with an expected date

[thibs]

DA*55 and DA*60-250 are FF too, as proven by Falk, reading he patents.
DA70 is almost FF (stopping down a bit is OK).

[gazonk]

I would think the announcement of a FF will also include 3 zoom announcements to be competitive at minimum (UWA like a 12-24 {or 14-24}, 24-70, 70-200)
Without those 3 it's a touch sell. If they don't launch with the camera I imagine they will be announced with an expected date

As already pointed out, the 60-250 seems to be FF, so IMHO the only absolute requirement at release date is a 24-70-something lens (with a promise of a later release of an UWA lens, perhaps).

[starbase218]

DA*55 and DA*60-250 are FF too, as proven by Falk, reading he patents.
DA70 is almost FF (stopping down a bit is OK).

In terms of image circle, or also in terms of corner sharpness?

[ogl]

DA*55 and DA*60-250 are FF too, as proven by Falk, reading he patents.
DA70 is almost FF (stopping down a bit is OK).

60-250 is close to FF. but not full FF.:ugh:

[eddie1960]

there needs to be 2 zooms at release to reallt compete IMO (with several additional lenses to follow) a 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. a UWA zoom rounds those out but can follow, and their are several prime holes to fill (21,24,28,85,135 at a minimum FA LTD 31 and 77 can fill infor the 28/85 but they are different enough to want both in the line )

[pinholecam]

Ah, I forgot the 35/2 and FA limiteds. But still, to my knowledge, Pentax has not officially specified any of the DA lenses as suitable for their film cameras. You say compatibility of i.e. the 35/2.4 is proven by someone, and that may be, but that's different from Pentax describing them as FF-compatible.

But I do count 7 lenses in your list which are (the DA macros are actually DFA macros). So you are right that there are some officially endorsed FF-compatible lenses out there. However, if they are just primes, I still wouldn't but into a Pentax FF system. I like the flexible framing that a zoom offers.

Knowing how companies protect themselves from liabilities with careful text and fine print, I'd rather just go for the 'proof in the pudding ' (ie. DA taken on film) as the proof for now rather than relying on what Pentax has say for the DA lenses FF compatibility.

If you need zooms; then a Tamron 28-75/2.8 and DA60-250/4 should serve you very well for that immediate zoom lens gap if that Pentax FF materializes.
Else the 28-75/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 will do very well too.

[ihasa]

God, it would be great if Pentax did release a FF. I have no lens worries whatsoever. I have 24mm, 35-70, 35mm, 50mm, and 70-210mm FF lenses ready to go! A compact FF camera with the F 35-70 zoom would be a real pleasure.

[starbase218]

Knowing how companies protect themselves from liabilities with careful text and fine print, I'd rather just go for the 'proof in the pudding ' (ie. DA taken on film) as the proof for now rather than relying on what Pentax has say for the DA lenses FF compatibility.

If you need zooms; then a Tamron 28-75/2.8 and DA60-250/4 should serve you very well for that immediate zoom lens gap if that Pentax FF materializes.
Else the 28-75/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 will do very well too.

I see this differently. If Pentax is not willing to acknowledge that they have these FF-capable lenses by the time the FF body comes out, then how serious are they about the whole endeavour, should it take place? I would like something substantial from them before buying into such a system. Otherwise I would think to be better of going to the competition. In terms of money, we're not talking peanuts here. This is expensive stuff, especially fullframe.

In other words, why would they hold back on official specs when they know it would work by the time they release such a body? It would make no sense to me, except if they're not too serious about it.

All this from a guy who probably won't be getting a FF body at all, even when Pentax releases one and lenses to go with it.

[pinholecam]

I see this differently. If Pentax is not willing to acknowledge that they have these FF-capable lenses by the time the FF body comes out, then how serious are they about the whole endeavour, should it take place? I would like something substantial from them before buying into such a system. Otherwise I would think to be better of going to the competition. In terms of money, we're not talking peanuts here. This is expensive stuff, especially fullframe.

In other words, why would they hold back on official specs when they know it would work by the time they release such a body? It would make no sense to me, except if they're not too serious about it.

All this from a guy who probably won't be getting a FF body at all, even when Pentax releases one and lenses to go with it.

They will 'acknowledge' when the time comes
There is a saying :
"Don't care if its a black cat or white cat; As long as it catches the mice, its a good cat"

Though I'm no FF proponent.
FA ltds on FF is enough lenses for me to get a FF (wide/normal/portrait telephoto ), unless it priced like the SD1 at launch.

[ElJamoquio]

Ah, I forgot the 35/2 and FA limiteds. But still, to my knowledge, Pentax has not officially specified any of the DA lenses as suitable for their film cameras.

I made a thread to address this issue and I linked to it in the post you quoted above.

Here's the link again. It's actually nine lenses, I had forgotten the 35/2 as well.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/183420-current...ml#post1921631

[ElJamoquio]

60-250 is close to FF. but not full FF.:ugh:

It was described as FF in their patent.

[thibs]

It was described as FF in their patent.

Yep, indeed.

In terms of image circle, or also in terms of corner sharpness?

DA70: image circle

DA60-250: FF from patents. Now is a perfect at edges, maybe not. But a whole lot of lenses are such, aren't they? They aren't automatically labelled crop lenses though.