[Nicolas06]

Well, that doesn't always pan out as a good thing...
Imagine you're bringing a small and a large lens: you'll still need a backpack that can accomodate the large lens even if you start with the large lens on the camera.
Now think of "normal" filter sizes and "XS" filter sizes...
If you don't want to buy another set of filters your only option is 27mm->37mm step-up ring + 37mm->49mm step-up ring (+49mm->52mm step-up ring), definitely NOT an advantage...

You don't really get the small lens argument! The goal of the game is to have not even one big lens. Otherwise it defeat the concept of being small. And that the limit of Fuji: by keeping APSC, their tele lenses are just bound to be 2cm longer than Pentax equivalent. And that why they have many wide and almost nothing in tele department.

This can be achieved for example with DA21 + DA40 +DA70. Or if you prefer DA21 + FA43 + FA77. Me for now I use a slightly heavier set: DA15, DA21, DA35, FA77.

Many also think that FA31 + FA43 + FA77 would be a total joy on a compact FF body, even through the 31 is a little big. And that one of the reason to ask Pentax for an FF!

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-05-2014 at 05:14 AM.

[Parallax]

Here it's an accepted practice

Not entirely. There are few personae non gratae former members who, if they still had posting privileges, would attest to us having a tolerance threshold.

[Aristophanes]

So you have the freedom to choise your quality/compactness/price.

I find the Fuji lens line to be expensive and heavy:

The XF50-140mmF2.8 R LM OIS WR is 230g heavier than Pentax's 50-135.

It uses a 72mm filter compared to 67mm, and is at least US$220 more expensive.

Most of their lenses are quote a bit heavier than equivalent DSLR packages, so what is lost in body size and mass is regained and then some in lens design and construction.

[Jan67]

Yes, XF50-140mmF2.8 is surprisingly large and heavy, even compared to equivalent Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS.
Nothing is perfect...

Reason is clear:
DA50-135: 18 elements in 14 groups inc. 3 ED elements
XF50-140: 23 elements in 16 groups, inc. 6 ED lens elements

I was very happy with my DA50-135, just a bit unsure AF on 135mm, but if it gets quicker SDM once, it would be excellent lens.

I will buy XF50-140mmF2.8 and I am curious on AF speed and quality.

[Kunzite]

Not entirely. There are few personae non gratae former members who, if they still had posting privileges, would attest to us having a tolerance threshold.

Not saying it's an officially condoned practice, apologies if I unwillingly implied this. After all, the dedicated other brands section should be a good indication of the official policy, right?
It's just those posts starting from the premise that Fuji/Sony/anyone and their dog is better than Pentax. In the good old days, it was only Canon and Nikon...

[Digitalis]

XF50-140: 23 elements in 16 groups, inc. 6 ED lens elements

I recall the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II using about the same total number of elements in it...so much for the advantage of mirrorless.

[Nicolas06]

Yes, XF50-140mmF2.8 is surprisingly large and heavy, even compared to equivalent Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS.
Nothing is perfect...

Reason is clear:
DA50-135: 18 elements in 14 groups inc. 3 ED elements
XF50-140: 23 elements in 16 groups, inc. 6 ED lens elements

I was very happy with my DA50-135, just a bit unsure AF on 135mm, but if it gets quicker SDM once, it would be excellent lens.

I will buy XF50-140mmF2.8 and I am curious on AF speed and quality.

The lens is 17.5mm long instead of 13.6mm. This is 4.1cm. but 2.7cm comes from the difference is registration distance from the mounts, and 0.5cm comes from the difference in max focal lenses.

Add to that that Pentax really try to make lightweight design (the tokina equiv of the pentax 50-135 is heavier) and you have the whole difference in weight: on one side one need to have some material for the additional weight and on the other side, there is not the same philosophy of lightweight pentax has in mind.

Still this is a huge drawback for fujifilm to have so much evier tele with roughly 50% more weight !

For the same weight and size you could get a Pentax 60-250 f/4 a DA300 f/4 and if we count weight only a 70-200 tamron.

This is not at all appealing. If you have just this tele new Fuji tele in your backpack, it alone negated all the gain you could have from the smaller body and shorter registration distance. For me, this is huge reason to not get Fuji.

[RonHendriks1966]

The lens is 17.5mm long instead of 13.6mm. This is 4.1cm. but 2.7cm comes from the difference is registration distance from the mounts, and 0.5cm comes from the difference in max focal lenses.

Add to that that Pentax really try to make lightweight design (the tokina equiv of the pentax 50-135 is heavier) and you have the whole difference in weight: on one side one need to have some material for the additional weight and on the other side, there is not the same philosophy of lightweight pentax has in mind.

Still this is a huge drawback for fujifilm to have so much evier tele with roughly 50% more weight !

For the same weight and size you could get a Pentax 60-250 f/4 a DA300 f/4 and if we count weight only a 70-200 tamron.

This is not at all appealing. If you have just this tele new Fuji tele in your backpack, it alone negated all the gain you could have from the smaller body and shorter registration distance. For me, this is huge reason to not get Fuji.

So in the end it's the lens-camera combination that makes things look small.

[Aristophanes]

The Pentax, Nikon, and Canon strategies are to emphasize:

- OVF acuity and response. EVF is still not there yet though the HUD and overall larger viewing area make up for it to some.

- Long glass and PDAF focussing speed.

- More compact lenses, an area where even Olympus is struggling. Fuji and m43 are not exactly able to deliver on the promise of mirrorless and the whole package smaller form factor.

- Sensor size and ISO capacity. m43 is OK but lags, and Fuji's a ten behind the 20-24MP consumer grade sensors.

- Price. This is the big one. DSLR's are hammering on price. Fuji's been all over the map. When the X-Pro came out they exclaimed they;'d left the DSLR form factor behind. Then they put out the cheaper X-series bodies because they needed to hit all price points. Now the XT-1 is a classic SLR structure, but price very high. The value is not with mirrorless right now and I think that's why their sales are struggling.

In a few years the tech in the XT-1 will have to sell in a $600 body, but what about less costly lenses? No manufacturer can survive at these price points for a system. They are far too high.

[LensBeginner]

You don't really get the small lens argument! The goal of the game is to have not even one big lens. Otherwise it defeat the concept of being small. And that the limit of Fuji: by keeping APSC, their tele lenses are just bound to be 2cm longer than Pentax equivalent. And that why they have many wide and almost nothing in tele department.

This can be achieved for example with DA21 + DA40 +DA70. Or if you prefer DA21 + FA43 + FA77. Me for now I use a slightly heavier set: DA15, DA21, DA35, FA77.

Many also think that FA31 + FA43 + FA77 would be a total joy on a compact FF body, even through the 31 is a little big. And that one of the reason to ask Pentax for an FF!

I get it, but there's a limit on how small a telephoto, let alone a good one, can be...
Seems to me that you're really not into that, which is fine, but it does get into the equation for people who do.
I'd like at least a 200mm f/4, and it is doable, since the SMC-M one is not that big.
It's just not pancake-sized...

[normhead]

I've written to Ricoh HQ, Japan, and have received an affirmative reply, very recently. So, sorry, my comments are not just wishful thinking.

And you are expecting such information to impress the nay sayers? You just have to look back to just before the K-3 was released. Specs released by asahiman I believe, and all the negative comments to realize what you're dealing with. Personally I suspect that there is no way Pentax reps would be saying these things if 6 months from now their sayings could be a suggestion that they failed, because it has yet to be released.

It does make you wonder though.. what is the motivation of the nay sayers... nay sayers, what say you?

What was the value of denying the imminent release of the K-3 a few weeks before it's release?

Thanks for the effort though. Writing to Ricoh and asking as opposed to just shooting your mouth off. What a novel approach. One that should perhaps be practiced more often, by those who claim to know what Ricoh is doing. Do you need more evidence that the nay sayers are, willfully ignorant, have an agenda of trying to push people to other brands, deliberate liars, and people who have a vested interest in seeing Pentax not do well?

At this point they are not just offering an opinion, they are actually claiming that Pentax Reps are lying to us and that we should listen to them, the nay sayers, and not the official announcements. They are drama queens and attention seekers, every one of them.

At this point there is absolutely nothing legitimate about them, except for their desire to hurt the Pentax brand. That may or may not be legitimate, but it's definitely real.

[monochrome]

Do you need more evidence that the any sayers are, willfully ignorant, have an agenda of trying to push people to other brands, deliberate liars, and people who have a vested interest in seeing Pentax not do well?

People who can't abide a calm pot?

[Nicolas06]

I get it, but there's a limit on how small a telephoto, let alone a good one, can be...
Seems to me that you're really not into that, which is fine, but it does get into the equation for people who do.
I'd like at least a 200mm f/4, and it is doable, since the SMC-M one is not that big.
It's just not pancake-sized...

If it is to ask I have a DA* 50-135. It get me wonderfull images and many here praise the quality out of it. Still it is 685g, not 1kg. Still it is 13.5cm long with 67mm filters, not 17.5cm long with 77mm filters. Still it has been there for quite some time now and can be used on a 24MP body to get even more sharpness out of it and also to help on the reach on the occasionnal shoot!

So what I do, is that each time I go out for taking photos I wonder if I need a tele zoom, then I get this heavy 50-135. The good occasions are typically events, sports and every occasion when I need a long tele with flexibility of a zoom. For the other occasion I do take the FA77...

I may even end up with a 1.4TC one day or a DA300 or DA60-250 when I decide to go to Kenya for a safari. But for all theses things, I know theses design are interresting compromize to giving me the max out of the weight and bulkiness I carry.

Funily for now there isn't even planned any prime between 60 & 90mm on Fuji side while the 60mm isn't that fast and the 90mm not even available. There isn't prime of 200 & 300mm, there no 1.4 TC. The macro lens is 60mm only while each time I look at a macro thread, it is explained to me that for insects and so on you'd better with a 90-100mm lens and people complaning there no 180mm macro anymore!

Really I have nothing against fuji. I'am sure it is a pleasure to use and many can be happy with it.

But there biased universal mantra that everybody and their dog do better and have better echosystem than Pentax. This really get old in particular because it is just plain wrong. Pentax has better echosystem than all challengers expect Nikon & Canon and they still offer interresting compromise of WR, compactness and build quality against Nikon and Canon. Fuji is just not here yet to challenge any of the 3, be it Canon, Nikon or Pentax.

[LensBeginner]

But there biased universal mantra that everybody and their dog do better and have better echosystem than Pentax. This really get old in particular because it is just plain wrong. Pentax has better echosystem than all challengers expect Nikon & Canon and they still offer interresting compromise of WR, compactness and build quality against Nikon and Canon. Fuji is just not here yet to challenge any of the 3, be it Canon, Nikon or Pentax.

I agree 100%, and I'm not a K-01 user because of mere chance.
However my point was that, for your reasoning to be valid, all the lenses have to be small, not just one.
fast50 said:
"making lenses as small as possible (DA 40 XS) seems like a wasted effort"
and it is in part true, unless all your other lenses are small, that is to say when the ΔV (difference in volume) is small.

[normhead]

People who can't abide a calm pot?

Ya , add that to the list... that makes them sound almost benign though, how does that help my efforts to paint them as miserable villains on the order of Snidely Whiplash?