Pentax Q Lens roadmap updated...

LamyTax · 09-30-2012, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by fikkser

They forgot the fast prime...

This system is made for FAST PRIMES, WHERE ARE THEY, DAMN IT.

A f/0.5 will be f/2.8 with the crop factor.

A 14mm/0.5 would be neat.

ogl · 09-30-2012, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by LamyTax

No. Shutter speed is secondary.
Diffraction limit is what matters. >f/4 makes little sense with the Q because you effectively kill resolution due to diffraction.

F/2.8 on a Q is already similar to f/8 on APS-C.

F/2.8 = F/16 on FF or F/11 on APS-C
F/1.9 = F11 on FF or F/8 on APS-C

Fast primes? It's unreal. If they even make 10/1.0 = 56/5.6 on FF or 56/4 on APS-C...

Tonto · 09-30-2012, 09:26 PM

Well that is in regards to matching DOF and diffraction yes but stopwise 2.8 is 2.8 - If you are wanting limited DOF then you need the larger sensor camera.

nosnoop · 10-01-2012, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Tonto

Well that is in regards to matching DOF and diffraction yes but stopwise 2.8 is 2.8 - If you are wanting limited DOF then you need the larger sensor camera.

Aperture equivalence is more useful than just comparing DOF.
It also shows you the expected image quality in terms of noise and dynamic range when you are comparing different lenses with different sensors' size (assuming similar sensor technology), and how far a seemingly "fast" prime can offset the disadvantage of a small sensor.

fikkser · 10-01-2012, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by ogl

F/2.8 = F/16 on FF or F/11 on APS-C
F/1.9 = F11 on FF or F/8 on APS-C

Fast primes? It's unreal. If they even make 10/1.0 = 56/5.6 on FF or 56/4 on APS-C...

Yes, but why do you two compare with aps-c?

To compensate the Q's bad ISO we need faster lenses (I do atleast), doesn't require much glass to make a fast Q lens. If I could have some bookeh too, that would be nice. 10 f1 would be nice, give me.

gazonk · 10-01-2012, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by ogl

If they even make 10/1.0 = 56/5.6 on FF or 56/4 on APS-C...

But that should actually be fast enough to allow for some nice bokeh, at least at closer distances.

starbase218 · 10-01-2012, 02:06 PM

I'm no expert, but aren't such ultrafast lenses difficult to make? They are rare, that's for sure.

falconeye · 10-03-2012, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by fikkser

They forgot the fast prime...

This system is made for FAST PRIMES, WHERE ARE THEY, DAMN IT.

The Q needs glass which is diffraction-limited at f/2.8 and does not fall off at wider apertures (if they exist). That's already rather hard to design for f/2.8. E.g., this is why for the Nokia 808, Zeiss made a fixed aperture lens (f/2.4).

Zygonyx · 10-03-2012, 03:35 AM

Yes, if you consider the former CCTV fast lenses samples, they are often wider than f/2.8, but very scarcely "HD compatible" at these apertures...
So i'm affraid that the cost of such primes would be very expensive.
But of course i wish there would be more of that choice in Q mount.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
NEW Pentax Lens Roadmap 2012/2013	oddesy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	331	04-07-2012 02:42 PM
New Pentax Lens Roadmap	agkchang	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	04-27-2009 04:05 PM
New lenses roadmap, updated 22/09/2008 (pdf)	cateto	Pentax News and Rumors	55	09-28-2008 06:35 AM
New Pentax Lens Roadmap!	Tbear	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	47	02-08-2008 05:29 PM
Question regarding Pentax Lens Roadmap	MSM	Pentax News and Rumors	34	12-29-2007 06:16 AM

09-30-2012, 06:27 AM	#16
LamyTax Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 376	Originally posted by fikkser They forgot the fast prime... This system is made for FAST PRIMES, WHERE ARE THEY, DAMN IT. A f/0.5 will be f/2.8 with the crop factor. A 14mm/0.5 would be neat.

09-30-2012, 08:39 AM	#17
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by LamyTax No. Shutter speed is secondary. Diffraction limit is what matters. >f/4 makes little sense with the Q because you effectively kill resolution due to diffraction. F/2.8 on a Q is already similar to f/8 on APS-C. F/2.8 = F/16 on FF or F/11 on APS-C F/1.9 = F11 on FF or F/8 on APS-C Fast primes? It's unreal. If they even make 10/1.0 = 56/5.6 on FF or 56/4 on APS-C...

09-30-2012, 09:26 PM	#18
Tonto Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wellington Posts: 969	Well that is in regards to matching DOF and diffraction yes but stopwise 2.8 is 2.8 - If you are wanting limited DOF then you need the larger sensor camera.

10-01-2012, 12:21 AM	#19
nosnoop Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,299	Originally posted by Tonto Well that is in regards to matching DOF and diffraction yes but stopwise 2.8 is 2.8 - If you are wanting limited DOF then you need the larger sensor camera. Aperture equivalence is more useful than just comparing DOF. It also shows you the expected image quality in terms of noise and dynamic range when you are comparing different lenses with different sensors' size (assuming similar sensor technology), and how far a seemingly "fast" prime can offset the disadvantage of a small sensor.

10-01-2012, 02:05 AM	#20
fikkser Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Borlänge, Sweden Posts: 373	Originally posted by ogl F/2.8 = F/16 on FF or F/11 on APS-C F/1.9 = F11 on FF or F/8 on APS-C Fast primes? It's unreal. If they even make 10/1.0 = 56/5.6 on FF or 56/4 on APS-C... Yes, but why do you two compare with aps-c? To compensate the Q's bad ISO we need faster lenses (I do atleast), doesn't require much glass to make a fast Q lens. If I could have some bookeh too, that would be nice. 10 f1 would be nice, give me.

10-01-2012, 01:20 PM	#21
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by ogl If they even make 10/1.0 = 56/5.6 on FF or 56/4 on APS-C... But that should actually be fast enough to allow for some nice bokeh, at least at closer distances.

10-01-2012, 02:06 PM	#22
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	I'm no expert, but aren't such ultrafast lenses difficult to make? They are rare, that's for sure.

10-03-2012, 01:26 AM	#23
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by fikkser They forgot the fast prime... This system is made for FAST PRIMES, WHERE ARE THEY, DAMN IT. The Q needs glass which is diffraction-limited at f/2.8 and does not fall off at wider apertures (if they exist). That's already rather hard to design for f/2.8. E.g., this is why for the Nokia 808, Zeiss made a fixed aperture lens (f/2.4).

10-03-2012, 03:35 AM	#24
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	Yes, if you consider the former CCTV fast lenses samples, they are often wider than f/2.8, but very scarcely "HD compatible" at these apertures... So i'm affraid that the cost of such primes would be very expensive. But of course i wish there would be more of that choice in Q mount.