[ogl]

AF lenses from film era from 18 mm till 135 mm with constant aperture were only FA20-35/4 and F24-50/4.

I think it's too presumptuously to wait F4 zooms

[thibs]

AF lenses from film era from 18 mm till 135 mm with constant aperture were only FA20-35/4 and F24-50/4.

I think it's too presumptuously to wait F4 zooms

What about the FA 28-70/4 then?
Yeah, the one with elements separation problem?

And of course for aps, 16-45, 17-70 And 12-24 lenses.

Right, no /4 lenses at all.
Roftl.



---------- Post added 02-02-16 at 21:06 ----------

I think we can wait for a HD* 85/1,4. A rebadged HD 50/1,4 or may be 1,2.

Not that the FA50/1.4 is a bad lens but IMO it is not a modern 50mm and should be reworked optically.

[wkraus]

Not that the FA50/1.4 is a bad lens but IMO it is not a modern 50mm and should be reworked optically.

And it has a hotspot issue under certain (rare) backlight conditions.

[pathdoc]

Which raises the general question about exactly what is responsible for triggering a redesign or change in optical formula. Obviously a switch to digital is one trigger, but once you are there, what else needs to be changed? Does anything else need to be done, for example, switching from SMC to HD coatings? Beyond what point is it better to start with a clean sheet of paper rather than go with an evolution from an old and previously proven design? All these are things I would love to know, inasmuch as Pentax are willing to tell us.

[jonlg]

Kenspo, I owe you an apology for getting your name wrong - sorry, no offence was intended.

Jonlg

[sbh]

I think we can wait for a HD* 85/1,4. ...

Yes, that's the one...

[kenspo]

Kenspo, I owe you an apology for getting your name wrong - sorry, no offence was intended.

Jonlg

lol..no problems mate..i said it with a smile And i was speaking in general..since most people get it wrong..hehe

[Tom S.]

I'm posting this because I just spent quite a bit of time cleaning up this thread, and some of you need a reminder of the very first forum rule:

• Although debates and discussions are allowed, we would like to maintain a friendly forum and do not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or inflammatory posts. Offensive/vulgar words and phrases are not allowed, even in masked form if the intended word(s) can be discerned. Moderator decisions with respect to the nature of posts are final.

Please keep it clean in all respects.

[Imp]

You missed the store front images with offensive/vulgar words and phrases that are not allowed, even in masked form because the intended words can be discerned. I mean, if you're going to be heavy handed you might as well be consistent with it.

You mean profanity like this?



...and I can't believe it, but google images also produced this glory! Without me asking for it!

[mee]

926k for a 645D..

You Tube

You Tube

[pathdoc]

It's about a hundred yen to the US dollar as a standard ballpark figure, isn't it? To the nearest order of magnitude, I mean.

[mee]

It's about a hundred yen to the US dollar as a standard ballpark figure, isn't it? To the nearest order of magnitude, I mean.

Well.. google is trying to tell me thats around 7800 USD

[starjedi]

Well.. google is trying to tell me thats around 7800 USD

At that time, JPY might be lower than 80/1, so it should be higher than $10000 USD... Anyway, that's 5 years from now. At that time, Pentax K5 is $1500...

[ogl]

What about the FA 28-70/4 then?

28-70/4 is not 24-90 or 28-105 or 28-135. it's SHORT and 28 mm is not too wide.

If we want something universal - 24 mm is hot spot. IMO. Anyway, FA28-70/4 was not expensive and really good optically.

My post is about tradition of Pentax optical design. The time is changed, of course...F4 zoom would be really good.
But I doubt...


And I remember FAJ18-35/4-5.6 as kit lens for *ist D.

[kenspo]

they won't make a 28-70 when they just released the 24-70! F/4 or not. But who knows for the future!