[ElJamoquio]

Really? I remember the 135 was very highly regarded lens back then.
Or is its use on digital problematic ?

I haven't used the 135.

I *have* used the 18-135, and I do not believe it isn't that great of a lens at 135mm. If a prime does not outperform it significantly, the prime isn't very good.

I believe the F/135 would outperform it, but someone else said it didn't.

[thibs]

I haven't used the 135.

I *have* used the 18-135, and I do not believe it isn't that great of a lens at 135mm. If a prime does not outperform it significantly, the prime isn't very good.

I believe the F/135 would outperform it, but someone else said it didn't.

Oh, thought it was your point. Thanks.

[Uluru]

135/2 or 135/2.8 would be a really sweet lens for the APS-C users especially, no doubts about it.
Because there is gap: from 100mm macro, to 200mm. That 100mm gap (or 150mm in APS-C) is too big not to be covered with a good prime.

I am willing to say that it would be far better for Pentax brand to have a 24mm and 135mm primes, than FA43 or FA77.
Those first two will fix the gaps most completely, and would make a system appear far more intelligently designed.

[PJ1]

Rumour of a Sony Nex7 FF to be released at Photokina. Being a Nex, it looks rather like a K-01 brick. Allegedly the K-01 could accommodate the FF image circle. As many of us have said, why not a K-01 FF? If there is room for the sensor, surely the firmware would take negligible extra space.

[Nicolas06]

135/2 or 135/2.8 would be a really sweet lens for the APS-C users especially, no doubts about it.
Because there is gap: from 100mm macro, to 200mm. That 100mm gap (or 150mm in APS-C) is too big not to be covered with a good prime.

I am willing to say that it would be far better for Pentax brand to have a 24mm and 135mm primes, than FA43 or FA77.
Those first two will fix the gaps most completely, and would make a system appear far more intelligently designed.

Don't touch thoses babies for your shit

First thoses FA are FF, I think that some of you may appreciate that isn't it ? Removing that FA77 is just going to have the same sort of gap (2X factor) between 50 & 100mm in term of FF lenses.

Second many go to pentax specifically for thoses babies just because of their unique superior rendering. There are a unique proposition no other manufacturer has.

Third Pentax is sure making a good margin on them.

I'am not against a 24 or a 135, higly depend of the proposition arround it. My guess is a 24mm can just be an f/2.8 so as to stay small. My only interrest on it would be for it to be sharp edge to edge to replace the DA21. Could be the size of an FA50 but for me no bigger. I agree that could be f/1.4 but the 24mm focal lens is just too short to really benefit of it in most situations. On APSC or FF, I would say one would benefit more of a 35mm f/1.4 than 24mm f/1.4.

The 135mm I would like it, but again if small, otherwise no buying for me. That could based on older 135mm and f/2.8... Would allow for very interresting tele capabilities combined with 1.4 TC ! Make it FF, that's ok, as thoses suckers need longer focal for their portraiture

Well, not sure that was you where thinking of?

[ElJamoquio]

24mm f/2.8 is covered by a good zoom, though, too... one knock against it, for me at least.

[D1N0]

The Sigma Super-Wide II is a nice cheap 24mm alternative for pentax. You still see it pretty often on ebay. I have the MF version and I think it's great. Sigma AF 24mm f/2.8 macro (Pentax K) - Review / Lab Test Report

[Nicolas06]

24mm f/2.8 is covered by a good zoom, though, too... one knock against it, for me at least.

yeah agree, that also the problem of 70mm f/2.4... A good zoom cover it too. But the prime could be perfectly sharp wide open, with perfect constrast, good color rendition and no flare. This no zoom will do. And for the flare a 24mm f/1.4 prime will not do neither.

See the example of that 35mm f/2.4 plastic wonder of pentax. It perform a littke better at f/2.4 than the Sigma 35mm Art at f/4 on borders... (APSC both) even through the sigma was tested on the nikon with a sensor that has slightly better max MTF. Chromatic aberations are better handled. The Sigma Art as rounded blades and that help a lot but it get onion bokeh too and that not good. Both tend to outline the higlight, at least on APSC...

Compared to the 30mm f/1.4 Art of sigma, well the sigma doesn't approach at f/8 the border quality the DA35 f/2.4 has at f/2.4...

Getting modest characteristics can help sometime.

I fully agree that there is sense for an f/1.4 35mm on FF. For a 24mm, honestly, I don't think that really that usefull.

[ElJamoquio]

yeah agree, that also the problem of 70mm f/2.4... A good zoom cover it too. But the prime could be perfectly sharp wide open, with perfect constrast, good color rendition and no flare. This no zoom will do. And for the flare a 24mm f/1.4 prime will not do neither.

See the example of that 35mm f/2.4 plastic wonder of pentax. It perform a littke better at f/2.4 than the Sigma 35mm Art at f/4 on borders... (APSC both) even through the sigma was tested on the nikon with a sensor that has slightly better max MTF. Chromatic aberations are better handled. The Sigma Art as rounded blades and that help a lot but it get onion bokeh too and that not good. Both tend to outline the higlight, at least on APSC...

Compared to the 30mm f/1.4 Art of sigma, well the sigma doesn't approach at f/8 the border quality the DA35 f/2.4 has at f/2.4...

Getting modest characteristics can help sometime.

I fully agree that there is sense for an f/1.4 35mm on FF. For a 24mm, honestly, I don't think that really that usefull.

Good points. Personally I love the 15mm F/4 because of it's size and it's lack of flare (and other benefits, too). It's a great lens even though there are zooms that exceed it in capability, stats-wise.

However, the fact that a lot of zooms are much more flexible, both in focal length and aperture capability, mean that the 15mm is relegated to a 'specialty lens', that perhaps most people* would pass by.

I actually have a lens like the one you're describing, kinda. I have a Zeiss 25mm F/2.8. Beautiful pictures come out of it... but it's neither small nor light.

(*Most people do not spend a lot of time on a Pentax-based web forum).

[thibs]

yeah agree, that also the problem of 70mm f/2.4... A good zoom cover it too. But the prime could be perfectly sharp wide open, with perfect constrast, good color rendition and no flare. This no zoom will do. And for the flare a 24mm f/1.4 prime will not do neither.

See the example of that 35mm f/2.4 plastic wonder of pentax. It perform a littke better at f/2.4 than the Sigma 35mm Art at f/4 on borders... (APSC both) even through the sigma was tested on the nikon with a sensor that has slightly better max MTF. Chromatic aberations are better handled. The Sigma Art as rounded blades and that help a lot but it get onion bokeh too and that not good. Both tend to outline the higlight, at least on APSC...

Compared to the 30mm f/1.4 Art of sigma, well the sigma doesn't approach at f/8 the border quality the DA35 f/2.4 has at f/2.4...

Getting modest characteristics can help sometime.

I fully agree that there is sense for an f/1.4 35mm on FF. For a 24mm, honestly, I don't think that really that usefull.

[RANT]
No, no you can't be right. That slow dog has only f/2.4 so it is slooooow as a disabled dog on an old 1/2.3" sensor.
Bad idea, bad idea. If it isn't f1/.4, it is slow, you get that?
We don't get a sh*t about quality and rendering... just sharpness, ridiculous DOF and speeeeeeeed !!!!!
[/RANT]

Sorry.. just wanna make some fun (and no, I don't fully subscribe to my rant... this is just a rant after all..)
[/RANT]

[Ben78]

The Sigma Super-Wide II is a nice cheap 24mm alternative for pentax. You still see it pretty often on ebay. I have the MF version and I think it's great. Sigma AF 24mm f/2.8 macro (Pentax K) - Review / Lab Test Report

Me too, wide open it is fantastic!

[Nicolas06]

Good points. Personally I love the 15mm F/4 because of it's size and it's lack of flare (and other benefits, too). It's a great lens even though there are zooms that exceed it in capability, stats-wise.

However, the fact that a lot of zooms are much more flexible, both in focal length and aperture capability, mean that the 15mm is relegated to a 'specialty lens', that perhaps most people* would pass by.

I actually have a lens like the one you're describing, kinda. I have a Zeiss 25mm F/2.8. Beautiful pictures come out of it... but it's neither small nor light.

(*Most people do not spend a lot of time on a Pentax-based web forum).

Yes that's sure ! A 24mm f/2.8 is difficult to sell. But I'am not sure you get many client for a 24mm f/1.4 that is going to be as big as the zoom, very expensive and not more sharp. The Canon version is really garbage at f/14 with 3EV vigneting and absymal border performance. Like it was more an f/2 design (still 2EV vigneting and bad border performance at f/2).

The Nikon look fine on the spec sheets, but you need to put some use out of it.

[northcoastgreg]

Is that lens not rumored to cover a larger image circle? Could it not become an HD DA Pro 200/2.8 (meaning FF image)? Same story with DA*300?

There's an old Japanese lens roadmap where the DA* 200 and DA* 300 lenses are listed as "DFA" glass.

I'd like a return to beautiful rendering and focus transitions, away from the current mania for sharpness above all else.

I agree. The trouble is, how do you sell an expensive lens on the basis of rendering, focus transitions, color rendition, and microcontrast when nearly all reviewers, on both the internet and in print, care only about sharpness, distortion and CAs? The gearheads, with all their physics-envy inspired math, have won on this issue.

[monochrome]

agree. The trouble is, how do you sell an expensive lens on the basis of rendering, focus transitions, color rendition, and microcontrast when nearly reviewers, on both the internet and in print, care only about sharpness, distortion and CAs? The gearheads, with all their physics-envy inspired math, have won on this issue.

That really is an issue - borne of our global culture's manic need to measure, sort, rank and score everything. Sharpness, distortion and CA's can be measured (relatively) objectively (if there was a universal mount so lenses could be compared on a standard sensor and camera).

The real problem, though, comes when popular fashion appreciates only the edge-to-edge sharpest images. It is one thing for a discerning lens buyer to have a different appreciation set and for a lens maker to appeal to that difference. It is another matter entirely for a photographer to sell prints that display those different image qualities.

[hoopsontoast]

The Sigma Super-Wide II is a nice cheap 24mm alternative for pentax. You still see it pretty often on ebay. I have the MF version and I think it's great. Sigma AF 24mm f/2.8 macro (Pentax K) - Review / Lab Test Report

This is a great suggestion, its a cracking little lens, its tiny, sharp wide open, close focus.

This is the kind of thing I would like to see, that's the only downside I see with the more modern Sigma Lenses, they are all massive.
As an example, the Pentax FA 20-35 f4 compared to the Sigma 20-40 f2.8 is no competition, yes the Sigma is faster but its also well over twice the weight and much bigger!