[ElJamoquio]

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.

+ 18-135

[ElJamoquio]

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.

250/4 = 6.25 cm = 30.68 cm^2 = $1400

380/5.6 = 6.78 cm = 36 cm^2 = $??






380/4 = 9.5 cm = 70.88 cm^ 2 = $???

560/5.6 = 10 cm = 78.54 cm^2 = $7000



Not a perfectly linear correlation of course, longer lenses are more expensive by 20-40%, zooms are often more expensive than 'comparable' primes by 20-40%, etc., etc., etc.

I'd expect a new Pentax 380 f/4 to be $4500 to $5000.

[DSims]

The Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 performs as well as the DA* 16-50 2.8 optically.

Pretty soon I'll be hearing that the Sigma performs better than the DA*55 and all 3 FA Ltds!

[DSims]

No, that price was fixed for quite a while
(I'd been tracking it, before deciding to wait for the DA Ltd zoom).

It was a much lower price than the USD 850
being asked on the Pentax-Ricoh Japanese webstore
right up until later in 2013.

OK, I give up. The $350 lens I bought was really an $850 lens, and the DA20-40 is an $850 lens - because, after all, B&H will mark it down to that sometime in the future.

So they both cost the same, and Pentax isn't really raising prices.

I noted when DA20~40 was first announced there were two FA20~35 copies available in St. Louis NIB for $665 at a B&M Dealer. They were NOS at the original Dealer-Listed price, and they disappeared within a week.

They must have considered the optical quality close enough for this to suddenly look like a good value.

[monochrome]

They must have considered the optical quality close enough for this to suddenly look like a good value.

I don't doubt what you paid at all. I just know Creve Couer Camera had two @$665 in November. Those lenses had been on their website forever. I thought about it, but I linked the item here. They disappeared.

Not saying there is a direct correlation, but I think I should get a commission.

[DSims]

with f2.8 at the wide end.

QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
People argue that a variable aperture lens doesn't have to be inferior (in IQ), but in practice it usually is.
There is no optical/physical reason for this, quite the contrary. Take the various iterations of the Sigma 17-70, always offering f2.8 at the wide end. They are comparable, and always slightly better, than the Pentax 17-70.

Someone else will have to show me how wonderful this lens is at f/2.8, because photozone says it's pretty poor, and they refused to offer any sample photos wider than f/4!

And I don't question them, because my experience with Sigma - especially the old Sigma - is they love to sell lenses that perform poorly within the first (widest) stop because it looks better on paper and allows them to either raise the price, appear to be the best value, or both.


Now I shudder to think this may actually be a re-badged Sigma - even with the New Reinvented Sigma being a better company than the old one.

[Eric Auer]

I don't doubt what you paid at all. I just know Creve Couer Camera had two @$665 in November. Those lenses had been on their website forever. I thought about it, but I linked the item here. They disappeared.

Not saying there is a direct correlation, but I think I should get a commission.

Didn't Santa already give you a K-3?

[monochrome]

Didn't Santa already give you a K-3?

Yes indeed. And it works with every lens I already have. Which prompts my recent signature update.


[EDIT: Oh. I get it. No I didn't.]

[derekkite]

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.

400 f4 is a 300 2.8 with another 100mm. The cheapest on the market is the sigma at more than $3k. It is a big lens.

A 5.6 would be interesting and affordable as long as it is sharp wide open. If it has to be stopped down to perform reasonably, then might as well stick with a bigma and get another 100mm+.

[thibs]

Now I shudder to think this may actually be a re-badged Sigma - even with the New Reinvented Sigma being a better company than the old one.

Impossible. No OEM will ever rebadge a Sigma, as long as Sigma doesn't play the licence game.
AFAIK Sigma didn't change their ways of doing business so no, it won't happen.

[JimmyDranox]

If Pentax will make a FF camera, and I think they will, they need big and fast telelenses, zooms or fixed. Even isn't not for everyone. But for Ricoh, on the DSLR market, it's a must for their brand prestige.

[bdery]

Someone else will have to show me how wonderful this lens is at f/2.8, because photozone says it's pretty poor, and they refused to offer any sample photos wider than f/4!

I suggest you read the review of the first two versions of the Sigma 17-70 compared to the Pentax 17-70 that I wrote:

Pentax 17-70mm Lens Comparison - Introduction - PentaxForums.com

And I don't question them, because my experience with Sigma - especially the old Sigma - is they love to sell lenses that perform poorly within the first (widest) stop because it looks better on paper and allows them to either raise the price, appear to be the best value, or both.

Maybe it was so at some time. My first experience with Sigma is the 17-70. It's an excellent lens, and the v3 version appears to be even better. Some of their older lenses, like the mini wide 28mm, are really sought after. Lenses dating from 5-8 years are mostly well regarded, with no dogs in the lineup. They have been steadily improving their products in recent years, getting even better.

I own only one Sigma lens out of 6, but it's mainly a size issue, not a quality issue. Their lenses are larger and I don't like that, but they are good, often better than the competition.

[gaddigad]

Lets hope k-60 has k-30's IQ, not k-50's

[Giklab]

Lets hope k-60 has k-30's IQ, not k-50's

Why? I'm under the impression they are identical...

[D1N0]

Lets hope k-60 has k-30's IQ, not k-50's

They are identical. Maybe Adam scored K-50 lower because it had not improved over the K-30. Anyway when the K-60 (or whatever it is called) has the 24mp sensor and prime III, it will be more like the k-3.