[taktoon]

Making it usable with older cams?
Which is way more important with APS cameras (KAF4 for FF is very different)

From my point of view K-5II is really old body for new high resolution DA* lens. Ks-1, Ks-2, K-3, K-3II, K70, KP and probably (just my speculation) one new body that we will see before DA* 11-18 is enough of compatible options for this new more expensive than all of this bodies (maybe except the speculated one) lens. But it's only my opinion.

[MMVIII]

Yes, as much as I appreciate backwards compatibility, someone who spends probably 1k on a new lens might not insist on using it on his/her 7year old cam, or probably be willing to spend some hundred cash on a body to use it at its full potential.

[D1N0]

Back to the international naming conundrum, like the Ford Nova?

Not as bad as the Mitsubishi Pajero. I can't even translate it without breaking a forum rule.

[dafbp]

Not as bad as the Mitsubishi Pajero. I can't even translate it without breaking a forum rule.

Still, it makes an interesting tidbit, in places where people can tell the difference between being jokeful and being offensive.

---------- Post added 09-07-18 at 01:18 PM ----------

Yes, as much as I appreciate backwards compatibility, someone who spends probably 1k on a new lens might not insist on using it on his/her 7year old cam, or probably be willing to spend some hundred cash on a body to use it at its full potential.

Yes, I guess you'll be able to get 2 very nice [current] lenses for the price of this one.
Waiting anxiously for the tests...

[normhead]

From my point of view K-5II is really old body for new high resolution DA* lens.

And what inspires this point of view?
My K-3 works well with my only KAF4 lens DA 55-300 PLM.
And as far as I can tell, the K-3 24 MP sensor size isn't going to be replaced any time soon.
A K-3 requires higher resolution lenses than a K-1.

[taktoon]

And what inspires this point of view?
My K-3 works well with my only KAF4 lens DA 55-300 PLM.
And as far as I can tell, the K-3 24 MP sensor size isn't going to be replaced any time soon.
A K-3 requires higher resolution lenses than a K-1.

I try to find connection between my quoted sentence and your post but with no results. Nothing sarcastic here. I wrote about K-5II and older cameras there.

[normhead]

I don't understand why you think the new lens would need a newer body.
As far as I know the K-3 is still pretty much current in the APS_c world.

As far as i know the K-5 is still top 50 over at DxO.
You seem to be suggesting the K-3 is in some way incsificient for using newer glass, just because it's old, and I'm not sure why you think that.

What is it you think would be built into a newer camera a that a K-3 doesn't have.

[SSGGeezer]

I try to find connection between my quoted sentence and your post but with no results. Nothing sarcastic here. I wrote about K-5II and older cameras there.

Because many folks say, find the lens you love then buy a body that fits it. And there is nothing wrong with the images a K-5 and K-5 II create, and with the new lens they will still be spectacular. The lens was designed before the move to KAF 4 but never built so it will be KAF 3. Read the previous posts, not just direct responses in the thread and you can see what is being put forth as fact.

[taktoon]

My memory end my screen say to me that I never wrote such a statement. I just wrote that I would prefer that DA*11-18 to be KAF4 instead of KAF3 as we already have 6 APS-C bodies compatible with this new and more future-proof standard. Have you read all the posts above?
This one is to norm.

[pres589]

In my expert opinion, the K-5 II is super rad, and having this very useful lens available for use on this camera isn't a bad thing at all.

And seriously, the low-light abilities of the K-5's is not to be ignored. I could see a lot of uses for this combination. I don't see any use in complaining about this lens having a KAF3 mount instead of KAF4. How is that even an thing?

[normhead]

In my expert opinion, the K-5 II is super rad, and having this very useful lens available for use on this camera isn't a bad thing at all.

And seriously, the low-light abilities of the K-5's is not to be ignored. I could see a lot of uses for this combination. I don't see any use in complaining about this lens having a KAF3 mount instead of KAF4. How is that even an thing?

Exactly, my wife uses my DFA 28-105 on her K-5 and loves it.I use my 10 year old DA*55 on my K-1 and love it. Old cameras work with new glass, New lenses work with old body's.

The K-3 is getting on, but depending on how compelling the new body is I may stick with it even after the new one that hasn't been released yet comes out. I generally skip one. I'll probably use the K-3 until the shutter dies, unless the new one has faster frame rate and bigger buffer. The K-5 and K-3 are not too old to make excellent use of this lens, in my opinion.

[monochrome]

I used my K10D until the K-3 came out. I guess that was 6 or 7 years. The only reason I sold the K-3 was the K-1 is FF. Granted, I fell for a second-hand silver KP but that was a want, not a need.

I spend ‘serious’ (too much) money on lenses, but I don’t recall ever upgrading a camera so I could buy a lens it would work with.

[UncleVanya]

I don't understand why you think the new lens would need a newer body.
As far as I know the K-3 is still pretty much current in the APS_c world.

As far as i know the K-5 is still top 50 over at DxO.
You seem to be suggesting the K-3 is in some way incsificient for using newer glass, just because it's old, and I'm not sure why you think that.

What is it you think would be built into a newer camera a that a K-3 doesn't have.

I think the point he was trying to make wasn't about resolution. I also think it wasn't about the K-3. I think his point was about the KAF3 vs. KAF4 choice of mount being used in the 11-18. The details available so far seem to indicate it will be KAF3 not 4 and there is some lament about that from people with newer cameras. The question or point being made is that the K-5 series isn't new and is sufficiently old that he thinks they should not be worried about backward compatibility to it.

My own opinion is that I am unclear what percentage of potential buyers a KAF4 lens might miss out on - and without that info I am not sure that it would be wise to release a very expensive landscape oriented lens and not include the K-5 series users who are likely potential buyers.

[normhead]

I think the point he was trying to make wasn't about resolution

From my point of view K-5II is really old body for new high resolution DA* lens. K

He faked me out real good then.
The K-5 has the same pixel density as a K-1. It's hardly obsolete.

[taktoon]

He faked me out real good then.
The K-5 has the same pixel density as a K-1. It's hardly obsolete.

You totally missed my point. I only wrote that I would prefer KAF4 construction (as in newest Pentax lenses) for the DA* 11-18. And with this regard from my point of view compatibility of new high end "*" lenses with bodies like K5II should not be on the Pentax-RICOH priorities. And I still find K5II and for sure K3II (which is KAF4 compatible so no discussion here) great capable cameras (occasionally I even use my old GX20 for casual shoots). Even right now I consider buying K3II with grip as a second body if I find a really good deal