[Docrwm]

@MediumFormatPro Sigma announced that lens, along with a couple others, clear back in Feb. 2011 and that listing on B&H has been parked there ever since. Sigma has removed their old announcement from the news section of their website but it's the same as what's still shown here. I'm honestly surprised that, with the apparent popularity of the K-5, Sigma never released their 120-300 for K-mount, especially since it's been something of a focal length gap in the Pentax lineup. It'd be nice to see the 150mm f/2.8 macro from them, and their even newer and longer 180mm f/2.8 macro, offered in K-mount. Another comment about Sigma: at the time of that Feb. 2011 announcement mentioned above Sigma was really hyping that their new crop of lenses were "splash proof", but they have since stopped using that terminology and no longer seem to say anything about it. I'm very curious why they no longer want to market this feature. From a pessimistic angle, maybe it simply wasn't very effective and they were concerned about getting in an influx of warranty claims. Anyway, if Pentax/Ricoh can make the inroads into the DSLR market that they've set out to, I look forward to the responses from the various third parties. I'm trying to be optimistic about what's in store for Pentax, and me as a Pentax user, over the next couple of years but I am a little impatient and getting rather anxious and eager to see new products made available. On the upside, having less tempting gear to buy will slow the bleeding of my bank account.

Perhaps that will change soon. At the K-30 Tour when asked about sales of the new camera the response was 'much better than we anticipated, around 5x of the K-5'. If that is the case then the numbers ought to entice Sigma and Tamron back into the game for K mount as long as Ricoh doesn't pull a Hoya and price their licenses out of the game completely.

[Pål Jensen]

One thing I'm sure of, if there is nothing about a FF a photokina it is extremely unlikely to see a Pentax FF in the foreseeable future.
Unless the market phases out top end APSC cameras for cheaper and cheaper FF sensors.

...and why should that happen? That would be a recepie for reducing profit for camera and sensor manufacturers. Since Nikon and Canon have the FF market to themselves I see no reason for a drop in prices; particularly is price drop relative to smaller sensor unexplainable.
Whith better sensor technology the usefulness of smaller sensors is on the increase. In addition, more expensive cameras, and cameras that include more expensive parts, is not the answer in a world when the two largest markets, USA and Europe is in to a recession.

[glanglois]

I hope that Ricoh/Pentax will court Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, et al. aggressively. Every niche player has to use its limited resources to best advantage. PRIC (and we) would be well-served if they concentrated on Limited and WR-style lenses while encouraging others to fill gaps like a 180mm macro or a 100-300mm f/4 zoom. There are enough gaps that there seems to be real advantage for all sides.

But the problem may be in the business/industrial relationships here. For example, Sigma may want cheap and very long-term access to Pentax interface specs (not just K mount) although PRIC may want to limit the license to one interface and a five-year term.

I can imagine some creative deals here in which PRIC takes some of the investment risk of tooling up and producing third party K mount glass in exchange for a small financial return on each lens sold with the remainder of the advantage to PRIC coming in the form of a full lens like with which to tempt new customers. I'm not certain, though, that these conservative Japanese businesses are at all interested in "creative deals".

[VisualDarkness]

Sigma should be interested in bringing their new plan of WR lenses to Pentax as Pentax goes harder for the WR image than all other DSLR makers.

[mee]

Pentax should be interested in spilling the beans soon on their next dSLR cameras so we can all giggle and frolic like giddy school girls about a meadow.

[Docrwm]

I hope that Ricoh/Pentax will court Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, et al. aggressively. Every niche player has to use its limited resources to best advantage. PRIC (and we) would be well-served if they concentrated on Limited and WR-style lenses while encouraging others to fill gaps like a 180mm macro or a 100-300mm f/4 zoom. There are enough gaps that there seems to be real advantage for all sides.

But the problem may be in the business/industrial relationships here. For example, Sigma may want cheap and very long-term access to Pentax interface specs (not just K mount) although PRIC may want to limit the license to one interface and a five-year term.

I can imagine some creative deals here in which PRIC takes some of the investment risk of tooling up and producing third party K mount glass in exchange for a small financial return on each lens sold with the remainder of the advantage to PRIC coming in the form of a full lens like with which to tempt new customers. I'm not certain, though, that these conservative Japanese businesses are at all interested in "creative deals".

I hope that Ricoh understands that a mount that is abandoned by 3rd party manufacturers is well on its way to dying. Frankly, they could structure the deal so that they ensure that none of their prime turf gets undercut while still making it attractive enough to the 3rd party manufacturers. I certainly hope that the sales figures for the K-30 make this all more likely to be a reality.

[ElJamoquio]

Just to answer the title of the thread: Pentax will not show a K3 FF camera at Photokina or any other FF camera. They will show an upper level APS body (whatever it is going to be called) probably along with three new high-end APS lenses: a DA ~16-85(?), A Limited zoom and the DA 550/5.6. There's also an entry level DSLR in the works.
I suspect Pentax have decided that their answer to FF will be cropped 645 format; ie bigger than FF.

What wager would you like to make on that 560 actually being a APS-C only lens?

[Pål Jensen]

What wager would you like to make on that 560 actually being a APS-C only lens?

Every (long) telephoto lens covers a larger image circle than the one designed for (in fact some old Pentax K-mount supe telephotos even cover the 645 format). However, Pentax have choosen a design for the 560mm lens that give substandard corner performance. This is not a problem for APS and the saving is in the thousands of dollars compared to a traditional ED IF lens. Leica made a 560mm lens for the R-system after the same principles and it had fuzzy corners. So although the 560 may be usable on FF it is designed for APS. This is also reflected in its naming; it is not a D-FA lens...
APS open up the posibilities of making super telephoto much cheaper. This is what I believe the 560mm is all about. In fact, I see that most of the lenses Pentax is planning seem to emphasis the posibilities of the APS format instead of mimicking lenses available in past for the 35mm format.
I also believe that the D-FA naming is targeted at film users (particularly in Japan) in addition to APS of course. I don't believe Pentax would make both FF lenses and APS lenses without giving a clue which is which in their naming. That would be extremely confusing for the customer if Pentax should add an FF camera to their line up. Pentax have been very particular with lens naming in the past; I think they still are...

Regarding the 560; it is either a collapsable design or modular lens (this also modelled after Leica).

[ElJamoquio]

Every (long) telephoto lens covers a larger image circle than the one designed for (in fact some old Pentax K-mount supe telephotos even cover the 645 format). However, Pentax have choosen a design for the 560mm lens that give substandard corner performance. This is not a problem for APS and the saving is in the thousands of dollars compared to a traditional ED IF lens. Leica made a 560mm lens for the R-system after the same principles and it had fuzzy corners.

How fuzzy were the corners in the R-system? Which will have better lp/mm - the 560 in FF or the 560 in APS-C?

[Pål Jensen]

How fuzzy were the corners in the R-system? Which will have better lp/mm - the 560 in FF or the 560 in APS-C?

Lines per mm is lines per mm. It was not sharp at all in the corners, and this was on film. After the sucess of ED IF lenses the Leica lens was simple uncompetitive and discontinued.

[Docrwm]

Every (long) telephoto lens covers a larger image circle than the one designed for (in fact some old Pentax K-mount supe telephotos even cover the 645 format). However, Pentax have choosen a design for the 560mm lens that give substandard corner performance. This is not a problem for APS and the saving is in the thousands of dollars compared to a traditional ED IF lens. Leica made a 560mm lens for the R-system after the same principles and it had fuzzy corners. So although the 560 may be usable on FF it is designed for APS. This is also reflected in its naming; it is not a D-FA lens...
APS open up the posibilities of making super telephoto much cheaper. This is what I believe the 560mm is all about. In fact, I see that most of the lenses Pentax is planning seem to emphasis the posibilities of the APS format instead of mimicking lenses available in past for the 35mm format.
I also believe that the D-FA naming is targeted at film users (particularly in Japan) in addition to APS of course. I don't believe Pentax would make both FF lenses and APS lenses without giving a clue which is which in their naming. That would be extremely confusing for the customer if Pentax should add an FF camera to their line up. Pentax have been very particular with lens naming in the past; I think they still are...

Regarding the 560; it is either a collapsable design or modular lens (this also modelled after Leica).

You forgot to add "and White."

[ElJamoquio]

Lines per mm is lines per mm. It was not sharp at all in the corners, and this was on film. After the sucess of ED IF lenses the Leica lens was simple uncompetitive and discontinued.

I'm asking you to guess which will have better lp/mm in the corners - the Pentax 560mm on APS-C, or the Pentax 560mm on FF? Both the lp and the mm will change.

[Kunzite]

Shouldn't we wait for actual information about this lens before stating "it's an APS-C lens" as a fact? So far, we only know Pentax used their experience (but not necessarily the designs) from their scopes to improve optical performance. On Internet, though, this quickly become "it won't be good enough".

[LamyTax]

Every (long) telephoto lens covers a larger image circle than the one designed for (in fact some old Pentax K-mount supe telephotos even cover the 645 format). However, Pentax have choosen a design for the 560mm lens that give substandard corner performance. This is not a problem for APS and the saving is in the thousands of dollars compared to a traditional ED IF lens. Leica made a 560mm lens for the R-system after the same principles and it had fuzzy corners. So although the 560 may be usable on FF it is designed for APS. This is also reflected in its naming; it is not a D-FA lens...
APS open up the posibilities of making super telephoto much cheaper. This is what I believe the 560mm is all about. In fact, I see that most of the lenses Pentax is planning seem to emphasis the posibilities of the APS format instead of mimicking lenses available in past for the 35mm format.
I also believe that the D-FA naming is targeted at film users (particularly in Japan) in addition to APS of course. I don't believe Pentax would make both FF lenses and APS lenses without giving a clue which is which in their naming. That would be extremely confusing for the customer if Pentax should add an FF camera to their line up. Pentax have been very particular with lens naming in the past; I think they still are...

Regarding the 560; it is either a collapsable design or modular lens (this also modelled after Leica).

These images are not the real thing. You can safely assume that early mockups never have much actual substance. All the development still has to be done.
Also, to make a very long lens only for APS-C and not for FF doesn't make much sense. The actual differences in design would be almost negligible. The price for such a lens is mainly defined by the glass used, and this is dominated by the front element: 560mm/5.6=100mm. The money you can save for not making it work well on FF is negligible. So that's what you do, you make it for FF.

[RobA_Oz]

Perhaps that will change soon. At the K-30 Tour when asked about sales of the new camera the response was 'much better than we anticipated, around 5x of the K-5'. If that is the case then the numbers ought to entice Sigma and Tamron back into the game for K mount as long as Ricoh doesn't pull a Hoya and price their licenses out of the game completely.

It would be even nicer to get Voigtlander and Carl Zeiss back in the tent, but I doubt the K30 is the camera to do that. Perhaps the K-5 successor will be the one to do so.