[2351HD]

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)

I am hoping the ultra-wide is an 18mm f/2.8, anything wider and you have the 15-30, anything more than 18 is not really ultra-wide.

---------- Post added 02-28-16 at 05:43 AM ----------

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.

I would take a punt that the FA lenses will be less than stellar on the K-1. I don't think it will be like it was with the 645 system where pretty much most of the main FA lenses worked out to be excellent on the digital sensor.

Diglloyd already tested the FA31 on the K3 and concluded that it wasn't even worth testing.

---

Last edited by 2351HD; 02-27-2016 at 12:45 PM.

[mee]

I would take a punt that the FA lenses will be less than stellar on the K-1. I don't think it will be like it was with the 645 system where pretty much most of the main FA lenses worked out to be excellent on the digital sensor.

Diglloyd already tested the FA31 on the K3 and concluded that it wasn't even worth testing.

But that was on the K-3 II specifically in pixel shift mode .. diglloyd: Pentax K3 II: Evaluating SuperResolution Pixel Shift Mode with Zeiss Siemens Star Chart

[Glorfindelrb]

The FA31 is not built to win resolution tests but to make nice pictures.
And remember that the k1 is less demanding than a k3. Pixel density matter and it's more like a K5iis in the center and not testable on aps-c outside of the center.

[Nicolas06]

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

Stopped down yes.

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).

You target very high end gear that has to f/2.8... I suppose you spend your time shooting sport at evening events and have lot of money to spend.

I think there a market for something that is not top high end gear 2000$ at least, even FF.

Anyway I'll not insist.

I'am convinced that there a market for an entry/mid level FF telezoom, and I'am 100% sure Pentax will produce one at some point. Question is not if but when and the quality it will have.

But Pentax producing a 100-300 f/2.8 seem as quite unlikely with their current market share.

[biz-engineer]

You target very high end gear that has to f/2.8... I suppose you spend your time shooting sport at evening events and have lot of money to spend.

Well, yes, I like f2.8 lenses, this help to have sharp focus and bright viewfinder, even if the lens needs to be stopped down to be sharp. I have Tamrons 17-50 f2.8 (approx. $300), 28-75 f2.8 (approx. $300) and 70-200 f2.8 (approx. $500). All screw mount noisy, but from f3.5 sharp and contrasty... to the point that I sold my Pentax zoom lenses of the same focal length range. Just to tell you how good the 70-200 is, when I mount the TC on it (280mm/f4) stopped down to f5.6, it is as sharp as the DA300 @ f5.6. The only reason why I can't get rid of the DA300 is because I can have 450mm with the TC on it, also I was thinking of selling this DA300, keep the TC for the 70-200 and buy a 500mm lens (the 300mm would be covered by the Tamy @200+TC). In fact, for sports, 70-200 on APSC / 100-300 FF is perfect range . For large animals, 100-300 is also sufficient, it only for birding that you need a really long lens (because birds are smaller and still have good eyes, so considerably more magnification is needed).

I think there a market for something that is not top high end gear 2000$ at least, even FF.

Yes, and beside the 70-200 f2.8, Canon also have a 70-200 f4 (cheaper). So, yeah Canon have a larger portfolio, so much that they are upgrading the same lenses (=version II). Pentax already have a hard time to keep their schedules so I guess they won't be doing a 100-300 anytime soon.

[bladerunner6]

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...

The Canon lens you quote is $1349.
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM Lens 4426B002 B&H Photo Video

That is way beyond entry level.

That aside, let's keep in mind fragmenting the lens line-up too much is a bad thing. One of the first things Steve Jobs did when he came back to Apple was pare down the number product lines.

How Steve Jobs Saved Apple

Too much variety raises prices.

[Nicolas06]

I would take a punt that the FA lenses will be less than stellar on the K-1. I don't think it will be like it was with the 645 system where pretty much most of the main FA lenses worked out to be excellent on the digital sensor.

Diglloyd already tested the FA31 on the K3 and concluded that it wasn't even worth testing.

If I check photozone or ephotozine they say the lens is brilliant. All the people here say the lens is very sharp. The samples I checked o,n this website are all sharp even on K3 that require more than a K1... People that have tested it on 36MP on their Sony thing the lens is great.

So I am sorry but I'll not pay 60$ for 1 year of reading content from a troll.

[biz-engineer]

I believe for non pro , there is a kind of psychological price barrier of about $1000. If you consider that you'll buy a ff camera body and three lenses in the next 4 years, you can think of having spent $4900 is already a lot for taking photos. But at the moment, there is a kind of inflation trend taking place on new lenses... now, new Canon lenses cost nearly $2000 each (to take digital pictures in 24x36... when I was a kid, 24x36 film was standard and so cheap in comparison...). The famous Pentax full frame "upgrade path" is actually harder to swallow versus if you were a customer of the competition.

[Nicolas06]

I believe for non pro , there is a kind of psychological price barrier of about $1000. If you consider that you'll buy a ff camera body and three lenses in the next 4 years, you can think of having spent $4900 is already a lot for taking photos. But at the moment, there is a kind of inflation trend taking place on new lenses... now, new Canon lenses cost nearly $2000 each (to take digital pictures in 24x36... when I was a kid, 24x36 film was standard and so cheap in comparison...). The famous Pentax full frame "upgrade path" is actually harder to swallow versus if you were a customer of the competition.

My father brought his Pentax FF in time with a 50mm f/1.7 in 1969. He paid 1500 francs for that. By today this means 1800-2000$ and maybe 400-500$ for the lens alone.

Now a K30 + DA50 f/1.8 get better results and cost 450$...

You go after the best biz-engineer. That's a luxury. Not everybody has the same objective to pay much more for marginally better products.

90% DSLR sales are still APSC and DSLR + MILC is a small part of the camera market. P&S sell much more, even if the market shrink. And there more than billion smartphones, all with a camera sold each year.

Everybody choose what is enough for his need/requirement/purpose. While there nothing wrong going for the best, that an expensive route and it doesn't mean there will always be a large difference.

We all know the photographer talent, the subject and the light make or break the photo, not the gear. When you buy what Pentax or Canon or Sony have more expensive, you pay to actually get a better gear, but a good share of the money spent is being able to say "I have the best". You pay them to feel better, to match the image you have of yourself or the image you want to project to others.

[starjedi]

The FA31 is not built to win resolution tests but to make nice pictures.
And remember that the k1 is less demanding than a k3. Pixel density matter and it's more like a K5iis in the center and not testable on aps-c outside of the center.

I do not think so. FA 31 was one of the sharpest lenses at that time. Now it might not compete with new top lens like Ottus 55 or Sigma 35 art in sharpness but it is a very sharp lens. I do not believe the personal tests on one lens due to sample variance.

[Mistral75]

My father brought his Pentax FF in time with a 50mm f/1.7 in 1969. He paid 1500 francs for that. By today this means 1800-2000$ and maybe 400-500$ for the lens alone.

(...)

There was no 50mm f/1.7 in the Pentax line-up in 1969. It was either another lens or another decade.

[D1N0]

There was no 50mm f/1.7 in the Pentax line-up in 1969. It was either another lens or another decade.

Production Years
1977 to 1984

Must have been a super-takumar 55mm 1.8 (s-m-c came in 71)

[2351HD]

If I check photozone or ephotozine they say the lens is brilliant. All the people here say the lens is very sharp. The samples I checked o,n this website are all sharp even on K3 that require more than a K1... People that have tested it on 36MP on their Sony thing the lens is great.

So I am sorry but I'll not pay 60$ for 1 year of reading content from a troll.

He is far from a Troll and calls a spade a spade. No alliances from Lloyd.

Photozone does report the FA31 to be great. However it will remain to be seen. Everybody's version of great is different and mine aligns fairly close to that of Lloyd.

I can only hope the the 31 will be excellent as that is a lens I would very much like for the K-1.

[monochrome]

My father brought his Pentax FF in time with a 50mm f/1.7 in 1969. He paid 1500 francs for that. By today this means 1800-2000$ and maybe 400-500$ for the lens alone.

In 1977 I received a Pentax KX | 50/1.4 kit as a college graduation present. It cost $524 before tax, equivalent to 10% of the total expense of my last year of college (at a State U., but as an out-of-state student). The equivalent camera | fast normal lens value today is right at $4,000.

[monochrome]

Everybody's version of great is different and mine aligns fairly close to that of Lloyd.

There's the rub . . . . the FA31 was designed with a different image taste in mind, not to win lens tests. I expect the FA Limiteds will not 'test' very well since all we can objectively measure is absolute edge to edge sharpness. What I consider desirable rendering qualities are subjective.