Pentax-09 Telephoto Macro: 20mm f/2.8?

John Shriver · 04-13-2015, 12:34 PM

I presume that G1, G2, and G3 in the patent drawing mean that those are separate groups for focusing. That makes this very much a floating element design -- will be an expensive lens.

Maybe it's just internal focus, and just G2 moves? That would make it more affordable.

fuent104 · 04-13-2015, 06:42 PM

F2.8 is pretty weak. Something faster would be a better idea.

pinholecam · 04-13-2015, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by fuent104

F2.8 is pretty weak. Something faster would be a better idea.

I'd rather it be 'Released' than bother over f2.8 or f2

The problem with f2 is user base.
Look at what happened to the 08.
Very nice lens, but costs a bit.
As a result, few in the user base have been willing to buy one.

I'd rather this lens be cheaper and fine performing to reach out to a larger user base first.
Once there is more acceptance of the system (with new adopters seeing what it can do), there can be a move to faster/more expensive stuff.

fuent104 · 04-13-2015, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by pinholecam

I'd rather it be 'Released' than bother over f2.8 or f2

The problem with f2 is user base.
Look at what happened to the 08.
Very nice lens, but costs a bit.
As a result, few in the user base have been willing to buy one.

I'd rather this lens be cheaper and fine performing to reach out to a larger user base first.
Once there is more acceptance of the system (with new adopters seeing what it can do), there can be a move to faster/more expensive stuff.

The system has been around for a few years. They've released one quality prime lens and multiple toy lenses. It is time for a fast telephoto prime and a fast wide prime.

ogl · 04-14-2015, 12:31 AM

No any sense to produce faster lens for Q. IMO. With such crop-factor - 2 or 2.8 - hard to see difference.

Glorfindelrb · 04-14-2015, 12:46 AM

With 12Mp on a 1/1.7 sensor you have some diffraction from f4 so having some faster option is always nice. But I wont buy a too expensive lens for my Q, even if the 90 (equivalent) macro looks a great focal length for it.

fuent104 · 04-14-2015, 01:57 AM

Im not sure why a far lens for such a small sensor should be all that expensive. Either way, the difference between 2 and 2.8 is significant in low light on a small sensor.

ogl · 04-14-2015, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by fuent104

Im not sure why a far lens for such a small sensor should be all that expensive. Either way, the difference between 2 and 2.8 is significant in low light on a small sensor.

try to prove

Na Horuk · 04-14-2015, 06:15 AM

Isn't the main problem with big aperture on Q lenses mostly in connection to size? An f1.4 lens or f2 zoom wouldn't be very compact. But I think it would still be a good addition to the lineup, would bring in more non-toy shooters. This macro is going to be great exactly for this reason. And f2.8 is excusable for macro lenses, those are rarely fast in aperture.
The other problem is cost. The main reason I didn't buy the original Q when it first came out was that the K-01 with 40mm XS actually cost much less than the Q with the kit zoom..

fuent104 · 04-14-2015, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Isn't the main problem with big aperture on Q lenses mostly in connection to size? An f1.4 lens or f2 zoom wouldn't be very compact. But I think it would still be a good addition to the lineup, would bring in more non-toy shooters. This macro is going to be great exactly for this reason. And f2.8 is excusable for macro lenses, those are rarely fast in aperture.
The other problem is cost. The main reason I didn't buy the original Q when it first came out was that the K-01 with 40mm XS actually cost much less than the Q with the kit zoom..

The 01 prime is compact, and the glass elements are much smaller than the housing of the lens. Who says an f2 telephoto couldn't be compact? I can think of another well known full frame compact telephoto lens...

lytrytyr · 04-14-2015, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Bophoto

A new Q series of fast lenses would be nice too.

You mean like these?

Ricoh 4.4mm F1.4(1/1.7")?????????????So-net???

Ricoh 45mm F1.8(1/1.7")?????????????So-net???

Uluru · 04-15-2015, 05:15 PM

Revamp 02 lens with constant f2.8, slightly better build, and then we're talking.
Before that happens, Q is a plastic toy.

**reh321** · 04-15-2015, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Uluru

Revamp 02 lens with constant f2.8, slightly better build, and then we're talking.
Before that happens, Q is a plastic toy.

Not at all.
Last month we visited our daughter in San Diego, CA, USA, and I was extremely pleased at the interior pictures I took with the Q7+01.
The combination of the F/1.9 lens and an SR that allowed me to regularly use shutter speeds of 1/6 gave me great confidence after the first few pictures turned out well, and it never did let me down.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma Telephoto 70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Pentax is discontinued	NicoleC	Pentax News and Rumors	122	08-27-2014 04:27 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax FA 20mm f/2.8 and SMC A 100mm f/2.8	leadfoot	Sold Items	2	12-23-2013 04:05 PM
Pentax 21mm f/3.2 limited vs FA 20mm f/2.8	pentaz	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	07-02-2013 07:14 AM
M42 Week '09: Yashinon/Tomioka 60mm f/2.8 Macro	deadwolfbones	Post Your Photos!	12	08-31-2009 09:10 PM
For Sale - Sold: PENTAX Telephoto SMCP-D FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro Autofocus	roentarre	Sold Items	3	10-06-2008 01:54 PM

04-13-2015, 12:34 PM	#16
John Shriver Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Arlington, MA Posts: 157	I presume that G1, G2, and G3 in the patent drawing mean that those are separate groups for focusing. That makes this very much a floating element design -- will be an expensive lens. Maybe it's just internal focus, and just G2 moves? That would make it more affordable.

04-13-2015, 06:42 PM	#17
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	F2.8 is pretty weak. Something faster would be a better idea.

04-13-2015, 11:27 PM	#18
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,487	Originally posted by fuent104 F2.8 is pretty weak. Something faster would be a better idea. I'd rather it be 'Released' than bother over f2.8 or f2 The problem with f2 is user base. Look at what happened to the 08. Very nice lens, but costs a bit. As a result, few in the user base have been willing to buy one. I'd rather this lens be cheaper and fine performing to reach out to a larger user base first. Once there is more acceptance of the system (with new adopters seeing what it can do), there can be a move to faster/more expensive stuff.

04-13-2015, 11:46 PM	#19
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	Originally posted by pinholecam I'd rather it be 'Released' than bother over f2.8 or f2 The problem with f2 is user base. Look at what happened to the 08. Very nice lens, but costs a bit. As a result, few in the user base have been willing to buy one. I'd rather this lens be cheaper and fine performing to reach out to a larger user base first. Once there is more acceptance of the system (with new adopters seeing what it can do), there can be a move to faster/more expensive stuff. The system has been around for a few years. They've released one quality prime lens and multiple toy lenses. It is time for a fast telephoto prime and a fast wide prime.

04-14-2015, 12:31 AM	#20
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	No any sense to produce faster lens for Q. IMO. With such crop-factor - 2 or 2.8 - hard to see difference.

04-14-2015, 12:46 AM	#21
Glorfindelrb Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 364	With 12Mp on a 1/1.7 sensor you have some diffraction from f4 so having some faster option is always nice. But I wont buy a too expensive lens for my Q, even if the 90 (equivalent) macro looks a great focal length for it.

04-14-2015, 01:57 AM	#22
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	Im not sure why a far lens for such a small sensor should be all that expensive. Either way, the difference between 2 and 2.8 is significant in low light on a small sensor.

04-14-2015, 05:52 AM	#23
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by fuent104 Im not sure why a far lens for such a small sensor should be all that expensive. Either way, the difference between 2 and 2.8 is significant in low light on a small sensor. try to prove

04-14-2015, 06:15 AM	#24
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,183	Isn't the main problem with big aperture on Q lenses mostly in connection to size? An f1.4 lens or f2 zoom wouldn't be very compact. But I think it would still be a good addition to the lineup, would bring in more non-toy shooters. This macro is going to be great exactly for this reason. And f2.8 is excusable for macro lenses, those are rarely fast in aperture. The other problem is cost. The main reason I didn't buy the original Q when it first came out was that the K-01 with 40mm XS actually cost much less than the Q with the kit zoom..

04-14-2015, 10:43 AM	#25
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	Originally posted by Na Horuk Isn't the main problem with big aperture on Q lenses mostly in connection to size? An f1.4 lens or f2 zoom wouldn't be very compact. But I think it would still be a good addition to the lineup, would bring in more non-toy shooters. This macro is going to be great exactly for this reason. And f2.8 is excusable for macro lenses, those are rarely fast in aperture. The other problem is cost. The main reason I didn't buy the original Q when it first came out was that the K-01 with 40mm XS actually cost much less than the Q with the kit zoom.. The 01 prime is compact, and the glass elements are much smaller than the housing of the lens. Who says an f2 telephoto couldn't be compact? I can think of another well known full frame compact telephoto lens...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-14-2015, 07:51 PM	#26
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,201	Originally posted by Bophoto A new Q series of fast lenses would be nice too. You mean like these? Ricoh 4.4mm F1.4(1/1.7")?????????????So-net??? Ricoh 45mm F1.8(1/1.7")?????????????So-net???

04-15-2015, 05:15 PM	#27
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	Revamp 02 lens with constant f2.8, slightly better build, and then we're talking. Before that happens, Q is a plastic toy.

04-15-2015, 05:56 PM	#28
reh321 retired sw engineer Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 20,040	Originally posted by Uluru Revamp 02 lens with constant f2.8, slightly better build, and then we're talking. Before that happens, Q is a plastic toy. Not at all. Last month we visited our daughter in San Diego, CA, USA, and I was extremely pleased at the interior pictures I took with the Q7+01. The combination of the F/1.9 lens and an SR that allowed me to regularly use shutter speeds of 1/6 gave me great confidence after the first few pictures turned out well, and it never did let me down.