[normhead]

Have you seen photos of the newest Zeiss lenses? Or the G Master lenses? It isn't just Sigma making big lenses any more.

I see big ZIess and Sigma 50s. The Sony, Nikon and Canon lenses don't look all that big.

Digital Camera Lenses - Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma | Henry's Camera - Henry's best camera store in Canada : Origin

If this is bandwagon, most of the major players haven't jumped on yet. The question is why is Pentax jumping on? As I said, the only thing I can think of is they are looking at how Sigma is doing and jumping on the "outsider" thing trying to get ahead of Nikon and Canon.

The Canon 1.2 appears to be a lot smaller than the Pentax 1.4.


If the Pentax i going to compete with the Zeiss so be it. Some people want really high quality lenses. But a comparable lens with fast AF is going to be a lot more expensive, if in fact Pentax is even able to build a lens to compete with a Zeiss. That's a dream yet to be established in any real way. However, 99,9% of the photographic world doesn't compete with Zeiss. If this a "how can we compete for an even smaller market share than we already have " strategy?

---

Last edited by normhead; 07-24-2017 at 01:36 PM.

[wkraus]

The Canon 1.2 appears to be a lot smaller than the Pentax 1.4.

Apparently introduced in 2001. The 1D from 2002 had 4,15 megapixels.

[normhead]

Apparently introduced in 2001. The 1D from 2002 had 4,15 megapixels.

Just wondering where all these big lenses are? That's the assertion, everyone is making big lenses these days as an excuse for Pentax making oversized lenses. I'm just trying to figure out who is being referred to.

My tamron 300 2.8 from the same time period performs very well on a K-1. The fact that a lens is old doesn't mean it doesn't make the most of current sensors. I suspect that's pure marketing hype.

Someone convince me we need these big lenses. Digitalis has posted images that convinced me I'd rather have a 31 limited as opposed to a Sigma 30 1.4. If it's true, that bigger is better then someone should have examples. Maybe Fenwoodian. It could also be that bigger lenses with more glass sell for higher prices providing higher profit margins. You can't assume that because that's what camera companies want to sell right now, it's to our benefit to buy such lenses. And as far as i can tell, most camera companies aren't committed to a stable of oversize lenses.

I see Pentax trying to squeeze into a market segment held by Sigma and ZIess with the advantage of selling camera bodies matched to the lenses. If I were looking for a market to infiltrate that would emphasize profit over market share, that could be a plan.

And that's what Ricoh has been told to do by their new CEO.

[mecrox]

I see big ZIess and Sigma 50s. The Sony, Nikon and Canon lenses don't look all that big.

Digital Camera Lenses - Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma | Henry's Camera - Henry's best camera store in Canada : Origin

If this is bandwagon, most of the major players haven't jumped on yet. The question is why is Pentax jumping on? As I said, the only thing I can think of is they are looking at how Sigma is doing and jumping on the "outsider" thing trying to get ahead of Nikon and Canon.

The Canon 1.2 appears to be a lot smaller than the Pentax 1.4.

I've only seen some of these 1.2s and 1.4s from Canon and Nikon in a shop (a few weeks ago) and they are big, no doubt about it, though I'm not sure whether I saw a 50mm, probably 24mm, 35mm and 85mm. I'd say that quite a few of the major players have already fully jumped on to the bandwagon - Canon and Nikon with these, Sony with the G series, various Zeiss offerings, Sigma, and even Olympus with their Pro series (big, relative to the size of M43). Personally it's not my cup of tea at all but I guess one has to hope it isn't really a bandwagon because those have a habit of disintegrating after a while. Sheer desirability with a compelling case for real world use sounds better to me. I guess the main split is between those outfits which use or even rely on software correction in-camera and those which don't use it at all, like Pentax.

Another angle is focus speed and light transmission. A less than stellar design could mean slow focusing (heavy glass elements to move) and less than optimum light transmission because of the sheer amount of glass the light is passing through. So design at this level needs to be really really good. I don't think bigger is necessarily better at all, but if bigger is what sells, well ... a favourite saying of an old boss when presented with a typescript was "Fat books sell".

---

Last edited by mecrox; 07-24-2017 at 01:50 PM.

[normhead]

I've only seen these 1.2s and 1.4s from Canon and Nikon in a shop (a few weeks ago) and they are big, no doubt about it. I'd say that quite a few of the major players have already fully jumped on to the bandwagon - Canon and Nikon with these, Sony with the G series, various Zeiss offerings, Sigma, and even Olympus with their Pro series (big, relative to the size of M43). Personally it's not my cup of tea at all but I guess one has to hope it isn't really a bandwagon because those have a habit of disintegrating after a while. Sheer desirability with a compelling case for real world use sounds better to me. I guess the main split is between those outfits which use or even rely on software correction in-camera and those which don't use it at all, like Pentax.

Another angle is focus speed and light transmission. A less than stellar design could mean slow focusing (heavy glass elements to move) and less than optimum light transmission because of the sheer amount of glass the light is passing through. So design at this level needs to be really really good. I don't think bigger is necessarily better at all, but if bigger is what sells, well ... a favourite saying of an old boss when presented with a typescript was "Fat books sell".

I guess I have to get to a camera store to check it out. But that still won't be an example of how my IQ is going to increase with larger glass.

[Kunzite]

Have you seen photos of the newest Zeiss lenses? Or the G Master lenses? It isn't just Sigma making big lenses any more.

Perhaps Pentax should forever stay stuck in the year 1968?
(that's when the 7/6 double Gauss Super Takumar was introduced, the FA being a derivative of that design).

Norm, nobody's trying to convince you. We want Pentax to be "up there" with the best, and you don't - it's as simple as that.

[Rondec]

I just think it is nice to have two options. Fast and expensive. Smaller and a little slower, maybe not quite as expensive. It will be up to the photographer which they prefer. Or, they could get both. Someone like Digitalis probably will want to add to his library of 50mm lenses, even if it is expensive.

[awscreo]

I guess I have to get to a camera store to check it out. But that still won't be an example of how my IQ is going to increase with larger glass.

Aren't the new big lenses sharper than old ones, and have sharper corners, and lower chroma? wouldn't that constitute as an increase in IQ?

[Kunzite]

By applying the most scientific method of "eyeball estimation", I'd say the D FA* will be shorter than the Sigma Art, Sony Planar T* ZA, Zeiss Milvus and obviously, than the humongous Leica Summilux SL, with a length without hood of 80-something mm.
It appears slightly longer than the Samyang, which is 75mm.

[awscreo]

By applying the most scientific method of "eyeball estimation", I'd say the D FA* will be shorter than the Sigma Art, Sony Planar T* ZA, Zeiss Milvus and obviously, than the humongous Leica Summilux SL, with a length without hood of 80-something mm.
It appears slightly longer than the Samyang, which is 75mm.

I think that hood throws a lot of people off. To me it looks maybe twice the length of the A 50 1.4, and wider. Hood is massive) I think my 28-105 looks longer on my K-1, although this lens seems the same width as the 24-70

[Kunzite]

Yes, I also believe it's slightly shorter than the 28-105 (without hood).
I'm estimating based on the K-1 body being 85.5mm deep. One should be careful about perspective, which in this case would make the lens look somewhat larger.

[Pål Jensen]

SO a lens that is going to have narrow DoF, and will mostly be shot with out of focus corners wide open needs super sharp corner performance? I can think of only one scenario where that would be true. Using it to copy art work in a museum or something. 2D corner excellence is not worth paying for for 99% of camera owners. And those who need it should buy macro lenses, not 1.4 lenses.

Naw, that can't be it.

Low light photography/astro photography comes to mind. This area shold be a priority for Pentax particularly because the K-1 is arguably the best there is in this regard. That is also one of the reason a fast(ish) wide angle or two are needed....

---------- Post added 07-24-17 at 11:36 PM ----------

I wonder if they have any heavy hitters similar to the likes of Hirakawa Jun that are currently designing the 50 and 85.

He didn't design many of Pentax best lenses like the FA* 200 Macro and the 31 Limited. Apart from the 43 and the 77 Limiteds (which is supposedly based on the excellent A* 85/1.4), the rest of the lenses have mixed reception.

---------- Post added 07-24-17 at 11:42 PM ----------

Yes, the DFA* 50mm seems to follow the trend of large, highly corrected lenses. But remember, its a * lens, and star* lenses always had sharpness and fast aperture as priorities. The Limited series is the one with more character at the cost of slightly slower aperture (DA limited being super compact as well). And its still Pentax, so even the * lenses have some character.

Yes. The * lenses have always been large (well most of them). Pentax could still make smaller and slower lenses; Limiteds maybe?

[Zygonyx]

There has never been a Pentax 50 the size of this new 50, but there has been this....


Anyone else see the similarity?


We used to have Sigma making lenses to steal Pentax customers. Now we have Pentax making lenses to try and steal Sigma customers.

Looks like these will at least share the 77mm filter shread....

[Na Horuk]

Yes. The * lenses have always been large (well most of them). Pentax could still make smaller and slower lenses; Limiteds maybe?

I certainly hope so! I would like to see Pentax continuing the "three lines" approach. Some regular lenses, very affordable with great price to quality ratio (like DA 35mm, DA 50mm f1.8); some * lenses with fast aperture and highly corrected optics (premium fast stuff), and some Limited lenses that are more compact and focus on character and rendering (pixie dust). I just hope the Limited lenses also get WR!
I would certainly be more interested in the affordable and limited lineups rather than the *, but that way everyone can find what they want.

[normhead]

I just think it is nice to have two options. Fast and expensive. Smaller and a little slower, maybe not quite as expensive. It will be up to the photographer which they prefer. Or, they could get both. Someone like Digitalis probably will want to add to his library of 50mm lenses, even if it is expensive.

Digitais has to get one, or we'll never find out how it performs against the competition.