[woodywesty]

If there is already a DA 300mm F4 and a DA 60-250mm F4 then why can't we have a new 135-380mm F4 instead of a 4-5.6 DC WR ? F5.6 at the long end isn't very fast especially if combined with the new TC. I was hoping for a reasonably fast birding lens. Guess I'll have to wait and see what comes and what the tests look like.

[Wired]

Variable aperture is not the same as budget. The Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 performs as well as the DA* 16-50 2.8 optically. The new DA 20-40 is not budget but is F2.8-F4.

Yes, the Sigma and the DA20-40 may be great lenses optically. The DA 20-40 is an anomaly because it's goal is to be a lens that delivers like a prime in a small compact weather sealed, fast AF build. So size trade off for aperture. However the Sigma does not look that much smaller compared to the DA*, and is half the price. I would pay the premium for a constant f2.8 aperture any day of the week if size is similar. Even if you handed me the Sigma and a 17-70 with a constant F4 I would choose the constant aperture any day.

[D1N0]

Yes, the Sigma and the DA20-40 may be great lenses optically. The DA 20-40 is an anomaly because it's goal is to be a lens that delivers like a prime in a small compact weather sealed, fast AF build. So size trade off for aperture. However the Sigma does not look that much smaller compared to the DA*, and is half the price. I would pay the premium for a constant f2.8 aperture any day of the week if size is similar. Even if you handed me the Sigma and a 17-70 with a constant F4 I would choose the constant aperture any day.

That is your right, but i don't think it is a logical decision but based on prejudice.

[Giklab]

Must've missed the pigs flying... SInce when is a faster aperture bad?

[Wired]

That is your right, but i don't think it is a logical decision but based on prejudice.

fair enough.

That's why theres tons of lenses out there, more selection for everyone and a lens for everyone. Just myself personally don't see the need to saturate the "normal zoom" range with more variable aperture lenses when Pentax could put the effort into something like Sigma's 1.8 zoom, 120-300 f2.8, or 24-105 f4 (that would be cool). Or come up with some fast wide angle or tele primes... 35mm f1.4? 20mm f2.8?, updated 85mm f1.8?, 135mm f2.0?

not including anything over 70mm.... for zooms we got:

DA*16-50 f2.8
DA 20-40 f2.8-4
DA 17-70 f4
DA 18-55 f3.5-5.6

While essentially you could shoot anything 10mm-250mm with just three/four lenses (DA 10-70, DA*16-50, DA*60-250 + DA*50-135 to cover the 50-60mm gap?) it would be nice to have some high quality fast primes for low light. The DA Limiteds and FA Limiteds are beautiful lenses, but there are gaps when it comes to primes. a proper 200mm FOV fast prime would be fantastic! Or even a 135mm FOV fast prime (closest we have the 77mm f1.8)

Just saying, we got "normal zoom" covered. time to give us something we don't. :P

[Wired]

If there is already a DA 300mm F4 and a DA 60-250mm F4 then why can't we have a new 135-380mm F4 instead of a 4-5.6 DC WR ? F5.6 at the long end isn't very fast especially if combined with the new TC. I was hoping for a reasonably fast birding lens. Guess I'll have to wait and see what comes and what the tests look like.

that's my opinion on the matter too. lets keep it constant!

[eurostar]

If there is already a DA 300mm F4 and a DA 60-250mm F4 then why can't we have a new 135-380mm F4 instead of a 4-5.6 DC WR ?

Look at the prices and dimensions of Nikon and Canon 200-400/4 lenses and you'll have your answer.

[northcoastgreg]

If there is already a DA 300mm F4 and a DA 60-250mm F4 then why can't we have a new 135-380mm F4 instead of a 4-5.6 DC WR ?

Because an f4 version would be prohibitively expensive. The Nikkor 200-400 f4 routinely sells for ~$6,500, and it weighs almost 7 and a half pounds.

Even if you handed me the Sigma and a 17-70 with a constant F4 I would choose the constant aperture any day.

In some ways that's smart: variable aperature zooms have always tended to be built to keep costs down, and have thus been inferior to constant aperture zooms. So going for the constant aperture zoom is merely playing the odds. I, however, find this prejudice against variable aperture zooms unfortunate, because it means if I want the highest quality, I'm doomed to carrying the extra weight to support apertures I'll never use. I don't need f2.8 in a zoom (or even f4, for that matter). A slow, compact zoom of high quality would be perfect for landscape photography, as it would be much easier to carry it on long hikes and backpacking trips. But such a lens will never be made because of the prejudice against slow variable aperture lenses.
.

[monochrome]

Reality is a K3 and 3 Limited primes in a waist pouch will handle almost everything I would want a good zoom for on a hike. If I really need to tote a zoom on a hike I already have the 55~300, which is a competent lens in good light and not very weighty.

[Wired]

Because an f4 version would be prohibitively expensive. The Nikkor 200-400 f4 routinely sells for ~$6,500, and it weighs almost 7 and a half pounds.



In some ways that's smart: variable aperature zooms have always tended to be built to keep costs down, and have thus been inferior to constant aperture zooms. So going for the constant aperture zoom is merely playing the odds. I, however, find this prejudice against variable aperture zooms unfortunate, because it means if I want the highest quality, I'm doomed to carrying the extra weight to support apertures I'll never use. I don't need f2.8 in a zoom (or even f4, for that matter). A slow, compact zoom of high quality would be perfect for landscape photography, as it would be much easier to carry it on long hikes and backpacking trips. But such a lens will never be made because of the prejudice against slow variable aperture lenses.
.

I agree to a point. Take my latest acquisition, Tokina 17-35mm f4 for F mount. I was looking at it, the Tokina f2.8 zoom, and Nikons 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 zoom. I went with the f4 constant not because it was the sharpest...but it wasn't. Not because it had the least distortion...it had the most. But because of the weight and constant aperture. I don't need to have my aperture opening up and closing on me as I zoom messing with my exposure (I shoot manual shutter/aperture/iso). So even though the Nikon was sharper than the Tokina, lightest, and has the least amount of distortion...the variable aperture was just too much of a necessity for the subject matter I'm shooting and for the shooting style I employ. If I was doing landscapes or architecture all day...sure the variable aperture wouldn't affect me because chances are I would be at f8 90% of the time anyways. But for shooting street or cycling or short movies? constant wins hands down. Oh the Tokina was also cheapest...but that wasn't a concern.

[mecrox]

Because an f4 version would be prohibitively expensive. The Nikkor 200-400 f4 routinely sells for ~$6,500, and it weighs almost 7 and a half pounds.

In some ways that's smart: variable aperature zooms have always tended to be built to keep costs down, and have thus been inferior to constant aperture zooms. So going for the constant aperture zoom is merely playing the odds. I, however, find this prejudice against variable aperture zooms unfortunate, because it means if I want the highest quality, I'm doomed to carrying the extra weight to support apertures I'll never use. I don't need f2.8 in a zoom (or even f4, for that matter). A slow, compact zoom of high quality would be perfect for landscape photography, as it would be much easier to carry it on long hikes and backpacking trips. But such a lens will never be made because of the prejudice against slow variable aperture lenses.
.

I think there are reasonable workarounds. For example, a DA 15mm, a DA 20-40mm and an older M series 120mm prime lens - not much to carry. The DA 20-40mm seems to test out well across the frame at f8+ from what I've read. My M 120mm f2.8 prime is very small and still has the 49mm filter thread. And it's sharp and contrasty enough closed down somewhat. That's a spread of 24mm to 180mm or so, not bad for a small kit with the accent on quality.

[woodywesty]

Because an f4 version would be prohibitively expensive. The Nikkor 200-400 f4 routinely sells for ~$6,500, and it weighs almost 7 and a half pounds.



In some ways that's smart: variable aperature zooms have always tended to be built to keep costs down, and have thus been inferior to constant aperture zooms. So going for the constant aperture zoom is merely playing the odds. I, however, find this prejudice against variable aperture zooms unfortunate, because it means if I want the highest quality, I'm doomed to carrying the extra weight to support apertures I'll never use. I don't need f2.8 in a zoom (or even f4, for that matter). A slow, compact zoom of high quality would be perfect for landscape photography, as it would be much easier to carry it on long hikes and backpacking trips. But such a lens will never be made because of the prejudice against slow variable aperture lenses.
.

I guess I didn't think that the jump from 60-250mm F4 to 135-380mm F4 would take us from $1,400 to $5,000 or more? That's a pretty big jump. It may be that the best option in the end is to get the DA300mm F4 and the new TC or even better the Sigma 300mm F2.8 along with the new TC. I'll wait and see how it all shakes out.

[Wired]

I guess I didn't think that the jump from 60-250mm F4 to 135-380mm F4 would take us from $1,400 to $5,000 or more? That's a pretty big jump. It may be that the best option in the end is to get the DA300mm F4 and the new TC or even better the Sigma 300mm F2.8 along with the new TC. I'll wait and see how it all shakes out.

if only this lens came in K mount.... SIGMA 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM | Sport - Telephoto Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

[MJSfoto1956]

All camera companies are ultimately lens companies. In the past, companies like Sigma and Tamron couldn't compete on quality so they competed on price. No more. Sigma, Tamron, and Zeiss are going hell-bent on filling in any "gaps" the camera companies are leaving unanswered. Given that Pentax lens line is in competition primarily with Sigma (my opinion), their moves are by definition "defensive" as Pentax lenses are limited to work on Pentax bodies. Sigma is smart and present a real threat to all camera manufacturers: they have modularized their new lens line and they can add (or delay delivery of) a lens into any system's market that will help their bottom line -- they are MUCH more flexible than Nikon, Canon, or Pentax for that matter.. As such, Pentax's only strategic move is to go for the "make it smaller and lighter" route (not unlike Fuji's situation). This makes a lot of sense as Sigma is stretched a bit thin trying to mass market both an FX line of lenses and a DX line of lenses across all markets. On the telephoto side, AFAIK only Pentax is making telezoom/sharp/lightweight lenses (e.g. DA* 60-250mm and perhaps the DA* 135-280mm). Sigma's (and CaNikon's) long lenses in comparison are behemoths and difficult to travel with. I think it is a safe bet that any future lenses from Pentax will follow suit.

Michael

[Rondec]

Reality is a K3 and 3 Limited primes in a waist pouch will handle almost everything I would want a good zoom for on a hike. If I really need to tote a zoom on a hike I already have the 55~300, which is a competent lens in good light and not very weighty.

The big reason I use zooms is for sealing. Pentax has chosen not to seal the limiteds (a mistake in my opinion) and so the DA * lenses and WR lenses (primarily zooms) are the way to go if you are going to be dealing with any weather.