New lens road map

Nicolas06 · 03-04-2016, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth

Again the design has more of a role in the size and weight for a given FOV and DOF than the difference between formats, just like the new nikkor 300 F4 its 70 g lighter and only 13mm longer than the DA 200 F2.8

Pentax has said the DA*200 f/2.8 is really an FF lens and provide support for it on the K1. A DA*200 made for APSC only would be smaller/lighter.

Compare the 50-135 f/2.8 an APSC design with the various 70-200 f/4... The Pentax manage to be shorter and lighter than the others, even the 70-200 f/4 from Sony that is supposed to have tiny light lenses from the official mirorless marketing propaganda.

Nicolas06 · 03-04-2016, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Simen1

I like that one! (400-600mm f/8-12)

And I would like even more a heavily modernized version with WR, AF, back CPL filter, HD coatings and a large hood.

Panasonic 100-300 f/4-5.6 is equivalent to 200-600 f/8-f11. For this reach it is light, small and innexpensive. It can even get avoid onion bokeh and so doesn't have to be limited to bird on branch or other stupid things like that.

DagT · 03-04-2016, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

Pentax has said the DA*200 f/2.8 is really an FF lens and provide support for it on the K1. A DA*200 made for APSC only would be smaller/lighter.

Compare the 50-135 f/2.8 an APSC design with the various 70-200 f/4... The Pentax manage to be shorter and lighter than the others, even the 70-200 f/4 from Sony that is supposed to have tiny light lenses from the official mirorless marketing propaganda.

That's just because the 50-135mm is a 50-135mm, and not a 70-200mm

My old A70-210mm f/4 was also quite large, a bit longer than the 50-135mm but not as heavy.

Regarding the DA*200mm it probably would not be much smaller as an APS-C-lens. The length and width is pretty fixed at that focal length.

micromacro · 03-04-2016, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

Compare the 50-135 f/2.8 an APSC design with the various 70-200 f/4... The Pentax manage to be shorter and lighter than the others, even the 70-200 f/4 from Sony that is supposed to have tiny light lenses from the official mirorless marketing propaganda.

After searching options around 70-200mm for K1, I really want Pentax can come out with star quality 70-200 f4, around 700-800g weight. Not everyone needs 70-200 f2.8, pricey and heavy.

rawr · 03-04-2016, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by micromacro

70-200 f4, around 700-800g weight

You better hope Pentax don't partner with Tokina to produce a 70-200 f4

- their recent 70-200 f4 weights 1kg [980g].

micromacro · 03-04-2016, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by rawr

You better hope Pentax don't partner with Tokina to produce a 70-200 f4

- their recent 70-200 f4 weights 1kg [980g].

I don't want Pentax partner with Canon

, only to get some ideas.

infoomatic · 03-04-2016, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by micromacro

I don't want Pentax partner with Canon

, only to get some ideas.

I would not mind a cooperation between them on topics such as autofocus or lens/focus motors.

Barry Pearson · 03-04-2016, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by micromacro

After searching options around 70-200mm for K1, I really want Pentax can come out with star quality 70-200 f4, around 700-800g weight. Not everyone needs 70-200 f2.8, pricey and heavy.

I'll be checking how good the DA* 60-250mm f/4 is on the K-1 at FF.

I've taken photos with it on a Pentax Z-1p film camera. It isn't "star quality" fully open, and vignettes in certain cases. But removing a baffle at the back is reported to remove the vignetting.(I don't know yet whether I'll try that!)

What I'm suggesting is that Ricoh might usefully be able to re-package it, for example with HD coating and removal of the baffle, without a lot of development cost. It is around 1 kilogram.

eurostar · 03-04-2016, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by timautin

O_o hundreds of Pentaxians?? You mean, personally? Is there some Pentaxland hidden in Italy?!

Yes, personally. We are members of a pentaxian forum and we do meet two times a year in different location of the country. Most of the time we keep in contact just trough the forum, but many of us have met at least one time by person.

Simen1 · 03-04-2016, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by DagT

That's just because the 50-135mm is a 50-135mm, and not a 70-200mm

My old A70-210mm f/4 was also quite large, a bit longer than the 50-135mm but not as heavy.

Regarding the DA*200mm it probably would not be much smaller as an APS-C-lens. The length and width is pretty fixed at that focal length.

APS-C vs FF is so close that it wont make a clear difference anyway. But I would expect a FF version of DA 50-135 f/2,8 (approximately D-FA 70-200 f/4) to be longer, have the same diameter and be slightly lighter. A longer barrel will weigh more, but the glass lenses would probably weigh less since the light don’t have to be refracted as much as in the APS-C equivalent. The lens elements would be less curved and thus thinner. But the weight difference between neighbouring formats would be so small that its easily masked by other details.

The DA*200 f/2,8 has a FF image circle. An APS-C equivalent would be a 135mm f/2,0 with APS-C image circle. I don’t know about any lenses like that, but if it existed I would expect it to be shorter, have the same diameter and weigh almost the same (slightly lighter barrel and heavier glasses).

We should try to find a matching pair with much bigger sensor size difference. A 1/4"-1/2" C-mount or CX format lens vs an old 6x7 lens or even large format lens. A lens pair where both uses its full image circle, have the same field of view and have the same aperture diameter.

DagT · 03-04-2016, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Simen1

APS-C vs FF is so close that it wont make a clear difference anyway. But I would expect a FF version of DA 50-135 f/2,8 (approximately D-FA 70-200 f/4) to be longer, have the same diameter and be slightly lighter. A longer barrel will weigh more, but the glass lenses would probably weigh less since the light don’t have to be refracted as much as in the APS-C equivalent. The lens elements would be less curved and thus thinner. But the weight difference between neighbouring formats would be so small that its easily masked by other details.

The DA*200 f/2,8 has a FF image circle. An APS-C equivalent would be a 135mm f/2,0 with APS-C image circle. I don’t know about any lenses like that, but if it existed I would expect it to be shorter, have the same diameter and weigh almost the same (slightly lighter barrel and heavier glasses).

We should try to find a matching pair with much bigger sensor size difference. A 1/4"-1/2" C-mount or CX format lens vs an old 6x7 lens or even large format lens. A lens pair where both uses its full image circle, have the same field of view and have the same aperture diameter.

Are you confusing "equivalent focal lengths" with real focal lengths now? A 135mm f/2.0 would be a completely different construction than a 200mm f/2.8. Actually, it would be quite similar to my old 135mm f/1.8 (which is large an heavy), except maybe a litt smaller lenses on the sensor end of the lens because of the reduced sensor size.

starjedi · 03-04-2016, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Barry Pearson

I'll be checking how good the DA* 60-250mm f/4 is on the K-1 at FF.

I've taken photos with it on a Pentax Z-1p film camera. It isn't "star quality" fully open, and vignettes in certain cases. But removing a baffle at the back is reported to remove the vignetting.(I don't know yet whether I'll try that!)

What I'm suggesting is that Ricoh might usefully be able to re-package it, for example with HD coating and removal of the baffle, without a lot of development cost. It is around 1 kilogram.

If so, it will be a true star lens in FF!

thibs · 03-04-2016, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Barry Pearson

I'll be checking how good the DA* 60-250mm f/4 is on the K-1 at FF.

I've taken photos with it on a Pentax Z-1p film camera. It isn't "star quality" fully open, and vignettes in certain cases. But removing a baffle at the back is reported to remove the vignetting.(I don't know yet whether I'll try that!)

What I'm suggesting is that Ricoh might usefully be able to re-package it, for example with HD coating and removal of the baffle, without a lot of development cost. It is around 1 kilogram.

If one could comfirm that...

Kunzite · 03-04-2016, 05:40 PM

I can. Send me a K-1 and I'll do it right away!

Bophoto · 03-04-2016, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Simen1

I like that one! (400-600mm f/8-12)

And I would like even more a heavily modernized version with WR, AF, back CPL filter, HD coatings and a large hood.

As i said before, a mirror lens are probable best as a APS lens, but that 400-600 seams to be sharp.
A updated APS fish eye zoom and a new/updated FF fish eye zoom must have CPL and grey filter.
In my opinion DA10-17 needs a CPL filter, but Pentax can repair that mistake in a new HD WR lens, also DA200 and a coming ? 135mm lens
should have a tripod mount or ability to it, think Q cameras...

03-04-2016, 10:34 AM	#264
eurostar Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Albareto, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 819	Originally posted by timautin O_o hundreds of Pentaxians?? You mean, personally? Is there some Pentaxland hidden in Italy?! Yes, personally. We are members of a pentaxian forum and we do meet two times a year in different location of the country. Most of the time we keep in contact just trough the forum, but many of us have met at least one time by person. Last edited by eurostar; 03-04-2016 at 10:50 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The lens road map is updated	Grokh	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	03-07-2014 08:08 PM
Lens road map updated.	LFLee	Pentax News and Rumors	240	05-06-2013 05:48 PM
DA High Magnification Zoom Lens from The Lens road map?	Snajder	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	05-22-2012 02:55 PM
New Road Map	bobrapp	Pentax News and Rumors	2	03-26-2009 11:13 AM
Pentax Lens Road Map	azcavalier	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	04-04-2008 06:26 AM

03-04-2016, 05:11 AM	#256
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth Again the design has more of a role in the size and weight for a given FOV and DOF than the difference between formats, just like the new nikkor 300 F4 its 70 g lighter and only 13mm longer than the DA 200 F2.8 Pentax has said the DA200 f/2.8 is really an FF lens and provide support for it on the K1. A DA200 made for APSC only would be smaller/lighter. Compare the 50-135 f/2.8 an APSC design with the various 70-200 f/4... The Pentax manage to be shorter and lighter than the others, even the 70-200 f/4 from Sony that is supposed to have tiny light lenses from the official mirorless marketing propaganda.

03-04-2016, 05:19 AM	#257
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by Simen1 I like that one! (400-600mm f/8-12) And I would like even more a heavily modernized version with WR, AF, back CPL filter, HD coatings and a large hood. Panasonic 100-300 f/4-5.6 is equivalent to 200-600 f/8-f11. For this reach it is light, small and innexpensive. It can even get avoid onion bokeh and so doesn't have to be limited to bird on branch or other stupid things like that.

03-04-2016, 07:40 AM	#258
DagT Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Oslo Posts: 110	Originally posted by Nicolas06 Pentax has said the DA200 f/2.8 is really an FF lens and provide support for it on the K1. A DA200 made for APSC only would be smaller/lighter. Compare the 50-135 f/2.8 an APSC design with the various 70-200 f/4... The Pentax manage to be shorter and lighter than the others, even the 70-200 f/4 from Sony that is supposed to have tiny light lenses from the official mirorless marketing propaganda. That's just because the 50-135mm is a 50-135mm, and not a 70-200mm My old A70-210mm f/4 was also quite large, a bit longer than the 50-135mm but not as heavy. Regarding the DA*200mm it probably would not be much smaller as an APS-C-lens. The length and width is pretty fixed at that focal length.

03-04-2016, 08:45 AM	#259
micromacro Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,722	Originally posted by Nicolas06 Compare the 50-135 f/2.8 an APSC design with the various 70-200 f/4... The Pentax manage to be shorter and lighter than the others, even the 70-200 f/4 from Sony that is supposed to have tiny light lenses from the official mirorless marketing propaganda. After searching options around 70-200mm for K1, I really want Pentax can come out with star quality 70-200 f4, around 700-800g weight. Not everyone needs 70-200 f2.8, pricey and heavy.

03-04-2016, 09:32 AM	#260
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by micromacro 70-200 f4, around 700-800g weight You better hope Pentax don't partner with Tokina to produce a 70-200 f4 - their recent 70-200 f4 weights 1kg [980g].

03-04-2016, 09:42 AM	#261
micromacro Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,722	Originally posted by rawr You better hope Pentax don't partner with Tokina to produce a 70-200 f4 - their recent 70-200 f4 weights 1kg [980g]. I don't want Pentax partner with Canon , only to get some ideas.

03-04-2016, 10:09 AM	#262
infoomatic Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Austria Photos: Gallery Posts: 255	Originally posted by micromacro I don't want Pentax partner with Canon , only to get some ideas. I would not mind a cooperation between them on topics such as autofocus or lens/focus motors.

03-04-2016, 10:28 AM	#263
Barry Pearson Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Stockport Posts: 964	Originally posted by micromacro After searching options around 70-200mm for K1, I really want Pentax can come out with star quality 70-200 f4, around 700-800g weight. Not everyone needs 70-200 f2.8, pricey and heavy. I'll be checking how good the DA* 60-250mm f/4 is on the K-1 at FF. I've taken photos with it on a Pentax Z-1p film camera. It isn't "star quality" fully open, and vignettes in certain cases. But removing a baffle at the back is reported to remove the vignetting.(I don't know yet whether I'll try that!) What I'm suggesting is that Ricoh might usefully be able to re-package it, for example with HD coating and removal of the baffle, without a lot of development cost. It is around 1 kilogram.

03-04-2016, 03:48 PM	#265
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	Originally posted by DagT That's just because the 50-135mm is a 50-135mm, and not a 70-200mm My old A70-210mm f/4 was also quite large, a bit longer than the 50-135mm but not as heavy. Regarding the DA200mm it probably would not be much smaller as an APS-C-lens. The length and width is pretty fixed at that focal length. APS-C vs FF is so close that it wont make a clear difference anyway. But I would expect a FF version of DA 50-135 f/2,8 (approximately D-FA 70-200 f/4) to be longer, have the same diameter and be slightly lighter. A longer barrel will weigh more, but the glass lenses would probably weigh less since the light don’t have to be refracted as much as in the APS-C equivalent. The lens elements would be less curved and thus thinner. But the weight difference between neighbouring formats would be so small that its easily masked by other details. The DA200 f/2,8 has a FF image circle. An APS-C equivalent would be a 135mm f/2,0 with APS-C image circle. I don’t know about any lenses like that, but if it existed I would expect it to be shorter, have the same diameter and weigh almost the same (slightly lighter barrel and heavier glasses). We should try to find a matching pair with much bigger sensor size difference. A 1/4"-1/2" C-mount or CX format lens vs an old 6x7 lens or even large format lens. A lens pair where both uses its full image circle, have the same field of view and have the same aperture diameter.

03-04-2016, 04:45 PM	#266
DagT Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Oslo Posts: 110	Originally posted by Simen1 APS-C vs FF is so close that it wont make a clear difference anyway. But I would expect a FF version of DA 50-135 f/2,8 (approximately D-FA 70-200 f/4) to be longer, have the same diameter and be slightly lighter. A longer barrel will weigh more, but the glass lenses would probably weigh less since the light don’t have to be refracted as much as in the APS-C equivalent. The lens elements would be less curved and thus thinner. But the weight difference between neighbouring formats would be so small that its easily masked by other details. The DA*200 f/2,8 has a FF image circle. An APS-C equivalent would be a 135mm f/2,0 with APS-C image circle. I don’t know about any lenses like that, but if it existed I would expect it to be shorter, have the same diameter and weigh almost the same (slightly lighter barrel and heavier glasses). We should try to find a matching pair with much bigger sensor size difference. A 1/4"-1/2" C-mount or CX format lens vs an old 6x7 lens or even large format lens. A lens pair where both uses its full image circle, have the same field of view and have the same aperture diameter. Are you confusing "equivalent focal lengths" with real focal lengths now? A 135mm f/2.0 would be a completely different construction than a 200mm f/2.8. Actually, it would be quite similar to my old 135mm f/1.8 (which is large an heavy), except maybe a litt smaller lenses on the sensor end of the lens because of the reduced sensor size.

03-04-2016, 05:01 PM	#267
starjedi Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: New Jersey Posts: 932	Originally posted by Barry Pearson I'll be checking how good the DA* 60-250mm f/4 is on the K-1 at FF. I've taken photos with it on a Pentax Z-1p film camera. It isn't "star quality" fully open, and vignettes in certain cases. But removing a baffle at the back is reported to remove the vignetting.(I don't know yet whether I'll try that!) What I'm suggesting is that Ricoh might usefully be able to re-package it, for example with HD coating and removal of the baffle, without a lot of development cost. It is around 1 kilogram. If so, it will be a true star lens in FF!

03-04-2016, 05:19 PM	#268
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Barry Pearson I'll be checking how good the DA* 60-250mm f/4 is on the K-1 at FF. I've taken photos with it on a Pentax Z-1p film camera. It isn't "star quality" fully open, and vignettes in certain cases. But removing a baffle at the back is reported to remove the vignetting.(I don't know yet whether I'll try that!) What I'm suggesting is that Ricoh might usefully be able to re-package it, for example with HD coating and removal of the baffle, without a lot of development cost. It is around 1 kilogram. If one could comfirm that...

03-04-2016, 05:40 PM	#269
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	I can. Send me a K-1 and I'll do it right away!

03-04-2016, 06:23 PM	#270
Bophoto Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 429	Originally posted by Simen1 I like that one! (400-600mm f/8-12) And I would like even more a heavily modernized version with WR, AF, back CPL filter, HD coatings and a large hood. As i said before, a mirror lens are probable best as a APS lens, but that 400-600 seams to be sharp. A updated APS fish eye zoom and a new/updated FF fish eye zoom must have CPL and grey filter. In my opinion DA10-17 needs a CPL filter, but Pentax can repair that mistake in a new HD WR lens, also DA200 and a coming ? 135mm lens should have a tripod mount or ability to it, think Q cameras...