[bertwert]

. I couldn't afford to loose the half stop of light

You probably couldn't afford the lens anyways...

[Easeman]

Exactly. Everyone (well many people) complain about this and that, but then Ricoh makes a move and everyone (well some) complain.

What have been the biggest complaints on this forum?
1) Poor video support
2) Poor third party support
3) Slow AF

So Ricoh makes steps to fix all of those complaints. I suspect this is only the beginning. But if you want progress you must accept change.

I'm not understanding the griping about this lens though. It's not like it is anything unique, if you have an older camera and need a 55-300 there are three versions already out there that will work just fine.

I suspect (had there been an internet) that these same complaints were raised when the shift from M42 to k-mount was made.

Yes.
This change is wonderful, and as well painful, for a K-3 user.
We have been waiting for AF improvement, now KAF4, which is the future of K-mount, has come.
The reason we are complaining is that the change from KAF3 to KAF4 seems like a firmware change rather than a hardware change.
Thus, why they ignore the flagship K-3?
What's more, if possible, K-5 II(s) could be taken into consideration, too.


---------- Post added 2016-06-09 at 10:52 ----------

I need to bookmark this discussion for the next time someone says that lenses are forever. An individual lens may be useable forever, but finding someone willing to use it on a regular basis may be difficult. as technology gives us better and better versions. For example, on several occasions I have purchased an Adaptall lens that I enjoy "playing with" from someone who had once viewed the lens as a workhorse.

---------- Post added 06-08-16 at 10:39 PM ----------

Your K-3 hasn't lost any capability; it simply hasn't gained any capability.

I'm really thankful to Ricoh for K-3 grew up from ver1.0 to ver1.21, though.

[jatrax]

The reason we are complaining is that the change from KAF3 to KAF4 seems like a firmware change rather than a hardware change.

Seems like? Firmware is not magic, there must be hardware to support it.

Thus, why they ignore the flagship K-3?

Perhaps because it is not a firmware issue and rather a hardware issue. Hardware that the k-3 or earlier cameras do not have?

There are only three possibilities:

1. It is missing hardware, thus there is nothing that can be done. This actually makes the most sense to me, Ricoh looking ahead and at some point drawing a line saying going forward all cameras will have this hardware that will support future lens changes. As I recall, the k-3 was mostly a Hoya product and the k-3II was touted as the first camera developed by Ricoh, or at least by the new Ricoh/Pentax team. Though I might be wrong on that.
2. It is just a firmware update. If that is all it takes then I suggest it will be made available, eventually, for all cameras that can accept it. Ricoh in no place stated that any particular camera would NOT be compatible. They only listed those that are. Maybe not all are, maybe not all have been tested, maybe the firmware for the older ones is not finished/tested.
3. It is just a firmware update and Ricoh chooses not to make it available to older cameras to shaft their users and force them to buy new cameras. This of course is the cynical choice, but personally I don't buy it.

[Easeman]

Seems like? Firmware is not magic, there must be hardware to support it.

Perhaps because it is not a firmware issue and rather a hardware issue. Hardware that the k-3 or earlier cameras do not have?

There are only three possibilities:

1. It is missing hardware, thus there is nothing that can be done. This actually makes the most sense to me, Ricoh looking ahead and at some point drawing a line saying going forward all cameras will have this hardware that will support future lens changes. As I recall, the k-3 was mostly a Hoya product and the k-3II was touted as the first camera developed by Ricoh, or at least by the new Ricoh/Pentax team. Though I might be wrong on that.
2. It is just a firmware update. If that is all it takes then I suggest it will be made available, eventually, for all cameras that can accept it. Ricoh in no place stated that any particular camera would NOT be compatible. They only listed those that are. Maybe not all are, maybe not all have been tested, maybe the firmware for the older ones is not finished/tested.
3. It is just a firmware update and Ricoh chooses not to make it available to older cameras to shaft their users and force them to buy new cameras. This of course is the cynical choice, but personally I don't buy it.

I have exactly the same speculations as yours. Let's see what will happen. Maybe Ricoh will bring us surprise

[pres589]

Depending on what shows up, are K-5, K-3, or whoever really worried about missing out on the 55-300 RE? I think we've been told more lenses are coming with this so-called KAF4 mount, and it makes sense to me, but unless they have something really amazing in this new mount I doubt most of us will care. Like if an 28mm f1.4 prime shows up in KAF4, then I'll start counting my pennies and dimes towards a newer body, but until then I seriously doubt this really matters to your Joe Schmoe K200D owner. Right?

[jatrax]

Right?

Yep.
If they bring out video optimized versions of the standard lenses then folks with new cameras will buy those and folks with non-compatible bodies will buy the older versions. No big deal.

But if they bring out new glass that is truly new. Maybe DFA 85 f/1.4 for example, that does not work on older bodies, hmm that would cause a big outcry I'm sure

[Nicolas06]

A WR 18-250 with non-screwdrive motor would kill the reason to exist of the 18-135 DC WR immediately; remaining stock would be relegated at once to kit lens territory.

That still make sense, the 18-135 is available at a kit lens. Plus like the 16-85 or the 18-270 when they were introduced, the new optics could be expensive at first. All in all this would ensure the 18-135 stock is flushed as it is included in kit and cheaper. No issue with that.

[UncleVanya]

A reminder, one reason pentax enjoys auto aperture with samyang is the simplicity of a mechanical aperture.

The change may well be useful, but it feels like it tosses the baby out with the bathwater.I'm taking a cautious wait and see view.

[Nicolas06]

The people still shooting them and the people who might want to buy one secondhand as a cheap entree into the DSLR world.

It's worrying to think that my K-5 might soon have forward compatibility issues.

From an economic point of view, this make sense, give you a reason to upgrade and particulary at theses time were the market shrink, this is quite important for the brand. There was maybe an hardware reason we don't know of too.

Think of it, K1 also incitated many people to upgrade their body but for APSC there was nothing. To me K70 is still significantly inferior to K3 if you don't use LV or video but the next APSC flagship will have everything.

What I don't know is if the new lenses will all have the same system or not...

[anu l]

PLM: LM is linear motor, so this lens is optimised for contrast detect autofocus / autofocus during video.

P could be for Piezo.

but that also means better & faster AF during use of OVF CDAF right??

[Shodra]

I'm pretty sure it's a hardware issue. They have to transmit the signal through the autofocus contact and the K-3 isn't equipped to do two things through this contact. Bodies released 2014 and later are and it's just a matter of turning it on.
The whole 'it's all firmware and they don't want to invest in old bodies' doesn't make too much sense to me. Why upgrade the KS-1 but not do what should be a simple copy&paste job from K3II to K3? Planned obsolescence with only a minor upgrade currently available and enforced using a low-end lens, all the while camera production lines are running above capacity thanks to K1 and 645Z ... I don't think so.


So far, I don't think K3 users (like me) are missing out. The old lens is perfectly fine and KAF4 helps to make the new one lighter and smaller. Win win. But I hope that new high end designs will stay KAF3/4 for a couple of years. The size and weight gain is not that big of a deal in that case. And as Pentax, you don't want to force a large share of your enthusiast customers to decide between a low/no gain upgrade (K3 to K3II or K5II to what exactly?) and buying this new lens they want. Even (especially?) K-1 users often aren't running around with the most recent apsc model. Making the backups/sports cameras incompatible with new FF lenses only lowers the attractiveness of the whole system.


I'm seeing a dedicated APSC video line on the horizon. A handful of PLM zooms and a mirrorless with K mount, either natively or through a dumb adapter in the kit. KAF4 only for the soccer mom, declicked manual aperture in the adapter for pros.

[Simen1]

- but retaining the screw-drive?

No, the screw drive is not there on the mount. Look at point 5 to see where its place are.

[Mistral75]

but that also means better & faster AF during use of OVF CDAF right??

There is no such thing as OVF CDAF. When the optical viewfinder is active, the mirror is down and no light is gathered by the imaging sensor, which performs contrast detection (and, with K-70, includes phase-detect AF points as well).

[Simen1]

Technically and hypothetically its possible to have CDAF detection on the same chip as the PDAF chip, but in practice I don't think that is done by any company yet. On modern cameras the mirror are semi translucent so light can be redirected by a second mirror to the PDAF chip. This is a cross section of K-5 IIs:

[Glorfindelrb]

In fact it does exist (not sure in real world but some patents have been about using CDAF on the metering sensor in conjonction with the PDAF) but that was probably not the point here.