[DSims]

It's the DA 21/3.2. The opted for a slightly slower lens to make it pancake. Tradefoffs.

You'll see a 24mm when FF comes out

And will this 24mm be a new design, or a re-released one?

[carrrlangas]

I am highly intrigued. Please post on how this works out for you. A MILC foveon would be fantastic.

I am asking for some help in the forum, here´s the thread if you want to follow: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/76-non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/258...ml#post2787798

[goubejp]

And will this 24mm be a new design, or a re-released one?

There is the FA*24mm f2. A good lens, often underquoted. An APS-C designed lens would be smaller. An rewamp of the 24mmf2 - which is full frame - would be nice. F1.4 is a bit too much for me. When I want shallow depth of field I use a longer focal length, and the 31 limited does a great job in this aspect

[Winder]

And will this 24mm be a new design, or a re-released one?

Since it will be part of the ART series, I'm sure its a totally new design.

[DSims]

Since it will be part of the ART series, I'm sure its a totally new design.

Thanks, but I was actually referring to the mysterious Pentax 24mm that Aristophanes suggested is coming.

[Homo_erectus]

Where is the Pentax 24mm 2.8?

I was actually just referring to the fact the Pentax offers a bunch of 2.4/2.8/3.2/4 prime lense and only a few f/1.8 or faster lenses. If Pentax actually made fast primes there'd be little space for a third party, like Sigma, to produce and sell those lenses. Pentax is literally creating a market for Sigma by refusing to offer high quality fast primes that aren't priced like they're made of gold.

[cali92rs]

I was actually just referring to the fact the Pentax offers a bunch of 2.4/2.8/3.2/4 prime lense and only a few f/1.8 or faster lenses. If Pentax actually made fast primes there'd be little space for a third party, like Sigma, to produce and sell those lenses. Pentax is literally creating a market for Sigma by refusing to offer high quality fast primes that aren't priced like they're made of gold.

That's because the Pentaxian either shoots outdoors or doesnt mind boosting the ISO to 12800 (according to their executives).

[Paul the Sunman]

That's because the Pentaxian either shoots outdoors or doesnt mind boosting the ISO to 12800 (according to their executives).

I'm very happy that Pentax makes its "small and slow" lenses, the Limiteds in particular. That doesn't mean they can't produce a few "bigger and faster" lenses as well, though complete ranges of both is too much to ask of a small player. Happy to leave "huge and fast" to Sigma, especially if they produce K-mount.

---------- Post added 25-04-14 at 07:31 AM ----------

Depth of field at 24mm f/1.4 on APS-C is 1.6m at 4m subject distance, compared to 3.7m at f/2.8. At 10m subject distance, the comparison is 12.9m against 488m! I guess that could be useful. [Source: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html]

[Poit]

Not everyone in Pentax land values smaller and slower.

I agree totally!

The Sigma 35 f1.4 is an absolute gem, and has quickly become a staple lens for me when shooting weddings. I have NEVER found myself thinking 'oh this is really heavy, I wish I could sacrifice speed and/or depth of field for a smaller lens'. Absolute tosh.

What concerns me most is not that people here believe the 'smaller/slower' marketing line, but that Pentax Ricoh themselves seem to believe it. If they are serious about mixing it with Canon & Nikon they need to realise that for many/most pro-shooters speed and/or DoF is a much more important attribute than size/weight. They are consigning themselves to a small corner of the market, and excluding many potential customers, by continuing down their current path.

[cali92rs]

What concerns me most is not that people here believe the 'smaller/slower' marketing line, but that Pentax Ricoh themselves seem to believe it. If they are serious about mixing it with Canon & Nikon they need to realise that for many/most pro-shooters speed and/or DoF is a much more important attribute than size/weight. They are consigning themselves to a small corner of the market, and excluding many potential customers, by continuing down their current path.

+1...

I think the issue is that Ricoh does not want to compete with Canikon on any front at all. Every move they have made has been in a different arena than the other companies. Q is a real small sensor MILC, where 2/3" and 1" seems to be where other manufactures are going. THe Theta, who knows what niche that fills. Small slowish lenses, such as the re-issue of the DA limiteds and the 20-40mm vs big fast lenses. The K-3 is an advanced, upper-end APS-C DSLR which definitely seems to be on the back burner for Canikon. They are bypassing the FF market and going straight into a much smaller market with the 645Z.
It seems like they are doing everything they can to avoid direct confrontation with anyone else. Maybe that is the right strategy in the short run. But there is a reason that mainstream companies are mainstream. It's because they produce the products that most people want.

[Winder]

I think Ricoh wants to compete. I just think they are moving slow and hopefully doing it right. The 645z looks like a really good value in the MF market and now that the lenses are available in the USA it might be time for me to retire my Contax 645 and move over to the 645z. I just keep waiting for the mirrorless MF. I have a K-3 DSLR for when I need high speed and high performance. I only need 3 lenses for my MF work. I'm not sure I want to buy into the old tech tank of the 645 system.

I think we will see FF at the end of this year and some serious glass to go with it. Pentax is no longer the great optics company that it once was. I just hope the new glass is as good as the old A* lenses like the 135mm F/1.8.

[DSims]

I think we will see FF at the end of this year and some serious glass to go with it. Pentax is no longer the great optics company that it once was. I just hope the new glass is as good as the old A* lenses like the 135mm F/1.8.

This is my biggest concern too - will they be able to match the quality of the optics they've made in the past? Having Sigma and Tamron make major lenses for them (if that's what they're planning) certainly won't do it for them. At a minimum they should have Tokina and Cosina making lenses to high standards that they specify. But will that really get them up to the optical quality of the better A, F, and FA lenses of the past?

[ElJamoquio]

This is my biggest concern too - will they be able to match the quality of the optics they've made in the past? Having Sigma and Tamron make major lenses for them (if that's what they're planning) certainly won't do it for them. At a minimum they should have Tokina and Cosina making lenses to high standards that they specify. But will that really get them up to the optical quality of the better A, F, and FA lenses of the past?

Could have Zeiss do it. Don't know if they're exclusive to Sony though.

I love some of Pentax's lenses but honestly some of Tamron's and some of Sigma's are better. I am probably in the minority here but if it's not a Limited or FA*/DA* I actually don't want the lens.

I guess I'd like to try the A*50 F/1.2.

[Winder]

Could have Zeiss do it. Don't know if they're exclusive to Sony though.

I love some of Pentax's lenses but honestly some of Tamron's and some of Sigma's are better. I am probably in the minority here but if it's not a Limited or FA*/DA* I actually don't want the lens.

I guess I'd like to try the A*50 F/1.2.

I think Zeiss is at its limits with what they can handle. Sony has been unhappy with Zeiss's ability to keep up and is working with Olympus. Then you have the Zeiss tax. Zeiss now makes AF lenses for the Fuji X-mount. There was a rumor that Zeiss's contract agreement limited them to only providing AF lenses to Sony. They could produce MF lenses or any mount. Currently I'm not sure Zeiss makes glass that is good enough to justify the price relative to other manufacturers.

[DSims]

Could have Zeiss do it. Don't know if they're exclusive to Sony though.

I love some of Pentax's lenses but honestly some of Tamron's and some of Sigma's are better. I am probably in the minority here but if it's not a Limited or FA*/DA* I actually don't want the lens.

I guess I'd like to try the A*50 F/1.2.

I think Zeiss is at its limits with what they can handle. Sony has been unhappy with Zeiss's ability to keep up and is working with Olympus. Then you have the Zeiss tax. Zeiss now makes AF lenses for the Fuji X-mount. There was a rumor that Zeiss's contract agreement limited them to only providing AF lenses to Sony. They could produce MF lenses or any mount. Currently I'm not sure Zeiss makes glass that is good enough to justify the price relative to other manufacturers.

Well I can tell you one thing - the Sony Zeiss 135/1.8 is certainly good enough! It's my favorite lens that I can't own (unless I invest in a new DSLR mount).


And of course my Sigma and Tamron statement is a generalization. But Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus, and Pentax would all tend to produce better lenses than a "comparable" Tamron or Sigma lens.

Actually, Canon is the only camera brand I think I'd want just premium (L) glass from - not Pentax or the others. But I still use * lenses the most.



I didn't realize Sony was working with Olympus so much on the glass, but at least they chose one of the best lens makers.

I'm not convinced Zeiss is grossly overpriced. The law of diminishing returns still applies, but if you want better glass ...