[CarlJF]

Pentax Q Telephoto Macro is on the roadmap since at least January 2013 ("2013 or later")

And after all these years, it's still in the planning phase... Although I hate to be pessimistic, I think we can safely concluded that the Q line, if not officially dead, is at least unofficially abandonned. There's not even a hint of a wide angle prime, something that Q users are asking for years...

[D1N0]

Thanks! It doesn't seem that the 70-200 had any external change.

Maybe they just took of some sharp edges from the tripod mount connector.

[reh321]

And after all these years, it's still in the planning phase... Although I hate to be pessimistic, I think we can safely concluded that the Q line, if not officially dead, is at least unofficially abandonned. There's not even a hint of a wide angle prime, something that Q users are asking for years...

They filed two patents for wide angle {one 4mm and one 4.2mm IIRC} lenses, but nothing has come of those so far. Otherwise, I regretfully agree with your conclusions.

[Nicolas06]

Perhaps the worst thing about those new lenses being "2017 or later" is that we'll have to listen more than an entire year about how they might be rebadged Tamrons.

So on day one for FF we have new modern FF lenses:
- DFA 15-30 f/2.8
- DFA 24-70 f/2.8
- DFA 70-200 f/2.8
- DFA 150-450 f/4-5.6
- DFA 28-105 f/3.5-5.6

And officially supported FF lenses:
- FA31 f/1.8
- FA35 f/2
- FA43 f/1.9
- FA50 f/1.4
- DA*55 f/1.4 WR
- FA77 f/1.8
- DFA100 macro f/2.8 WR
- DA*200 f/2.8
- DA*300 f/2.8
- DA*560 f/5.6

This is already an extensive line up allowing one to cover from 15mm to 450mm in newly released, fast AF modern zooms and a large set of high quality primes with some very unique Pentax design like the FAltds.

Counting the old FA35, FA50 stay as entry level primes and DFA100 macro can also fit this being very reasonnably priced, what we really miss in term of coverage to have a full line up.
- a 24mm prime
- a 135mm prime
- an entry level 70-300
- an entry level 24-300
- an entry level 150-600

With the announced roadmap, we will have modern 24, 28/35, 50/55, 85, 135mm primes and a fisheyes zoom in 2017. Once that done, they just need to provide some of the entry level zoom I put and they have a full line up with really nothing missing. Only nice to have lenses targeting a niche or another or refresh done from time to time.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 02-27-2016 at 07:27 AM.

[timautin]

Maybe they just took of some sharp edges from the tripod mount connector.

Mmh, one year delay for that?

@Nicolas06, you forgot the D-FA 50mm f/2.8 macro, and the DA* 55mm is not "officially supported", surprisingly. But yes, it is already a respectable line-up for day one .

[D1N0]

Mmh, one year delay for that?

.

The reason is now know

What delayed the D FA 70-200mm for so long?
There was a mechanical design change to create a higher level of optical performance.

[bladerunner6]

So on day one for FF we have new modern FF lenses:
- DFA 15-30 f/2.8
- DFA 24-70 f/2.8
- DFA 70-200 f/2.8
- DFA 150-450 f/4-5.6
- DFA 28-105 f/3.5-5.6

And officially supported FF lenses:
- FA31 f/1.8
- FA35 f/2
- FA43 f/1.9
- FA50 f/1.4
- DA*55 f/1.4 WR
- FA77 f/1.8
- DFA100 macro f/2.8 WR
- DA*200 f/2.8
- DA*300 f/2.8
- DA*560 f/5.6

This is already an extensive line up allowing one to cover from 15mm to 450mm in newly released, fast AF modern zooms and a large set of high quality primes with some very unique Pentax design like the FAltds.

Counting the old FA35, FA50 stay as entry level primes and DFA100 macro can also fit this being very reasonnably priced, what we really miss in term of coverage to have a full line up.
- a 24mm prime
- a 135mm prime
- an entry level 70-300
- an entry level 24-300
- an entry level 150-600

With the announced roadmap, we will have modern 24, 28/35, 50/55, 85, 135mm primes and a fisheyes zoom in 2017. Once that done, they just need to provide some of the entry level zoom I put and they have a full line up with really nothing missing. Only nice to have lenses targeting a niche or another or refresh done from time to time.

Sigma and Tamron both make entry level 70-300. Tamron makes a 28-300 entry level. No need for Pentax to duplicate these efforts.

[Nicolas06]

Sigma and Tamron both make entry level 70-300. Tamron makes a 28-300 entry level. No need for Pentax to duplicate these efforts.

Could be said, but Canon also have such lenses, and not exactly the same level of quality neither. I think Canon 70-300 L comparable to 60-250 not sigma/tamron 70-300. I hope that while such 70-300 would be the low end alternative to a 150-450 they could come in high quality.

In europe that would be: 350€ 55-300, 600-1000€ great quality 70-300 3.5-5.6 and 1900€ 150-450€.

[beholder3]

I am guessing:

1. Wide angle prime --> 28mm F2.8 (they always had this and its missing now; no large aperture; Pentax seems to prefer 28mm to 24mm)
2. Standard "large aperture" prime --> 50mm F1.4 ("standard" has to be 43-50mm and I think 1.2 is off)
3. Medium telephoto "large aperture" prime --> 135mm F2 (they are missing an 135 much more than a 85mm as there is the 77mm)
4. Ultra wide angle "large aperture" prime --> 20mm F2 (something between 15 and 23mm)
5. Fish-eye Zoom (anything)

[bladerunner6]

Could be said, but Canon also have such lenses, and not exactly the same level of quality neither. I think Canon 70-300 L comparable to 60-250 not sigma/tamron 70-300. I hope that while such 70-300 would be the low end alternative to a 150-450 they could come in high quality.

In europe that would be: 350€ 55-300, 600-1000€ great quality 70-300 3.5-5.6 and 1900€ 150-450€.

Then we appear to be talking about different categories of lenses. The OP and I are both talking about entry level. The Canon lens is $650, versus less than $200 for the Tamron and Sigma.

Now a lens in that category might well be worth considering but it would be a bad idea for Pentax to create a <$200 70-300.

[Nicolas06]

Then we appear to be talking about different categories of lenses. The OP and I are both talking about entry level. The Canon lens is $650, versus less than $200 for the Tamron and Sigma.

Now a lens in that category might well be worth considering but it would be a bad idea for Pentax to create a <$200 70-300.

I understand that we didn't think the same and likely I was not clear. I'am sorry. But when I first spoke of theses 70-300 and you both responded later, I was thinking entry level but still high quality like the Canon L and as an intermediate level in size/weight vs the 150-450 that is huge, heavy and very expensive.

To me a good 70-300 would be a high end alternative to 55-300 and an alternative to the 60-250. You have only f/5.6 at 300mm but potential FF upgrade path, 300mm vs 250mm, and if it could avoid focus breathing... That would make a great lens.

[biz-engineer]

o me a good 70-300 would be a high end alternative

Not likely, usually zoom with such as wide range aren't as good as the shorter range ones, that's the very reason why covering focal length from 15 to 450 is done with multiple zoom and the large the sensor the more true it is because edge sharpness is increasingly difficult to obtain.

[Nicolas06]

Not likely, usually zoom with such as wide range aren't as good as the shorter range ones, that's the very reason why covering focal length from 15 to 450 is done with multiple zoom and the large the sensor the more true it is because edge sharpness is increasingly difficult to obtain.

Would be nice you check before saying such things... I don't speak of 15-450 but 70-300 and many quite good tele lenses have somewhat large range in the 3-4X like 150-450, 100-300, 100-400. I also said the goal was to not to have the best lens possible but more an entry lvl FF zoom but still with great quality.

Here the 70-300 L from Canon look to be quite good: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS - Full Format Review / Test Report - Analysis

Nobody want a a 200-400 f/4 for 10000€ or even a 150-450 f/4-5.6 for 2000€. There a place to me between the 70-300 from tamron a 100€ and the 150-450 from Pentax a 2000€.

I hope you can understand that. At least Canon understood...

[Kunzite]

Nobody want a [...] 150-450 f/4-5.6 for 2000€.

Nobody? Not even those who bought one?

[biz-engineer]

Would be nice you check before saying such things... I don't speak of 15-450 but 70-300 and many quite good tele lenses have somewhat large range in the 3-4X like 150-450, 100-300, 100-400. I also said the goal was to not to have the best lens possible but more an entry lvl FF zoom but still with great quality. Here the 70-300 L from Canon look to be quite good: Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM L IS - Full Format Review / Test Report - Analysis Nobody want a a 200-400 f/4 for 10000€ or even a 150-450 f/4-5.6 for 2000€. There a place to me between the 70-300 from tamron a 100€ and the 150-450 from Pentax a 2000€. I hope you can understand that. At least Canon understood...

Tamy 70-200 + TC => 100-300 f4. Cheap, fast, sharp and work with full frame.

Ok ,I get it, it would be: 15-30, 28-105, 100-300. Strangely, 70-200 zooms are designed for full frame (->50-135 eq. on apsc) but find a nice use on apsc for shooting sports (same shutter speed as a 100-300 2.8 on FF). I don't know why only sigma offers a 100-300 2.8, it's a very usefull range for sport (f2.8), but a 100-300 f4 or f5.6 I wouldn't use much, maybe it's only me (no trying to be provocative or controversial here).


---------- Post added 27-02-16 at 20:19 ----------

Nobody? Not even those who bought one?

Ping -> Pong :-)