[ffking]

if Pentax was planning with doing that, why would they wait till 2019 to release the lenses?

Perhaps - and this is pure speculation - because, say they had recently done a deal with Tokina regarding Tokina rebadging the 50mm f/1.4, and asked if they could use the 70-200 f/4 design in return. That lens, like the Tamron rebadges, would still need a lot of work to be Pentaxified. I'm not saying that this is correct, just that it would be a possible logical explanation.

[Rondec]

About the 70-200: does f4 vs f2.8 means mandatory (as in laws of physics) worse IQ, or is that just a design decision (as in f2.8 is for pros, so f4 doesn't need to be good just cheap)?
Can't a "slow" lens have "pro" IQ, while being smaller, and (hopefully) cheaper?

People really like the Canon 70-200 f4 as much as they like the 70-200 f2.8. Probably some of that is its being smaller and cheaper, but some is that Canon made sure that it was sharp wide open.

The DFA 70-200 f2.8 is sharp wide open too and so there is now way in my mind that a Pentax 70-200 f4 would be sharper than it, but if it had edge to edge sharpness at f4 and was the size of the DA *50-135, a lot of people would tolerate not having f2.8 -- particularly with how good high iso performance is on the K-1.

[Kunzite]

Or, in Nikon advertising style: I AM, I SAW.

We do not SAW.

(It wasn't SAW? Oh well. They're gone anyway).

[Paul the Sunman]

About the 70-200: does f4 vs f2.8 means mandatory (as in laws of physics) worse IQ, or is that just a design decision (as in f2.8 is for pros, so f4 doesn't need to be good just cheap)?
Can't a "slow" lens have "pro" IQ, while being smaller, and (hopefully) cheaper?

Smaller, lighter, cheaper ... not necessarily worse. Of course, at f/4 one would generally expect the f/2.8 lens to be better as the f/4 would be wide open.

I have, and love, the DFA* 70-200 f/2.8, but at 1755 grams it's not a lens you take everywhere. A good f/4 would be attractive, though its true competition might be the very good Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 (1150 grams and less than half the price).

[D1N0]

though its true competition might be the very good Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 (

That's an old screw drive design (for Pentax anyway) that is probably no longer being produced. Great lens but a bit outdated.

[dafbp]

Thank you, Kunzite and Rondec, for your replies.


Everybody talks about slow vs fast lenses as low IQ/cheap lenses vs pro, but I'd really rather have a smaller/slower lens, but with the same IQ, than a big fast lens.
I'm not referring to the 70-200, not my usual FL, but to the upcoming 11-18, where I'm really not interested in the speed, just the IQ.
I'll wait for it and compare it to my current buying indecisions, 15 and 12-24.

[Andrea K]

My job is to attract new pro users to the Pentax system. Hard enough as it is already. Wont be any easier when I have to say "Sorry, we dont have a 85 1.4, but we can offer a 70-200 F/4"....you can guess the result..

If you can't explain why, in the Pentax system, there isn't a common and modern 85 f1,4 but there is instead a gem like the 77 f1,8 I think that Pentax...has bet on the wrong horse

---

Last edited by Andrea K; 02-28-2018 at 10:06 AM. Reason: grammar error from an Italian guy

[Paul the Sunman]

That's an old screw drive design (for Pentax anyway) that is probably no longer being produced. Great lens but a bit outdated.

The Tamron 70-200 is still available new in K-mount.

[SharkyCA]

Attachment 388662

Just to augment your post, I thought a full link to the updated map (Feb 2018) could be useful.

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/products/lens/images/K_Mount_Lens.pdf

[northcoastgreg]

About the 70-200: does f4 vs f2.8 means mandatory (as in laws of physics) worse IQ, or is that just a design decision (as in f2.8 is for pros, so f4 doesn't need to be good just cheap)?
Can't a "slow" lens have "pro" IQ, while being smaller, and (hopefully) cheaper?

Yes (although it won't be necessarily much cheaper). When Canon introduced their first 70-200 f4 back in the late nineties, some thought it was even better than Canon's 70-200 f2.8 of the time.

Pentax currently has a number of very good "slow" aperture lenses in their lineup: 15/4, 21/3.2, 16-85/3.5-5.6, 12-24/4, 17-70/4, 28-105/3.5-5.6. Even the new 55-300/4.5-6.3 is very good in the 55 to 135 range.

---------- Post added 02-28-18 at 06:23 AM ----------

My job is to attract new pro users to the Pentax system. Hard enough as it is already. Wont be any easier when I have to say "Sorry, we dont have a 85 1.4, but we can offer a 70-200 F/4"....you can guess the result..

Since both lenses are scheduled to be released in 2019, there won't exactly be a very long gap between the release of the 70-200/4 and the 85/1.4.

---------- Post added 02-28-18 at 06:26 AM ----------

Everybody talks about slow vs fast lenses as low IQ/cheap lenses vs pro, but I'd really rather have a smaller/slower lens, but with the same IQ, than a big fast lens.

So would I. Back in September of 2017, I seriously considered getting a K-1. But the weight of the DFA 15-30, which weighs as much as my DA* 300, was simply a bridge too far, so I bought a KP instead.

[mecrox]

People really like the Canon 70-200 f4 as much as they like the 70-200 f2.8. Probably some of that is its being smaller and cheaper, but some is that Canon made sure that it was sharp wide open.

The DFA 70-200 f2.8 is sharp wide open too and so there is now way in my mind that a Pentax 70-200 f4 would be sharper than it, but if it had edge to edge sharpness at f4 and was the size of the DA *50-135, a lot of people would tolerate not having f2.8 -- particularly with how good high iso performance is on the K-1.

A quality 70-200 f4 would be a landscape photographer's delight, surely, because it is backpackable and is bound to be sharp all over at f8/f11? A 24-70mm f2.8, a 70-200mm f4 and a fast 50mm would cover the needs of an awful lot of folks, with a UWA zoom to follow in some cases as funds allow. Easy to see why this f4 lens might be a priority.

[str8talk83]

Yes (although it won't be necessarily much cheaper). When Canon introduced their first 70-200 f4 back in the late nineties, some thought it was even better than Canon's 70-200 f2.8 of the time.

Pentax currently has a number of very good "slow" aperture lenses in their lineup: 15/4, 21/3.2, 16-85/3.5-5.6, 12-24/4, 17-70/4, 28-105/3.5-5.6. Even the new 55-300/4.5-6.3 is very good in the 55 to 135 range.

---------- Post added 02-28-18 at 06:23 AM ----------



Since both lenses are scheduled to be released in 2019, there won't exactly be a very long gap between the release of the 70-200/4 and the 85/1.4.

---------- Post added 02-28-18 at 06:26 AM ----------



So would I. Back in September of 2017, I seriously considered getting a K-1. But the weight of the DFA 15-30, which weighs as much as my DA* 300, was simply a bridge too far, so I bought a KP instead.

I think a 16-35 f/4 would be a smart addition to the lineup. It’s a more practical lens for most photographers that shoot landscapes. It would be smaller, lighter and much easier (and cheaper) for filters.

[Rondec]

A quality 70-200 f4 would be a landscape photographer's delight, surely, because it is backpackable and is bound to be sharp all over at f8/f11? A 24-70mm f2.8, a 70-200mm f4 and a fast 50mm would cover the needs of an awful lot of folks, with a UWA zoom to follow in some cases as funds allow. Easy to see why this f4 lens might be a priority.

I don't think so. This is a portrait/sports type lens for those who can't afford and f2.8 lens. At a cost of, say 800 to 900 dollars, there are probably a lot of people who will gravitate to it, but I don't see many landscape photographers or wildlife photographers gravitating to it. It's plenty short to be used for wildlife, for sure.

I seldom shoot landscapes in the 70-200 range at all. I would think you would be a lot better with, say the DFA 28-105 and then an ultra-wide prime like the Irix 15 or Samyang 14mm. For me, the DFA 24-70 is all I would need most of the time, although I always stick the DFA 15-30 in my bag too when I'm shooting landscapes.

[DagT]

Back in the film days I often used 24-50 f/4 and 70-210 f/4 when hiking and general nature photography. It was a great combination covering most of my needs without being too large and heavy. 24-90 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 would be a great combination for my use.

[normhead]

Norm,they been listening to YOU! 70/200f4!!!

Wooo hoooo

I sense this is going to cost me big time.
They've had so little for me to buy of lately my pockets have been getting heavy with all the money I haven't spent.

I almost don't feel like a nobody anymore.
Although the lens I'm interested in would be the Ultra wide angle single focus lens. My 60-250 ƒ4 is more versatile than the 70-200. IN fact if boggles the mind why Pentax wouldn't just replace the 60-250 baffle and have an FF lens immediately. That 70-200 ƒ4 is going to have to be a heck of lens to top the 60-250. The only real area of improvement might be AF speed where the 60-250 is a bit sluggish.