[thibs]

I agree. I suspect that the recent 16-85mm is a foretaste of what lies in store for APS-C lenses - a good lens, the equal of anything similar from another brand, but clearly designed with different goals and a different price point from an f2.8 pro-level FF zoom. There's no need for the old (and expensive) DA* lenses when the kind of customer who uses them is far more likely to move up to FF or already be there.

And that is exactly where 3rd party lenses will play a major role. And they already exist so relax

[totsmuyco]

I agree. I suspect that the recent 16-85mm is a foretaste of what lies in store for APS-C lenses - a good lens, the equal of anything similar from another brand, but clearly designed with different goals and a different price point from an f2.8 pro-level FF zoom. There's no need for the old (and expensive) DA* lenses when the kind of customer who uses them is far more likely to move up to FF or already be there.

No, no, no. Pentax please continue to make * lenses. There are a lot of us APS-C lovers here.

[Kunzite]

I understand equivalence

I understand equivalence too, but a 24-70 f/4 is not a replacement for a 16-50 f/2.8

Yes, a fast normal zoom for APS-C is still required, and IMO Pentax should replace both the 16-50 and the 50-135 when possible. Not on the D FA* 70-200 level (and price), of course.
With APS-C they mostly have to replace existing products; with FF, they need an entire line of new lenses. I'm afraid things will go slowly for APS-C, for a while; fortunately, every FF lens is also an APS-C one.

[starbase218]

Obviously lenses designed for a full frame sensor will be usable on APS-C, but I would just say that I do hope that they continue to work on APS-C lenses, at least a little bit. Because they don't cover as big an image circle, they should be able to be made a little smaller than full frame lenses.

The biggest difference in the formats is in the zoom department where it would be pretty hard to substitute a 24-70 for a 16-50 and to a lesser extent the 50-135 versus the coming 70-200. Both the 16-50 and 50-135 are due for a refresh -- hopefully with new motors. If that happened and Pentax released a sealed wide angle zoom, I think APS-C would be pretty set.

The question is if Pentax feels that, after the introduction of the FF, these lenses may potentially steer "serious" photographers away from that FF. Pentax is already a small brand. It's possible they need every help to make the FF succeed. Canon and Nikon don't offer 50-135s either. They push you to fullframe instead. Pentax might need to do that too.

Unfortunately, I think the move to fullframe may result in Pentax being more and more like Canon/Nikon.

[mecrox]

And that is exactly where 3rd party lenses will play a major role. And they already exist so relax

I am very relaxed, having no cake in this bake-off

No, no, no. Pentax please continue to make * lenses. There are a lot of us APS-C lovers here.

I love smaller formats myself but I think one needs to be realistic about this. Only a very small number of customers are likely to buy $$$ high-end APS-C lenses, likely not enough to make it worthwhile for the camera brand especially if the camera body itself is second-tier compared to a more robust FF one. Good "consumer level" items are much more likely to see a profitable sale (and it's a mistaken label anyway since the best of these lenses are very good, I think), supplemented with third-party lenses like the Sigma 18-35mm or straightforward FF lenses whose FOV makes a good fit with a crop format. If someone wishes to stick with the best of the best on APS-C alone then I suspect Fuji is or soon will be the answer. The brands with multiple formats - Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc - are all pushing up the market.

[cxdoo]

I love smaller formats myself but I think one needs to be realistic about this. Only a very small number of customers are likely to buy $$$ high-end APS-C lenses, likely not enough to make it worthwhile for the camera brand especially if the camera body itself is second-tier compared to a more robust FF one. Good "consumer level" items are much more likely to see a profitable sale (and it's a mistaken label anyway since the best of these lenses are very good, I think), supplemented with third-party lenses like the Sigma 18-35mm or straightforward FF lenses whose FOV makes a good fit with a crop format. If someone wishes to stick with the best of the best on APS-C alone then I suspect Fuji is or soon will be the answer. The brands with multiple formats - Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc - are all pushing up the market.

I can't judge the whole market but at least I want to stick with 16mp APS-C as the sweet spot and it's not just about the money. I don't need more megapickles and I definitely don't need more kilograms. Somehow I don't believe my sentiment is unique.


The fact companies push up the market is logical, that's where the margins are fattest. However, that's not necessarily what the market wants.

[RonHendriks1966]

The da*16-50 should get an update. That is not a great lens now with the CA it has. The SDM should also be Replaced with something faster. HD-coating and of you go. The da*50-135 is stil a great lens. A new and faster focusing motor and HD-coating should do it for a second version.

Some how I don't think we can expect this for the coming few years, since upgrading lenses costs money, while you don't sell to many of them. In part because you want customers migrate to fullframe and on the other hand many of these lenses are in circulation at the time.

[JPT]

I think if Ricoh were to stop making high-end APS-C lenses, there would be a lot of unhappy Pentaxians about. I bought into the Pentax system specifically because of the full range of APS-C lenses and full-featured bodies. If I had wanted a full frame camera, I would have chosen a system that offered one. I don't think I'm alone. The people here who want a full frame camera are quite vocal (no problem with that), but they are probably outnumbered by those like the price/size/performance balance that the Pentax system has offered over the last ten years. Those people would feel let down if Ricoh stopped making high-end lenses for it.

I think that the full frame camera is principally targeting a different market. Sure, there are the really patient Pentaxians who have been waiting it out, but I think the are mainly targeting people who have jumped ship and might be lured back, disgruntled users of other systems and future customers with no past brand affiliation.

This isn't necessarily a conflict. A lot of the gaps in the present APS-C line-up will naturally be filled by a typical set of full frame lenses, so everyone will benefit. But I do think Ricoh needs to keep the APS-C lenses up to date with new motors and coatings. In the case of the f2.8 zooms, there is a clear problem with focusing speed, as well as the perception that they are unreliable. Those should have been the backbone of their system and should be in future, so they should be updated.

I think Ricoh will continue to work on both formats, albeit with a stronger focus on the full frame for now. I also think that they will continue to share the body technologies between APS-C FF and 645 as much as possible, so whatever new technologies show up in the full frame camera will appear in an APS-C body shortly after.

[kenspo]

I was talking to the moaners and complainers :P

[bertwert]

I was talking to the moaners and complainers :P

In other words; 90% of the posters in this thread

[jatrax]

The advantage of having a FF is that the lenses targeted to FF can also be used on APS-C. Those lenses are available for use in two separate markets. But there is still IMHO a need for a good line of APS-C dedicated lenses. Pentax (arguably) has one of the better line ups of dedicated APS-C glass and I see no reason they would not continue and even strengthen that line. We already have 10-17, 12-24, 18-135, 16-85, *16-50 and *50-135. Plus the DA Limiteds. I think all of those (except the recent 18-135 & 16-85 and Limiteds) are in need of updates and if I remember correctly a replacement for the 12-24ish is on the lens map. If they re-do the *16-50 and *50-135 in a year or so and re-do the 12-24 I don't know what else would be needed in dedicated APS-C.

The rest of the primes: 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200, 300 would also be FF lenses. The 15-30, 24-70, 70-200, 150-450 would also be dual purpose lenses. There are also the FA Limiteds which many expect to be updated like the DA Limiteds were. Add at some point down the road a 300 f/2.8, a 400 f/4 and a 600 f/4 and you have a fairly good catalog of glass. Not everything, but surely enough to keep most people broke. And then we can start to wish for more exotic things like 200mm macro and tilt/shift lenses.

[bertwert]

The advantage of having a FF is that the lenses targeted to FF can also be used on APS-C. Those lenses are available for use in two separate markets. But there is still IMHO a need for a good line of APS-C dedicated lenses. Pentax (arguably) has one of the better line ups of dedicated APS-C glass and I see no reason they would not continue and even strengthen that line. We already have 10-17, 12-24, 18-135, 16-85, *16-50 and *50-135. Plus the DA Limiteds. I think all of those (except the recent 18-135 & 16-85 and Limiteds) are in need of updates and if I remember correctly a replacement for the 12-24ish is on the lens map. If they re-do the *16-50 and *50-135 in a year or so and re-do the 12-24 I don't know what else would be needed in dedicated APS-C.

The rest of the primes: 20, 24, 28, 50, 85, 135, 200, 300 would also be FF lenses. The 15-30, 24-70, 70-200, 150-450 would also be dual purpose lenses. Add at some point down the road a 300 f/2.8 and a 400 f/4 and you have a fairly good catalog of glass. Not everything, but surely enough to keep most people broke.

Should also update the FA* 600/4 and FA*200/2.8 Macro with AW, HD coatings and SDM.
And make DFA teleconverters 2x and 1.4x

[D1N0]

Let's not forget 35 and of course there are the wonky limiteds at 31,43 and 77.

[jatrax]

Should also update the FA* 600/4 and FA*200/2.8 Macro with AW, HD coatings and SDM. And make DFA teleconverters 2x and 1.4x

Let's not forget 35 and of course there are the wonky limiteds at 31,43 and 77.

Both good points. Though 600 f/4 and 200 macro might be pushing things at least in the short term. Personally I would say if those are ever released it would be proof positive that Pentax was a success in the eyes of Ricoh.

I'll go back and edit the post to add those.

[Rondec]

Should also update the FA* 600/4 and FA*200/2.8 Macro with AW, HD coatings and SDM.
And make DFA teleconverters 2x and 1.4x

FYI, I think the 200 macro is an f4 lens.