Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-23-2012, 02:54 AM   #196
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
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?

04-23-2012, 02:54 AM   #197
Pentaxian
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,004
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
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.
04-23-2012, 05:40 AM   #198
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,162
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
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
04-23-2012, 06:00 AM   #199
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,159
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).

04-23-2012, 07:09 AM   #200
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,509
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
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).
04-23-2012, 07:15 AM   #201
Pentaxian
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,004
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
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?
04-23-2012, 07:16 AM   #202
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,112
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
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:
04-23-2012, 07:21 AM   #203
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,162
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 )

04-23-2012, 07:22 AM   #204
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,772
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
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.
04-23-2012, 07:33 AM   #205
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,054
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.
04-23-2012, 07:54 AM   #206
Pentaxian
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,004
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
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.
04-23-2012, 08:16 AM   #207
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,772
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
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.
04-23-2012, 09:02 AM   #208
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
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
04-23-2012, 09:03 AM   #209
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
60-250 is close to FF. but not full FF.:ugh:
It was described as FF in their patent.
04-23-2012, 09:53 AM   #210
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,159
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
It was described as FF in their patent.
Yep, indeed.

QuoteOriginally posted by starbase218 Quote
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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
consumer, dslr, electronics, expo, ff, pentax news, pentax rumors, pentax-ricoh, photo
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Change Photo Copyright info on a K7 mad editor Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 03-08-2012 06:49 PM
New to the Forum and the world of DSLR tehmole Welcomes and Introductions 2 02-15-2011 08:17 PM
Software not understanding Pentax photo rotation info klh Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 2 12-13-2009 07:35 PM
Awesome Photo Essay of Russia deadwolfbones General Talk 7 05-06-2009 03:08 PM
New To Forum and DSLR But Not Pentax- First From Raw. Mythmaker Post Your Photos! 10 11-17-2008 01:19 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:17 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top