[clackers]

For a lot of us (well, at least in France, where animals mistrust is huge

Well, with good reason, Tim - they all think they're going to end up in a terrine!

[timautin]

Well, with good reason, Tim - they all think they're going to end up in a terrine!

Lol, fair enough!
More seriously, hunting pressure is very high in France, it's sad to see all these animals so scared :/

[cyberjunkie]

You can't go out birding or shooting field sports with just an 85mm lens, Paolo!

It's short, and inflexible.

A 70-200 like the Pentax D FA is standard issue for that length.

In my original post, my point was not limited to the 85mm. More a general one...
Though the availability of a fast (read: large max aperture AND non-screwdriver AF) 85mm could be quite useful for other kind of situations.
In sports/wildlife photography it's almost of no use (almost...).

Specifically about the 85mm, I reported my personal experience trying to take portraits of a fast moving singer.
The example makes sense, because a large aperture allows to blur any disturbing background, the required focal is often around 85/100mm (if you are close to the stage), and a fast AF camera + lens combo must give correct framing (no delay) AND correctly focus the chosen subject (usually the closest eye).
So a fast AF, with reliable tracking, can be very useful in event/concert photography, unless the subject is quite static.

IMHO, considering the current situation of the market, the availability of a "sport oriented" FF camera would positively affect the sales of fast AF primes.
It doesn't take a crystal ball.
The number of people who would invest in such lenses is already limited.
Those who are fine with MF primes (like me) are for the most part already happy with what they own (or what's available second-hand).
Potential buyers either own a FA*/Sigma, or wait at the window. Both could be lured by the availability of the kind of FF camera i'm referring to.
If i had enough dough to invest in a fast 85mm with AF, both the FA* and the old Sigma would be more than fine, considering the AF hardware of my K-1. Personal opinion, of course.

To make my point clear, let's see who could actually be interested in a fast 85mm:
1) You want/need AF, but reliable tracking, big buffer and very fast AF aren't so important: there are already two choices in the second hand market
2) You absolutely need it (and want a Pentax!): the purchase of the new primes will likely wait till the new "sport" FF
3) You are fine with MF: probably you already have it, or you can easily find one; i don't know how many people would spend such good money, just for the sake of AF (btw, many have already invested in a prosumer zoom)
I belong to No.3, as a good number of forum users. I already have an A*, a Samyang, an Auto Takumar f/1.8, a leitaxed Summicron 2/90mm...
I thought to be a little too fetish with vintage lenses, but now i understand i'm not the only one. I'm relieved
To hook me with the new prime Pentax needs to offer a lens/camera combo that would lure me into shooting a kind of photography i'm actually not very interested in... at least with my current outfit... but if i were given the chance to do it, in a fast, easy, reliable way... who knows
Got it? It's basic marketing

cheers

Paolo

[camyum]

It won't be. PLM is not for heavy glass elements.

But they still could do it. Sony had the same problems with its new AF drive in the new 100-400 for the A9...


AFAIK they got around it by incorporating 2 af drives.

Even with the new lenses, I still feel the AF is a bit laggy compared to other makers.

[clackers]

Got it? It's basic marketing

cheers

Paolo

Here's some basic marketing for you, Paolo. The event, wildlife, action and concert photography markets are driven by zooms, not primes - that's what the demand is for.

When I shoot concerts as a hobbyist, the pros in the front are shooting the lenses they want - the 24-70 f2.8s on their Nikons and Canons. I know lots of Canikon shooters who do not own any primes. I'm considered an oddity, repeatedly switching lenses during a walkaround. Below is an event pic (of legendary Northern Ireland punk band Stiff Little Fingers) I took with a manual focus prime. I quite like it, but the process is terribly inefficient.

You should check out Brooke Meyer's work with dancers in this forum - his workhorse is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Or Kenspo, the metal specialist who captures a lot of dynamic performers, who has posted pics taken with the 15-30, 24-70 and 70-200.

Performers may be on your side of the stage some of the time, then on the far side - your prime will result in lots of missed shots.

Primes suit static work, unchanged shooting distances, or a style like street photography/journalism where it's more important to capture the moment than get great framing.

I think the case for Pentax attempting a 'me too' D5 or 1D X is poor, to be honest. None of them will be bought by average photographers because of price reasons, and practically none by professionals either, because they are already locked in to the Canon and Nikon systems which are the industry standards, complete with support networks and sponsorships.

[ffking]

Here's some basic marketing for you, Paolo. The event, wildlife, action and concert photography markets are driven by zooms, not primes - that's what the demand is for.

When I shoot concerts as a hobbyist, the pros in the front are shooting the lenses they want - the 24-70 f2.8s on their Nikons and Canons. I know lots of Canikon shooters who do not own any primes. I'm considered an oddity, repeatedly switching lenses during a walkaround. Below is an event pic (of legendary Northern Ireland punk band Stiff Little Fingers) I took with a manual focus prime. I quite like it, but the process is terribly inefficient.

You should check out Brooke Meyer's work with dancers in this forum - his workhorse is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Or Kenspo, the metal specialist who captures a lot of dynamic performers, who has posted pics taken with the 15-30, 24-70 and 70-200.

Performers may be on your side of the stage some of the time, then on the far side - your prime will result in lots of missed shots.

Primes suit static work, unchanged shooting distances, or a style like street photography/journalism where it's more important to capture the moment than get great framing.

I think the case for Pentax attempting a 'me too' D5 or 1D X is poor, to be honest. None of them will be bought by average photographers because of price reasons, and practically none by professionals either, because they are already locked in to the Canon and Nikon systems which are the industry standards, complete with support networks and sponsorships.

A pretty good summary of reality, I'd say

[Unregistered User 8]

A pretty good summary of reality, I'd say

Me too !!

[cyberjunkie]

Here's some basic marketing for you, Paolo. The event, wildlife, action and concert photography markets are driven by zooms, not primes - that's what the demand is for.

I think the case for Pentax attempting a 'me too' D5 or 1D X is poor, to be honest. None of them will be bought by average photographers because of price reasons, and practically none by professionals either, because they are already locked in to the Canon and Nikon systems which are the industry standards, complete with support networks and sponsorships.

I totally agree, to the last word, but maybe you didn't get my point.
Of course professionals would go for industry standards, and stick with their very efficient zooms, i can't see them switching to Pentax and shooting not-so-efficient primes.
They have already invested in other systems. Let's forget them.
Btw, if you take pictures for your own pleasure, with no obligation to "deliver", taking stage portraits with fast primes doesn't give the same result of an f/2.8 zoom. Personally i am crazy for thin DOF. If a had to earn a living i would see everything in a different way. I'd play safe and try to bag as many publishable images as possible, as i did when i took not-so-artsy still-life pics of fishing gears, and similar silly stuff... Fortunately now it's just a hobby.

Pentax users who already invested in the brand/mount, and those who switched to the K-1 (to shoot mostly landscape, or other subjects for which the K-1 is a great camera, price/performance wise), are actually a market, isn't it?
IMHO the amateurs, and the odd "fine art" photographers who use Pentax, would likely be more attracted to the (soon?) to be released primes, IF they had the choice for a K-1 "on steroid", with vastly improved AF and more expensive hardware (USB3, buffer, faster processor, etc).
Unfortunately such camera would be more expensive... but i guess that if there are people who are ready to buy very expensive primes... take your own conclusions
I think that the availability of one would likely boost the sales of the other, but as any other human being i can be absolutely wrong
Then there is the perception of the brand, which counts A LOT, but this is a wholly different story

Stiff Little Fingers!!!!
I still have somewhere their two first vinyls.
One of my preferred "political punk" groups.
I remember i used to play "Barbed Wire Love" over and over, when i worked as a dj loooong long time ago (same time the records were released)

cheers

Paolo

[clackers]

Stiff Little Fingers!!!!
I still have somewhere their two first vinyls.
One of my preferred "political punk" groups.
I remember i used to play "Barbed Wire Love" over and over, when i worked as a dj loooong long time ago (same time the records were released)

Like you even more knowing that, Paolo!

Cheers,
Ian

[cyberjunkie]

Like you even more knowing that, Paolo!

Cheers,
Ian

Hahaha, stop! I'm easily embarrassed

Didn't know the band still exists.
If I had to take pictures of a high energy concert, of the same kind of the one you posted, ideally I'd go with two bodies. Using what I have, if I had access to the front/side of the stage, I would match the K-1 with the Tammy 70-200, and try to take thin DOF portraits with the K-5 II, using a fast 85mm like the Samyang (probably I wouldn't risk the A* in the middle of a wild crowd). For pictures of the whole band and full figure pics I would also bring a strong wide and a fast 50mm.
I guess that would make me very much old school. Maybe a bit too much Carrying all that stuff for the rest of the evening isn't my preferred pastime. That's why sometimes I change my plan last minute... and leave with a more manageable single camera/lens
I'm not too uncomfortable changing lenses in the field, though digital cameras need some care. With film the dust could get to a single frame at a time. The next shot was problem free, unless you had a grain of sand on the felt of the cartridge...
I remember that time ago professionals shooting sports/events had huge bags and changed lenses quite often.
Now I see huge white cannons, one or two bodies, and very little lens changing.
It seems lenses are getting bigger... but fewer. Zooms, zooms, only zooms
Sometimes I spot the odd Nokton, or a Sigma Art. Not much.
I guess you're right, most fast primes are sold to advanced amateurs

Cheers

Paolo

[Uluru]

I'm sure our US and European forum wildlife shooting members have worked out by now you simply don't know what you're talking about.

See how far you get arguing with UK Gary Chalker's FA* 600mm f4 or Normhead's 300mm plus 1.7TC, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong, I've never seen you post a picture or a comment or Like in the wildlife threads. I don't think you appreciate their work and are out of touch with how things are.

|
|
Please be careful with yours "you simply don't know what you're talking about" utterances — you use it too often.

Wildlife is a wide term; those are not mountain goats and eagles exclusively.
And having spent quite some time in Europe, years, I am not being prejudiced by an UK member as to "what constitutes a wildlife"; to shoot any interesting wildlife from the overpopulated UK, he must use 600mm+ indeed, to reach the shores of Norway.

---------- Post added 06-15-2017 at 12:33 PM ----------

Don't take it bad Uluru, but...
If every wildlife shooter is using 300mm+ lenses, there a very good reason
For a lot of us (well, at least in France, where animals mistrust is huge :'( ), this is wildlife photography:

You exhibit same issue as Clackers. That what you describe is a geographic problem, and a problem of a particular interest in particular animals.
You should at least inquire in other people's claim why they think 200mm and below is still a very good choice for the wildlife. And not dismiss them with "you have no clue". I live in Australian bush, and have visited European countries and their forests, plains, mountains, marshes, rivers, lakes, seashore, and more. I stand behind my observations.
Wild-life also includes flora, rodents, insects, snakes, landscape formations of the wilderness, etc. If one goes to shoot bald eagles thinking that is "wildlife photography", he misses 99% of wildlife worth exploring.

[clackers]

|
|
Please be careful with yours .

I actually did not ask you for yet another opinion, Uluru ... I directly asked you to post wildlife pictures you have personally taken to base your assertions on.

So where are they?

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I'm sure our US and European forum wildlife shooting members have worked out by now you simply don't know what you're talking about.

It really depends on what you are shooting. For allot of my BIF 300mm on cropped is way too long I like around 200mm even on FF for BIF 300mm is pushing it. For larger game often times 300mm on cropped again is too narrow a FOV and many times 200-250 would have worked better.

When I get into smaller birds with FF I like 200--400mm for most situations but it is handy to have a 500-600 but that FOV is not one I often use.

[pres589]

In a club scene like that, if I wanted to spend real money, I think a Sigma 18-35 and a DA*55 would be an excellent pairing, with my K-5II. A 28-50 f1.x zoom for full framers seems like an amazing thing to have but I don't think anything like that exists. Certainly not in k-mount land...

[bilybianca]

I wouldn't risk the A* in the middle of a wild crowd). Paolo

No problema! I bought my A* 85 just for that. I was following a local group on their journey to fame (never reached the final station) in the eighties. (To the younger ones: "the eighties" refers to a decade in the previous century.) The lens is worn and torn on the outside. I've had it serviced once, and besides external looks it works just like day one. I used it as late as today, for concert shooting with my K-1. Just go out and knock it around!

Kjell