[snake]

I dont get why 2.8 is so important at 24mm APSC... the DOF is not going to be very shallow to begin with. For that I think you need the Sigma 18-35/1/.8

High SO performance has for the most part replaced the need for fast lens for shutter speed purposes except in very dim light, where you won't be using this lens anyway, you'll be using the Sigma or a 1.8 prime.



Your point is valid, however target market of D3200/D5200 are not likely to go beyond the basic kitlens + basic telezoom and a 50/35 prime, where the size difference is not that big (in fact the 35mm DX is a very compact lens).

I can't wait until they announce the price of this lens, although I'm really afraid to hear what it is

Because there are people that like shooting in low light, without going to astronomical ISO levels. You also partly answered your question in that on APSc, large apertures at a 35mm equivalent make sense because there is more DOF.

But more apologies- a Sigma 18-35 1.8 is not going to be a substitute for a fast 24 for prime shooters. Have you seen low large it is? Do you know why people use primes(in fact, Pentax prides itself on its foundation of prime lenses, but you are recommending a huge zoom) I think you are severely missing the point in searching for a defense for Pentax not having a classic and relevant focal length with a fast aperture. In fact, your answer reeks of apologism. That's the problem- people who are aligned with Pentax are now in a realm where they have very lowered expectations from it.

And I said nothing about f2.8, aside from weakly alluding to the fact that F2.8 in a 35mm equivalent is the baseline aperture. Meaning, I would not go smaller than that.

[repaap]

Because there are people that like shooting in low light, without going to astronomical ISO levels. You also partly answered your question in that on APSc, large apertures at a 35mm equivalent make sense because there is more DOF.

But more apologies- a Sigma 18-35 1.8 is not going to be a substitute for a fast 24 for prime shooters. Have you seen low large it is? Do you know why people use primes(in fact, Pentax prides itself on its foundation of prime lenses, but you are recommending a huge zoom) I think you are severely missing the point in searching for a defense for Pentax not having a classic and relevant focal length with a fast aperture. In fact, your answer reeks of apologism. That's the problem- people who are aligned with Pentax are now in a realm where they have very lowered expectations from it.

And I said nothing about f2.8, aside from weakly alluding to the fact that F2.8 in a 35mm equivalent is the baseline aperture. Meaning, I would not go smaller than that.

It would be great to have modern wide fast prime for Pentax too. Now there is only FA*24/1.4, which is quite big too. But they should make fast wide. no argument at there. Something to go well with my DA*55(AW, ect.).

[RonHendriks1966]

It's going to skip right from 23 to 25.

To be honest,I wouldn't even mind if it just had 3 steps: 20mm, 30mm,40mm!

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

For me, the attraction of Pentax is having a very capable DSLR kit in a small package, which naturally includes the lenses. Is there a law compelling people to buy this lens? If not, I don't see the need for any angst. I like the idea of an f1.8 wide-angle zoom, but I don't actually need one, so there's no way I'm carrying the Sigma around. With a smaller zoom, I can find room for my 31mm, if I need to include something faster. But that's just me. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

[RonHendriks1966]

The third reason forces customers not to go secondhand with af-d and prior lenses. It also forces the customer wanting to do so to shell out the money for a higher tier body.
This is a smart strategy if not nice to customers. This is called playing dirty. Pentax(Ricoh) has not (yet) done such thing.

Well not dirty, but the K-50/K-500 are about giving the same options, only not the dirty way, but offering a cheaper model to it.

[snake]

It would be great to have modern wide fast prime for Pentax too. Now there is only FA*24/1.4, which is quite big too. But they should make fast wide. no argument at there. Something to go well with my DA*55(AW, ect.).

What's this? Please explain.

[Sandy Hancock]

The FA*24 was f/2.0

[snake]

The FA*24 was f/2.0

Yep, and some years out of production (at least not so easy to obtain outside of Japan, aside from overpriced used). It's also said to be not that stellar on a K-5. The Sigma alternatives in the 20-28mm range, aside from the long-discontinued 24mm f2.8 (which looks like an FA series) don't get the best reviews, either.

[repaap]

What's this? Please explain.

Yup! Typo. I ment 24/2.0...and I know that it is oldie. But new version liiitle faster would be great.

[Andi Lo]

Yup! Typo. I ment 24/2.0...and I know that it is oldie. But new version liiitle faster would be great.

FUJINON LENS XF23mmF1.4 R | Specifications | Fujfilm Canada

Seems like it can indeed be done, a good fast APSC optimized 24mm/1.4.

Looking at this lens rumor, I doubt Ricoh is interested in going wide aperture though, they're placing their bets on small but slow

I guess if you need one, the fuji is your best bet, or you can jump to FF

[Dan]

FUJINON LENS XF23mmF1.4 R | Specifications | Fujfilm Canada

Seems like it can indeed be done, a good fast APSC optimized 24mm/1.4.

...

That lens is quite compact at only 10.6oz (300g) and 2.48" in length, but it is not an SLR lens. With mirrorless cameras there is no need to leave room for the mirror, which allows for wide-angle lenses that are more compact. Some of my wide-angle rangefinder lenses are tiny. The retrofocus design required for wide-angle SLR lenses seems to rule out wide-angle lenses that are both fast and reasonably compact. There are lots of good 24mm f/1.4 SLR lenses from various manufacturers, but they are all HUGE. Of course they are all FF lenses which adds a bit to their bulk, but even if they were APSC lenses they would be much bigger than the Fujifilm lens. This is a good example of the advantages of a mirrorless camera with a short registration distance.

Dan

[snake]

FUJINON LENS XF23mmF1.4 R | Specifications | Fujfilm Canada

Seems like it can indeed be done, a good fast APSC optimized 24mm/1.4.

Looking at this lens rumor, I doubt Ricoh is interested in going wide aperture though, they're placing their bets on small but slow

I guess if you need one, the fuji is your best bet, or you can jump to FF

Yes, and I've quoted this lens before.

Fuji doing it, every company having a fast 35mm option, shows how poor Pentax's vision is, especially when some of the same people here compare the X100 to the K-5 quite often, but try to pass over the fact that the DA21 is not fast by any standards. They'll even say "f3.2 is not that far off from 2.8", even though that's massively far from the minimum of an f2.0 that Pentax should have in its lineup.

Then your final statement seems to exist in a vacuum and confirms exactly what I'm saying the problem with not having this focal length is- it only incentivizes going to other brands- what most people here worry and constantly complain about.

So a defense for Pentax not having a fast 24 (being dedicated to APSc) is that options from other makers are available, when that's the complaint in the first place? Does this seem convoluted? It should, because it is. It's thus far the most convoluted rationalization for Pentax's lack of vision I've seen so far.

[repaap]

FUJINON LENS XF23mmF1.4 R | Specifications | Fujfilm Canada

Seems like it can indeed be done, a good fast APSC optimized 24mm/1.4.

Looking at this lens rumor, I doubt Ricoh is interested in going wide aperture though, they're placing their bets on small but slow

I guess if you need one, the fuji is your best bet, or you can jump to FF

Thanks!

I actually do know about that lens. Not that I'm in urgent need for it. It would be great thou. This zoom can be really nice, allaround lens. For me. Let's see the prize and rest of it now.

[IchabodCrane]

Yes, and I've quoted this lens before.

Fuji doing it, every company having a fast 35mm option, shows how poor Pentax's vision is, especially when some of the same people here compare the X100 to the K-5 quite often, but try to pass over the fact that the DA21 is not fast by any standards. They'll even say "f3.2 is not that far off from 2.8", even though that's massively far from the minimum of an f2.0 that Pentax should have in its lineup.

Then your final statement seems to exist in a vacuum and confirms exactly what I'm saying the problem with not having this focal length is- it only incentivizes going to other brands- what most people here worry and constantly complain about.

So a defense for Pentax not having a fast 24 (being dedicated to APSc) is that options from other makers are available, when that's the complaint in the first place? Does this seem convoluted? It should, because it is. It's thus far the most convoluted rationalization for Pentax's lack of vision I've seen so far.

Won't a fast AND small 24 mm lens dictate an abandonment of K-mount?

[IchabodCrane]

<br />
<br />
I dont think so: Nikon removed the internal motor for three reasons :<br />
* costs<br />
* weight (but really, 50g for that motor? not convinced)<br />
* market segmentation (big time)! <br />
<br />
The third reason forces customers not to go secondhand with af-d and prior lenses. It also forces the customer wanting to do so to shell out the money for a higher tier body.<br />
This is a smart strategy if not nice to customers. This is called playing dirty. Pentax(Ricoh) has not (yet) done such thing.

thibs, are there any lenses that Nikon is selling today that require a screw-drive mechanism? If not, I don't see how they are "playing dirty".