[gazonk]

Notable is the lack of "sr" in that alphabet soup.

I like that, but... what are all the buttons for then?

[StigVidar]

HD DFA* 70-200 / 2,8 ED AL (IF) SDM

not the current SDM

Is there any similar information about the other large lens?

[ogl]

The problem that Pentax stopped to develop new primes.

[cxdoo]

So did anyone get any further info on two unmarked zooms? Why are they still unmarked? What is still unclear - focal lengths or apertures or pretty much everything?

[wed7]

Everything😊

[gazonk]

The problem that Pentax stopped to develop new primes.

You see that as a problem. I see it as a sign. The APS-C line of primes is quite complete (yes, I know we all have some pet focal length/aperture combos that we don't see covered, but still...). The primes they work on now should be for the upcoming FF camera, of course: They can easily cover "the middle ground" of primes with the three amigos, and for longer focal lengths they already have some primes that will work. But they quite urgently need some wider FF-compatilbe primes than the FA31 - as a minimum a fast 24 and a 18 or 20mm prime.

[ogl]

upcoming FF camera? is it such fantasy?

[totsmuyco]

Please Ricoh, make my wish come true. Let the large Zoom be a 135-540. Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaase.

Make them all WR or Aw. Pleeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaase.

[StigVidar]

Please Ricoh, make my wish come true. Let the large Zoom be a 135-540. Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaase.

Make them all WR or Aw. Pleeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaase.

It could be 540mm, but after som measurements on the pictures shown it seems the front element is around 85mm. So if it is 540mm it has to be a f/6.3 lens.

[Alizarine]

The problem that Pentax stopped to develop new primes.

If Pentax made two new primes instead of two good zooms, I think you'd probably saay that the problem is that Pentax doesn't make good zooms.

[ogl]

If Pentax made two new primes instead of two good zooms, I think you'd probably saay that the problem is that Pentax doesn't make good zooms.

Why? Where is the logics? I don't use zooms. Especially, slow zooms.
Do you really know that this zooms are good? How do you know it?

I think you will buy 16-85/3.5-5.6 instead of Tamron 17-50/2.8. Are you ready?

[Aristophanes]

Why? Where is the logics? I don't use zooms. Especially, slow zooms.

But those are what the market buys predominantly because most of the market buys on price and base functionality.

Most people shoot f/4 and up for 99% of their photography. Catering to that dynamic is where the bulk of sales are by far, so all you are seeing is the supply meeting the demand.

[Zygonyx]

The problem that Pentax stopped to develop new primes.

Don't see any problem man, you are in a "zoom lens" thread

[luftfluss]

upcoming FF camera? is it such fantasy?

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[Alizarine]

Why? Where is the logics? I don't use zooms. Especially, slow zooms.
Do you really know that this zooms are good? How do you know it?

I think you will buy 16-85/3.5-5.6 instead of Tamron 17-50/2.8. Are you ready?

You don't use zooms and you complain about them? For one, I am hoping that this lens will be good, based on newer releases (e.g. DA20-40, which I found nice but too pricey). I've also seen how good the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 is, so that means variable aperture does not necessarily equate to bad IQ. My lens choice is not limited to maximum aperture. If there will be any comparison, I'll wait for this new Pentax pitted against the SIgma 17-70 (C) and decide from there.

Where is the logic there, too? It's like traveling only by car and saying all trains are bad. Especially slow trains, then asking someone who rides trains how does he know a train ride can be good. Also, I already have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and it's my main workhorse lens. Maybe you can cut some slack on the negativity and be a little more objective with things.