[TwoUptons]

So the ‘non professional’ trinity would be the notional 18-35 f4, 28-105, and now the 70-200 f4.

For those who want more, there’s the 300f4 on the long end... and we still need a teleconverter...

And whatever the wide prime is should fit well as an alternative to the wide zoom.

Tokina or not, it’s a useful addition, I think...

I’d like to see that combo...

-Eric

[Dan Rentea]

I have lots of 2.8 lenses, I don't want all my lenses to be 2.8 lenses. People don't buy 2.8 lenses because they've analyzed their images and realized they hardly ever shoot at ƒ2.8, even with 2.8 lenses. Why would you double your weight for nothing if your preferred shooting range is ƒ5.6 and ƒ8? I usually stop down even my ƒ4 lenses at least one stop.

I don't have any kind of f2.8 lenses. To slow for me. ))) I have f4 lenses (16-35mm f4, 70-200mm f4) and I also have faster lenses than f2.8, all of them being less heavier than 70-200mm f2.8. If I need fast lenses, I have 35mm f2, 135mm f2L, 85mm f1.8 and in 6 or 7 days I will also have the new 85mm f1.4L (I don't need it but I wanted this lens).

This way I can travel light with 3 lenses (16-35mm f4, 35mm f2 and 70-200mm f4) and I can cover also any kind of shooting opportunity which needs lenses with fast aperture.

The only use that I might have with a 70-200mm f2.8 is at indoor sports where I would probably use also a monopod. I wouldn't use a 70-200mm f2.8 for weedings, landscapes or portraits even if someone would give me one for free. For some random candid shots without getting close to peopele the 135mm f2 lens is more than good. Half the weight, very sharp and fast to focus...

I think the Pentax 70-200mm f4 is going to be sold like crazy due to weight, size, optical quality, price and versatility.

---------- Post added 02-28-18 at 05:45 PM ----------

The question in my mind which has never been answered conclusively is which is going to give better results, a 200mm with TC or a decent consumer 70-300mm lens? I don't own a TC, but my experience with cropping a 200mm shot to the 300mm parameters is that it actually loses a little bit to the 300mm lens, even though its a better lens overall. Not sure though how much a TC would change the equation.

This the DA 55-300 at 300mm on a K5.



I just haven't been able to get hummingbirds that sharp with a 200mm lens (mainly because I can't get close enough).

Depends on the:
- quality of the TC
- quality of the lens
- light available
- quality of the light

You lose a bit in terms of af speed when a TC is added, but with quality light and stationary subjects you can get good results with a TC on a good lens. The kingfisher image I think it was taken at ISO 4000, with a light not so good. A TC would have made me to rise the ISO given the fact that the image was taken already at f4 (I think).

[pres589]

I wonder which would be more desirable, the old Sigma 100-300 f4, or this new 70-200 f4. Probably too much of an apples vs. oranges thing to properly compare, though, and it'd be a lot of personal preference. I've go no business owning either.

[redrockcoulee]

Hmm...
Art Wolfe Recommended Gear - Art Wolfe

(Not saying that f/4 lenses aren't good).

He did state on a video that he had converted to f4 lenses as he aged stricktly due to the weight difference. Easier on his knees.

[SSGGeezer]

He did state on a video that he had converted to f4 lenses as he aged stricktly due to the weight difference. Easier on his knees.

11,000 USD for his 200-400 F4 with TC built in. Makes me happy I went with Pentax looking at those prices.

[TwoUptons]

11,000 USD for his 200-400 F4 with TC built in. Makes me happy I went with Pentax looking at those prices.

That kind of pricing makes my knees weak, too 🙂

-Eric

[longbow]

You lose a chance like that do to a lens not suited to the job, it makes you think twice every time you pick it up.

Well said, especially with wildlife where the time frame is usually brief and there is no do-overs or second chances. That why I almost always carry my best lens for the situation slung cross body no matter how heavy it is and if needed, carry a tripod with my left hand.......you get used to the weight......neither the DFA* 70-200 or DFA 150-450 seem heavy anymore

[skierd]

I’ll add that my 50-135 is my absolutely most used lens by a factor of two, and I shoot mostly landscapes and (large) wildlife. I should probably get the 60-250 but the 50-135 is so much more handy and easy to carry, and I have no problem adding a teleconverter for extra reach.










And like I said... landscapes







A KP or the K3's replacement is in my immediate future to replace my aging K-30, and after I see how it's 3200 and 6400 iso images compares I'll decide on longer tele's. For sure I'm adding the HD DA 1.4x TC, but not sure if I want the 200mm 2.8 for speed, the 300 f4 for reach, or the *55 1.4 and the 60-250 f4 for separating portrait and outdoors work...

If I were upgrading to the K1ii however, a 70-200 f4 would definitely have to be in consideration.

[SteveinSLC]

He did state on a video that he had converted to f4 lenses as he aged stricktly due to the weight difference. Easier on his knees.

I sort of figured that Art Wolfe had equipment sherpas to carry all his stuff around by this point. And handing it to him when he wants. And they probably have two of each thing, just in case.

And I doubt Art is paying full price, if anything at all for his Canon gear.

[redrockcoulee]

I sort of figured that Art Wolfe had equipment sherpas to carry all his stuff around by this point. And handing it to him when he wants. And they probably have two of each thing, just in case.

And I doubt Art is paying full price, if anything at all for his Canon gear.

If I remember correctly from a podcast, when all his Nikon gear was stolen and he decided to switch to Canon he stated that they gave him a good price. I know a previous job I had we paid dealers prices and it was very good for lenses, saved several thousand dollars on a single lens.

[Sandy Hancock]

The only real area of improvement might be AF speed where the 60-250 is a bit sluggish.

And internal zoom. Minimal focus breathing and less likely to poke someone in the back at the kids' soccer match

If it is internal zoom, and of the sort of build and optical quality of Pentax's other new glass, I will replace my DFA*70-200 with it as soon as it hits the market. It will the perfect bridge between my DA*55 and DA*300 in the field. I have primes for shallow DOF work.

[normhead]

11,000 USD for his 200-400 F4 with TC built in. Makes me happy I went with Pentax looking at those prices.

If you go to the Toronto Star and watch the sports video made with that lens, used by their staff sports photographer, you might change your mind. There's no comparison between that type of equipment and what guys like us use.

I can't find the video any longer but from the 3rd base camera Bay the guy tracked a runner coming from second to third without missing frame. The 1.4 TC allows you to stretch your range for images taken of outfielders then flick a switch and you're the right FL for the infield. It's a serious piece of kit. There is nothing like it in Pentax land.

So if you never need it then you're a happy Pentaxian. If you're the sports guy for the Toronto Star, you love it.

[Wheatfield]

A 70-210mm is very unlikely to be exactly that. It will be a few mm out most probably, so altering the designation would be no problem. Say it is actually 205mm. A conservative company would round down whereas sales hounds would round up. Alternatively, the roadmap is only a general guide and the eventual article will be at 210mm. Or, of course, the lens won't be a rebadge of that Tamron at all.

Or, just limit the movement of the zoom to 200mm, voila, instant 80-200.

---------- Post added 02-28-18 at 04:23 PM ----------

Pro's are only a small percentage of Pentax users. Frankly I think Pentax can forget competing on the professional market against Canon Nikon and Sony. Enthusiasts are the Pentax users, and a lot of them just cannot afford pro grade glass.

A lot more enthusiasts can afford pro grade glass than pros. The "pro" equipment market is almost entirely made up of enthusiasts.

[surfar]

interesing black things

Other side of the lens reads something like 11-18.

[fsge]

Im not. This lense means that the 85 is even more delayed. Does not make me happy!

Same here, i dont get the purpose of coming with this lens...
Do you by chance know personnaly head of business dev or head of R&D at pentax Japan ? Or any other guy there who could liaise me with these individuals?