Final Countdown to Feb 25th 2016 (CP+ 2016)

rawr · 01-28-2016, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by beholder3

If your standards are so low, I bet they will be met. The Canon L is meh at best and the Nikon, is, well...

The Sigma A 24-105 f4 seems to perform better than it's Nikon or Canon peers. It's not amazing, but it sets a benchmark for any new Pentax equivalent.

I'd be most happy to simply see a modernised SMC A 35-105 f3.5.

**c.a.m** · 01-28-2016, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by rawr

I'd be most happy to simply see a modernised SMC A 35-105 f3.5.

Pentax DFA 35-105mm f/3.5 Stack-o'-Primes II HD WR ?

Imp · 01-28-2016, 03:47 PM

DC

rawr · 01-28-2016, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by c.a.m

Pentax DFA 35-105mm f/3.5 Stack-o'-Primes II HD WR ?

Pentax DFA 35-105mm f/3.5 HD WR DC sounds perfect.

With the same 67mm filter thread as the A 35-105 pls. The 82mm filter thread of a lens like the Sigma 24-105 is over the top. That lens is a behemoth.

deus ursus · 01-28-2016, 04:08 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by c.a.m

Pentax DFA 35-105mm f/3.5 Stack-o'-Primes II HD WR ?

HD Pentax-D-FA 35-105 f/3.5 SOP ED WR

starjedi · 01-28-2016, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by kenspo

Im not confirming anything anymore, but i know it has been talked about

Make sense. Make sense. It is a very reasonable choice for people who do not want to buy 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. If there is only one kit lens in Digital FF era now a days, this one definitely is a good choice without comprise too much of IQ...

mee · 01-28-2016, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by kenspo

Im not confirming anything anymore, but i know it has been talked about

oooooh. a 24-105 f/4 would be soooo nice

But them talking about it and actually researching, designing, manufacturing and retailing are different things!

That said, it isn't on the roadmap so it wouldn't surprise me if we don't see one..

tryphon4 · 01-29-2016, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by starjedi

Make sense. Make sense. It is a very reasonable choice for people who do not want to buy 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. If there is only one kit lens in Digital FF era now a days, this one definitely is a good choice without comprise too much of IQ...

I dont need a heavy 24-70/2.8 but a 24-something/4 would be interesting just because sometimes a zoom is more convenient than many primes.

ogl · 01-29-2016, 12:40 AM

To many wishes....Even 24/1.4..
I think it will never be...

fuzzyfelt30 · 01-29-2016, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by beholder3

If your standards are so low, I bet they will be met.

The Canon L is meh at best and the Nikon, is, well...
It's right on par with the DA*16-50 with the poor aspect being it's a full stop slower (so should be much easier to yield better results) and costs +40%, but still doesn't perform any better (vignetting is really bad). So price/performance wise it's half as good as the DA*16-50. And the latter already has critics.

No wonder Nikon customers are running away in huge amounts (-50% in Japan last year).

I am positive any new Pentax kit lens will outperform that.

I'm hoping for a quality walkaround zoom in the Nikon 24-120mm range.....I have the Nikon on a D750 and whilst it is not a super sharp lens, it is pretty good, significantly better than my copy of the da* 16-50mm that was great in the centre but soft over about 20% of the frame on the right hand side and in the corners (I sent it away for repair and was told there was nothing wrong with it)!! The 24-120 also cost me less than £380 new (the da* 16-50 was nearly £500 secondhand), so I'm not sure where you get a 40% higher price and it ,therefore, being half as good?? For me, 24-120 covers at least 80% of my shooting needs so it would be ideal, as well as for many others I suspect, as long as the image quality is there! It doesn't need to compete with the best primes but it does need to be at least as good as my Nikon copy!!

Cynog Ap Brychan · 01-29-2016, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by ogl

To many wishes....Even 24/1.4..

To be honest, I'd be very happy with a small, weather-sealed 24 mm (or 20 mm) f2.8. I think that would fit with the Pentax ethos.

**ffking** · 01-29-2016, 04:21 AM

Well they're going to have to produce something, aren't they - unless they sell the FF only as body only - the traditional kit zoom was always 28-80 3.5- 5.6 or similar, and I'm guessing that would be the standard option - but I agree it would be nice to have something better than a kit lens but not so bulky or pricey as an f/2,8 as an option

Zygonyx · 01-29-2016, 04:34 AM

D-FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 would be my choice.

kenspo · 01-29-2016, 04:43 AM - **1 Like**

When will people understand, that pro glass will be the first priority for the FF? Might come some cheaper stuff later..

**ffking** · 01-29-2016, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by Zygonyx

D-FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 would be my choice.

I might even go for that if they threw in some weather sealing and built-in silent focus motor -but I suspect the kit lens won't go so wide, much as I'd love it to

---------- Post added 01-29-16 at 04:50 AM ----------

Originally posted by kenspo

Pentaxian

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Oslo
Posts: 999 | Likes: 337
When will people understand, that pro glass will be the first priority for the FF? Might come some cheaper stuff later..

but that would push the entry price up a lot for people who didn't have old FF lenses -there would surely have to be some ordinary available for people who don't need or don't want and f/2.8?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New APSC Pentax by early 2016, using Sony A7000 sensor?	falconeye	Pentax News and Rumors	857	03-24-2016 08:45 PM
Ricoh Imaging is not doomed (or: Ricoh Financial Results Q1 2016)	Kunzite	Pentax News and Rumors	69	10-24-2015 10:31 AM
Pentax FF spring 2016	Daikokuya	Pentax News and Rumors	967	10-14-2015 06:31 PM
2016 spring debut	hansenn	Pentax Full Frame	12	09-25-2015 08:05 AM
Photokina 2016 - FF	RonHendriks1966	Pentax Full Frame	62	02-04-2015 10:43 PM

01-28-2016, 03:39 PM	#421
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by beholder3 If your standards are so low, I bet they will be met. The Canon L is meh at best and the Nikon, is, well... The Sigma A 24-105 f4 seems to perform better than it's Nikon or Canon peers. It's not amazing, but it sets a benchmark for any new Pentax equivalent. I'd be most happy to simply see a modernised SMC A 35-105 f3.5.

01-28-2016, 03:46 PM	#422
c.a.m Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Ottawa, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,189	Originally posted by rawr I'd be most happy to simply see a modernised SMC A 35-105 f3.5. Pentax DFA 35-105mm f/3.5 Stack-o'-Primes II HD WR ?

01-28-2016, 03:47 PM	#423
Imp Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Washington, DC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,749	DC

01-28-2016, 04:01 PM	#424
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by c.a.m Pentax DFA 35-105mm f/3.5 Stack-o'-Primes II HD WR ? Pentax DFA 35-105mm f/3.5 HD WR DC sounds perfect. With the same 67mm filter thread as the A 35-105 pls. The 82mm filter thread of a lens like the Sigma 24-105 is over the top. That lens is a behemoth.

01-28-2016, 04:08 PM - 1 Like	#425
deus ursus Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Stårheim, Norway Posts: 658	Originally posted by c.a.m Pentax DFA 35-105mm f/3.5 Stack-o'-Primes II HD WR ? HD Pentax-D-FA 35-105 f/3.5 SOP ED WR

01-28-2016, 04:13 PM	#426
starjedi Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: New Jersey Posts: 932 Original Poster	Originally posted by kenspo Im not confirming anything anymore, but i know it has been talked about Make sense. Make sense. It is a very reasonable choice for people who do not want to buy 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. If there is only one kit lens in Digital FF era now a days, this one definitely is a good choice without comprise too much of IQ...

01-28-2016, 05:12 PM	#427
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by kenspo Im not confirming anything anymore, but i know it has been talked about oooooh. a 24-105 f/4 would be soooo nice But them talking about it and actually researching, designing, manufacturing and retailing are different things! That said, it isn't on the roadmap so it wouldn't surprise me if we don't see one..

01-29-2016, 12:16 AM	#428
tryphon4 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Drome, France Posts: 304	Originally posted by starjedi Make sense. Make sense. It is a very reasonable choice for people who do not want to buy 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. If there is only one kit lens in Digital FF era now a days, this one definitely is a good choice without comprise too much of IQ... I dont need a heavy 24-70/2.8 but a 24-something/4 would be interesting just because sometimes a zoom is more convenient than many primes.

01-29-2016, 12:40 AM	#429
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	To many wishes....Even 24/1.4.. I think it will never be...

01-29-2016, 12:46 AM	#430
fuzzyfelt30 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 112	Originally posted by beholder3 If your standards are so low, I bet they will be met. The Canon L is meh at best and the Nikon, is, well... It's right on par with the DA16-50 with the poor aspect being it's a full stop slower (so should be much easier to yield better results) and costs +40%, but still doesn't perform any better (vignetting is really bad). So price/performance wise it's half as good as the DA16-50. And the latter already has critics. No wonder Nikon customers are running away in huge amounts (-50% in Japan last year). I am positive any new Pentax kit lens will outperform that. I'm hoping for a quality walkaround zoom in the Nikon 24-120mm range.....I have the Nikon on a D750 and whilst it is not a super sharp lens, it is pretty good, significantly better than my copy of the da* 16-50mm that was great in the centre but soft over about 20% of the frame on the right hand side and in the corners (I sent it away for repair and was told there was nothing wrong with it)!! The 24-120 also cost me less than £380 new (the da* 16-50 was nearly £500 secondhand), so I'm not sure where you get a 40% higher price and it ,therefore, being half as good?? For me, 24-120 covers at least 80% of my shooting needs so it would be ideal, as well as for many others I suspect, as long as the image quality is there! It doesn't need to compete with the best primes but it does need to be at least as good as my Nikon copy!!

01-29-2016, 04:03 AM	#431
Cynog Ap Brychan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Gloucester Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	Originally posted by ogl To many wishes....Even 24/1.4.. To be honest, I'd be very happy with a small, weather-sealed 24 mm (or 20 mm) f2.8. I think that would fit with the Pentax ethos.

01-29-2016, 04:21 AM	#432
ffking Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: Old South Wales Posts: 6,038	Well they're going to have to produce something, aren't they - unless they sell the FF only as body only - the traditional kit zoom was always 28-80 3.5- 5.6 or similar, and I'm guessing that would be the standard option - but I agree it would be nice to have something better than a kit lens but not so bulky or pricey as an f/2,8 as an option

01-29-2016, 04:34 AM	#433
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	D-FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 would be my choice.

01-29-2016, 04:43 AM - 1 Like	#434
kenspo Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Oslo Posts: 2,207	When will people understand, that pro glass will be the first priority for the FF? Might come some cheaper stuff later..

01-29-2016, 04:46 AM	#435
ffking Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: Old South Wales Posts: 6,038	Originally posted by Zygonyx D-FA 24-90/3.5-4.5 would be my choice. I might even go for that if they threw in some weather sealing and built-in silent focus motor -but I suspect the kit lens won't go so wide, much as I'd love it to ---------- Post added 01-29-16 at 04:50 AM ---------- Originally posted by kenspo Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Oslo Posts: 999 \| Likes: 337 When will people understand, that pro glass will be the first priority for the FF? Might come some cheaper stuff later.. but that would push the entry price up a lot for people who didn't have old FF lenses -there would surely have to be some ordinary available for people who don't need or don't want and f/2.8?