[babelphotos]

Totally agree with you (here) RiceHigh!!!
Otherwise, the next year, I (and many many others like me) will be Nikon D700 or Canon 7D users. Sorry to say that...

Same here.
Pentax have to be serious....dead serious.
If they dont release a FF pro model by nest summer with the long awaited 60-250DA* and a 50 f1.4...........thats it i am gone to Nikon D700

[Pål Jensen]

We people are trully lucky with Pentax bringing more and more new lenses optimised for digital every year. FF of APS-C may be a personal choice for every ones investment but I feel that exquisite, not very expensive lenses are more of a bonus for a system than camera bodies coupled with 20 years old optics. Radu

I think issue is greatly exagregated. The "problem" is not that sensor are so great that yesterdays good lenses don't hold water any longer. No. It is people nowadays that put incredible demand on lenses; they should be perfect. The reason is pixelpeeping. Now you can magnify an image to such an extent that a microscope was needed in the film days to achieve the same. Many of my old Pentax lenses show purple fringing on film as well. But guess what, nobody noticed or cared (least of all me).
Remember that professionals use those rotten medium format lenses (they are generally not great by 35mm lens standards) with digital backs with good pictorial (as oposed to pixelpeeping) results. Photographers with a pragmatic approach can probably use most of their older lenses with good results, and no one can pinpoint or notice the lens defects in the final print.

[Pål Jensen]

Same here.
Pentax have to be serious....dead serious.
If they dont release a FF pro model by nest summer with the long awaited 60-250DA* and a 50 f1.4...........thats it i am gone to Nikon D700

Pentax need to show a FF camera at Photokina in september or they won't be seen as a contender. FF in one form or another; even a mock-up....

[RiceHigh]

I think issue is greatly exagregated. The "problem" is not that sensor are so great that yesterdays good lenses don't hold water any longer. No. It is people nowadays that put incredible demand on lenses; they should be perfect. The reason is pixelpeeping. Now you can magnify an image to such an extent that a microscope was needed in the film days to achieve the same. Many of my old Pentax lenses show purple fringing on film as well. But guess what, nobody noticed or cared (least of all me).
Remember that professionals use those rotten medium format lenses (they are generally not great by 35mm lens standards) with digital backs with good pictorial (as oposed to pixelpeeping) results. Photographers with a pragmatic approach can probably use most of their older lenses with good results, and no one can pinpoint or notice the lens defects in the final print.

This pixelpeeping theory had been there in the 6MP days. But, actually, there are always differences that can be seen, no matter on high resolution monitors (just viewed in full screen) and more than obvious in large prints (12R, i.e., 11 x 14" or above).

[rvannatta]

Pentax need to show a FF camera at Photokina in september or they won't be seen as a contender. FF in one form or another; even a mock-up....

well, they have a number of directions that they can go and the choices aren't easy. they have not only the frame size issue that won't go away, but they also have the SDM issue.

The SDM was to be the root of a new focus system, and maintaining the redundant cam drive is a waste of resources,
yet there is no indication of a move to produce only SDM products. Oddly they haven't even produced an SDM "kit lens"
so the attributes of SDM will be included in the reviews.

We have FF/ Half frame, SDM Cam--- that is 4 kinds of lenses, and limited resources suggest that they choose the best of each and move on.

[codiac2600]

I still don't understand this "Have to make FF cameras or they will die" debate....

Nikon is in business because of there D40 and now D60... Canon is in business because of it's Rebel series... Sony is in the business because of it's low end Alpha series...

When I talk to the heads of these photo companies and people who work for them they know darn well that the Full Frame cameras make them no money compared to what their entry level camera market makes them. They make no more than 2% of there yearly DSLR sales period for any of the big two.

BTW, the DA* 200, 300, 60-250; the DA 55-300, 50-200, and many others all work on full frame cameras... Rice High you are so wrong about the whole DA tag because reading others websites isn't as good as strapping these lenses on a K1000 and running a roll through them like I have.

Pentax is making full frame lenses and cameras period and that doesn't come from Pentax but other camera manufactures in the industry that work closely with them. Sony like Minolta before them works very closely with Pentax and they know what is coming just like I do as some others who get a decent amount of privileged information.

Pentax will have a 40 lens lineup within the next year or two and will be a bigger name with the pros and will bring cameras to take out the entry level market from the Big Two.

These silly talks are just that... silly. Unless you actually know something from Pentax and not some silly rumors from Kazakstan or someplace like that you do not know what you're saying just like RH.

The industry is fed by it's low end cameras and Pentax is the only brand doing the opposite so let's just watch the future pan out instead of speculating because you've all answered wrong in this thread.

[Lance B]

As long as the lenses are called DA, so far there is no guarantee for their use and good image quality on Full Frame bodies, that's the key problem here.

Also, to make a tele lens to be APS-C only has no real and significant advantage at all. So, why named them as DA? Could we ever see an EF-S or Nikkor DX tele? Canon and Nikon are just not so unwise as Pentax did, which was just a big mistake of Pentax marketing wise, nor, the making or just naming of DA teles suit the long term development of their system, putting aside the marketing obstacle they put for making or just naming these DA tele lenses *now*.

Do note again FF tele has no conflicts with the existing APS-C system, why still make them DA?? (But not FA J, which actually should be the correct thing to do, IMO)

The DA*200 and DA*300 are FF compatible.

The rumour is that the DA*60-250 is also FF compatible.

We have the FA31, FA43, FA50 and FA77 and DFA50 and DFA100 which are also FF compatible.

So, Pentax have a bloody good start to FF compatible lens line up.

[RiceHigh]

The DA*200 and DA*300 are FF compatible.

The rumour is that the DA*60-250 is also FF compatible.

These are all NOT *official*, nor they are certified for being good (in IQ etc.) for using as FF so far. At least the DA name says it all already.

We have the FA31, FA43, FA50 and FA77 and DFA50 and DFA100 which are also FF compatible.

These are not FF "compatible" but they are *actually* FF lenses.

So, Pentax have a bloody good start to FF compatible lens line up.

Compared to the Canon, Nikon or even Sony lineup. The lenses you have llisted (all already?) are just so limited. Even when compared with the FA days of Pentax lens lineup, its just something that is so incomplete! Well, I could list for that complete lineup which appeared at the same time (before 2001):

F 17-28/3.5-4.5 FE, FA 20-35/4, FA* 24/2, FA 28/2.8, FA 35/2, FA 50/1.4 & 1.7, FA* 85/1.4, FA 50 or 100/2.8 Macro, FA 135/2, FA 24-90/3.5-4.5, FA 28-105/3.2-4.5, FA 35-80/4-5.6, FA* 200/2.8, FA* 200/4 Macro, FA*300/4.5, FA* 250-600/4-5.6, FA* 28-70/2.8, FA* 80-200/2.8, FA 31/43/77 Limiteds, ..... and so on!

Now, they are replaced by all DA and DA* but of course when the APS-C DSLRs will become a mass cut-throat low-end market very soon in a year or so, how many people will still invest in those DA lenses (even if some of these does not vignet on film cameras)?

[thibs]

We have the FA31, FA43, FA50 and FA77 and DFA50 and DFA100 which are also FF compatible.

FA35 as well.

[codiac2600]

These are all NOT *official*, nor they are certified for being good (in IQ etc.) for using as FF so far. At least the DA name says it all already.



These are not FF "compatible" but they are *actually* FF lenses.



Compared to the Canon, Nikon or even Sony lineup. The lenses you have llisted (all already?) are just so limited. Even when compared with the FA days of Pentax lens lineup, its just something that is so incomplete! Well, I could list for that complete lineup which appeared at the same time (before 2001):

F 17-28/3.5-4.5 FE, FA 20-35/4, FA* 24/2, FA 28/2.8, FA 35/2, FA 50/1.4 & 1.7, FA* 85/1.4, FA 50 or 100/2.8 Macro, FA 135/2, FA 24-90/3.5-4.5, FA 28-105/3.2-4.5, FA 35-80/4-5.6, FA* 200/2.8, FA* 200/4 Macro, FA*300/4.5, FA* 250-600/4-5.6, FA* 28-70/2.8, FA* 80-200/2.8, FA 31/43/77 Limiteds, ..... and so on!

Now, they are replaced by all DA and DA* but of course when the APS-C DSLRs will become a mass cut-throat low-end market very soon in a year or so, how many people will still invest in those DA lenses (even if some of these does not vignet on film cameras)?

Again RH you don't know what you're talking about. There are reasons why Pentax doesn't have the FA line anymore besides the switch to digital.

[Lance B]

These are all NOT *official*, nor they are certified for being good (in IQ etc.) for using as FF so far. At least the DA name says it all already.

DA means nothing more than Digital Ready without aperture ring. It does *NOT* mean APS C only. Get your facts straight and don't try to distort it to suit your argument.

These are not FF "compatible" but they are *actually* FF lenses.

How much more compatible does it have to be than the fact that they are made for FF? You are playing semantics in some way to win a point of argument when you know your original assertion was wrong. You make a statement about Pentax *NOT* having FF lenses and there are actually quite a few, in fact Pentax have *MORE* FF compatible lenses than they had APS C only lenses ready for the *ist D.

Compared to the Canon, Nikon or even Sony lineup. The lenses you have llisted (all already?) are just so limited. Even when compared with the FA days of Pentax lens lineup, its just something that is so incomplete!

So, what you're saying is that Pentax will not in the future make FF compatible lenses to suit a FF DSLR? Are you saying that you know for a *fact* that there are no FF lenses already in the design phase? Do you know *everything* that Pentax is doing?

Well, I could list for that complete lineup which appeared at the same time (before 2001):

F 17-28/3.5-4.5 FE, FA 20-35/4, FA* 24/2, FA 28/2.8, FA 35/2, FA 50/1.4 & 1.7, FA* 85/1.4, FA 50 or 100/2.8 Macro, FA 135/2, FA 24-90/3.5-4.5, FA 28-105/3.2-4.5, FA 35-80/4-5.6, FA* 200/2.8, FA* 200/4 Macro, FA*300/4.5, FA* 250-600/4-5.6, FA* 28-70/2.8, FA* 80-200/2.8, FA 31/43/77 Limiteds, ..... and so on!

And the point of listing this line up would be? You are ranting. What is the point of your list when you know that I am correct and that there are ready *NOW* these lenses for FF?:
FA31, FA43, FA35, FA50, FA77, DFA50, DFA100, DA*200, DA*300.

Now, they are replaced by all DA and DA* but of course when the APS-C DSLRs will become a mass cut-throat low-end market very soon in a year or so, how many people will still invest in those DA lenses (even if some of these does not vignet on film cameras)?

The same number that will purchase APS C DSLR's. Don't forget that Nikon, Canon and Sony's *MAIN* market is APS C DSLR's *NOT* FF DSLR's, where they would sell at least 20 to 1 APS C DSLR's over FF DSLR's. You seem to think that APS C will die out and nothing could be further from the truth. Olympus seems to do very well with it's 4/3rds format and they have a dedicated lens line up as well as some 3rd party lenses as well. Go figure.

Some FF lenses that Pentax make will suite *both* formats and some will be APS C only. These same people who have purchased an APS C DSLR will look at Sigma and/or Tamron APS C only lenses. Why did Sigma and Tamron invest in APS C lenses? The same reason as Pentax did.

[RiceHigh]

DA means nothing more than Digital Ready without aperture ring. It does *NOT* mean APS C only. Get your facts straight and don't try to distort it to suit your argument.

(Snipped)

What argument?

The straight fact is NO ONE IS SURE *which* DA lens is designed for Full Frame and which one is not. There is nothing that can be distinguished in the *same* lineup nor Pentax has ever told us there are DA lenses that are designed for FF.

Whilst you can continue to try and guess which DA lens is FF and which ones are not, it is NOT official unless Pentax makes an announcement to clarify that - what to argue?

When someone is brave enough to use purchased stuff in an unofficial way, actually they are just doing all at their own risk. I can use my DA 16-45 on my MZ cameras from f=22mm and longer, but is this *official*? Nor, I could accept the poor image quality at the image corners for such *non-intended* usage?

Even if some people are having strong faith in their investment and must believe that some DA lenses are designed for FF when now the FF era has come, I bet most of the other Pentax users and potential buyers do have hesitation on that and will not be so brave and as brave.

So, afterall, why only Pentax should face this difficulty and marketing dilemma? Just because they haven't made this important thing clear enough! Could anyone ever see a DX Nikkor or an EF-S Canon lens starting from mid-tele to tele? Nope, C and N (or even Sony) are wise enough to make thing clear cut enough to differentiate this importance difference. Well, Pentax has super tele DA* lenses, wow!?

[davebris33]

Vignette............

[Pål Jensen]

Pentax is making full frame lenses and cameras period and that doesn't come from Pentax but other camera manufactures in the industry that work closely with them. Sony like Minolta before them works very closely with Pentax and they know what is coming just like I do as some others who get a decent amount of privileged information..

Pentax is making FF cameras?
Does that mean they are now busy making FF cameras to be shown at Photokina?

[Lance B]

What argument?

The straight fact is NO ONE IS SURE *which* DA lens is designed for Full Frame and which one is not. There is nothing that can be distinguished in the *same* lineup nor Pentax has ever told us there are DA lenses that are designed for FF.

But I *am* sure. The DA*200 and the DA*300 are both FF compatible because simple physics state that there is *no* reason to make them smaller for APS C.

Whilst you can continue to try and guess which DA lens is FF and which ones are not, it is NOT official unless Pentax makes an announcement to clarify that - what to argue?

That's right, there is *no* argument and *no* guess, the DA*200 and the DA*300 *are* FF compatible. Therefore, Pentax do *not* need to redesign these two lenses for FF and Pentax *already* have FA31, FA35, FA43, FA50, FA77, DFA50 and DFA77, plus the two DA* telephotos.

When someone is brave enough to use purchased stuff in an unofficial way, actually they are just doing all at their own risk.

.

This is a silly argument. *Once* Pentax make FF camera *they* will announce which lenses are FF compatible. Simple. Why the fuss?

I can use my DA 16-45 on my MZ cameras from f=22mm and longer, but is this *official*? Nor, I could accept the poor image quality at the image corners for such *non-intended* usage?

The DA16-45 was *not* desgined for 35mm film, so why should there be *any* official announcement to whether it suits FF as Pentax do *not* have any FF DSLR's? This is a ridiculous statement by you. *Once* Pentax manufacture a FF DSLR, *then* they can announce which are FF suitable. You are putting the cart before the horse in order to to make some flawed point.

Even if some people are having strong faith in their investment and must believe that some DA lenses are designed for FF when now the FF era has come, I bet most of the other Pentax users and potential buyers do have hesitation on that and will not be so brave and as brave.

Why on earth would *anyone* who has an APS C DSLR decide *not* to purchase an APS C lens if they are perfectly happy with the results from their APS C DSLR because they fear a future FF camera? If someone needs a lens for a specific purpose and they are perfectly happy with the results from their Pentax camera, then why would they not purchase a lens to suit? Why on earth would they keep putting off a purchase of a lens because they are thinking that a FF camera maybe a year or two away, especially considering that they are perfectly happy with the results from APS C and more than likely *won't* go FF? The argument that people will put off buying a lens simply because they *think* they may upgrade to FF is quite surprising. Did they put off buying the APS C camera for fear of FF making it obsolete?

APS C will *not* be abandoned by C, N, S or Pentax and *any* lens purchased for APS C can therefore be sold if need be. If I purchase an APS C lens and then decide to go FF, I can assure you I will get a minimum of half it's value but much more likely a lot more by selling it on ebay and this is a small price to pay for a few years valuable service of a lens that is *much* needed at the time. I will have taken literally thousands of photos with it and that is like paying a small rent to have for the pleasure of using it. If I need a wide angle lens now, then I need it now and as it suits APS C, than that has to be the lens of choice.

You also seem to think that by some magic that *all* people will "upgrade" to FF and therefore abandon APS C, when nothing could be further from the truth. As can be seen by Canon and Nikon etc, their APS C sales outsell their FF sales by at least 20:1, so there will be still a *huge* market for APS C lenses and APS C cameras, even if this ratio goes to 10:1, 5:1 or even 1:1.

So, afterall, why only Pentax should face this difficulty and marketing dilemma? Just because they haven't made this important thing clear enough! Could anyone ever see a DX Nikkor or an EF-S Canon lens starting from mid-tele to tele? Nope, C and N (or even Sony) are wise enough to make thing clear cut enough to differentiate this importance difference. Well, Pentax has super tele DA* lenses, wow!?

You conveniently forget the FA31, FA35, FA43, FA50, FA77, DFA50 and DFA100 and any of these lense would blow the lenses from C and N out of the water both on film and on FF digital.

Also, Nikon for *years* denied that they would ever go to FF.

The trouble is, RH, you *want* so desperately to find fault with Pentax that you conveniently miss the facts outlined above. You have *no* idea whether Pentax is *already* working on FF lenses alongside FF camera development and may already have some ready but have not announced them because they do not want pre press about a FF camera, especially if the camera is not ready for release any time soon.