[jswilson64]

Photographic evidence by your peers doesn't agree. I see many here using older lenses getting stunningly good results. I honestly think you are either rather over concerned with Pixel peeping or you are misinformed. There are BAD lenses in the F/FA/FAJ range but many are quite good.

Food for thought:

Nikon's 'Worst' and 'Best' Zoom Lenses Compared

We are spoiled by things like the DFA 50... Great images can be made by those with skill and talent using even bad lenses.

I started skimming that post, then I got to the comparison and had to stop when the author said something like "Ken Rockwell knows what he's talking about."

:-) :-)

[UncleVanya]

I started skimming that post, then I got to the comparison and had to stop when the author said something like "Ken Rockwell knows what he's talking about."

:-) :-)

Lol. I know what you mean. However the actual article isn't bad. Rockwell did correctly identify a lens that has been lambasted for decades - and that's his entire contribution. The rest is about actual results of an actual pro in real work and in a bake off test.

I suggest scooting past the Rockwell moment. It isn't a bad read.

[ThorSanchez]

It won’t be a * lens. It would by definition need to be AW (not WR) and manufactured to precise tolerances, as well as designed for a substantially longer service life than a mere DFA lens. Substantially more design effort expended, likely more corrective elements and likely more development of the FW corrections. Ergo there would be little to no price advantage versus the DFA*70-200/2.8.

You really think they're going to release a 70-200 f/4 at almost the same price as a 70-200 f/2.8? And try to makes sales solely on reduced weight? That seems unlikely to me. It would almost have to be $500 cheaper.

Oh, wait, you're saying they couldn't do that and make it a * lens, or nobody would buy it. Poor reading comprehension first go around on my part...

[monochrome]

You really think they're going to release a 70-200 f/4 at almost the same price as a 70-200 f/2.8? And try to makes sales solely on reduced weight? That seems unlikely to me. It would almost have to be $500 cheaper.

Oh, wait, you're saying they couldn't do that and make it a * lens, or nobody would buy it. Poor reading comprehension first go around on my part...

Correct!. My post responds to the (Quoted) post asking “Why can’t the 70-2004 be a * lens?”. I gave my reasons why the wouldn’t be likely.

[Zygonyx]

Well, 70-200/4 in the form of DA*50-135/2.8 +KP is a good deal enough for me, whatever compactness, sharpness or AF speed they do or would release for FF...

If you really need near-perfection, DFA*70-200/2.8 and K-1 is your (and my) preferred deal.

In other words, i don't see much users thus market interest for such a second FF standard zoom in the Pentaxland.

---------- Post added 03-11-19 at 01:00 ----------

I'd see definitely more hype for any DFA 18, 20 or 24mm f/1.8 Limited, besides the soon to be released DFA*85/1.4

[TwoUptons]

Well, 70-200/4 in the form of DA*50-135/2.8 +KP is a good deal enough for me, whatever compactness, sharpness or AF speed they do or would release for FF...

If you really need near-perfection, DFA*70-200/2.8 and K-1 is your (and my) preferred deal.

In other words, i don't see much users thus market interest for such a second FF standard zoom in the Pentaxland.4

I would see the 70-200 f4 serving as a lower cost alternative to the DFA 70-200 f2.8 but also as a faster-focusing alternative to the DA*60-250 for APS shooters.

It seems there is a demand, as the lens is on the roadmap and has been acknowledged as being in work but delayed, so I still expect it before any of the wides...

-Eric

[Zygonyx]

Yep, i hope than there will be more than two buyers uptown

[mbukal]

omerta, the law of silence, anything about DFA 70-200 / 4 ED DC AW ...

[reh321]

I would see the 70-200 f4 serving as a lower cost alternative to the DFA 70-200 f2.8 but also as a faster-focusing alternative to the DA*60-250 for APS shooters.

It seems there is a demand, as the lens is on the roadmap and has been acknowledged as being in work but delayed, so I still expect it before any of the wides...

-Eric

I would probably never use the f/2.8-4 part of a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, so the f/4 variant makes more sense to me anyway ..... but since I'm not a "FF'" user, Pentax probably isn't interested in my opinion. If they were to ask me, however, the f/4 variant makes sense purely because of the savings, savings in $$$, and savings in weight.

[Erictator]

I would probably never use the f/2.8-4 part of a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, so the f/4 variant makes more sense to me anyway ..... but since I'm not a "FF'" user, Pentax probably isn't interested in my opinion. If they were to ask me, however, the f/4 variant makes sense purely because of the savings, savings in $$$, and savings in weight.

I have the Tamron version 70-200 f2.8, and I can say that on FF that FL with F2.8 is really an indoor wedding lens. Carry 2 bodies, put a 24-70 or 28-75 on the other one, and never have to change a lens the whole day.

It pains me to admit, but it drives me a little crazy when people say they will never use the F2.8...

F2.8 isn't just there for shooting with at that set Fstop, it is also the brightness you see in your viewfinder before you trip the shutter, because the lens only stops down to what you set it to when you take the photo... it is also what the F2.8 cross type AF points see, so you get faster AF, more accurate AF, and better low light AF, . So to say you will never use it is a totally wrong, because you are actually using the F2.8 advantage ALL THE TIME.

(Don't mind me, just trying to help people enhance their LBA)
Eric

[Kevin B123]

I have the Tamron version 70-200 f2.8, and I can say that on FF that FL with F2.8 is really an indoor wedding lens. Carry 2 bodies, put a 24-70 or 28-75 on the other one, and never have to change a lens the whole day.

It pains me to admit, but it drives me a little crazy when people say they will never use the F2.8...

F2.8 isn't just there for shooting with at that set Fstop, it is also the brightness you see in your viewfinder before you trip the shutter, because the lens only stops down to what you set it to when you take the photo... it is also what the F2.8 cross type AF points see, so you get faster AF, more accurate AF, and better low light AF, . So to say you will never use it is a totally wrong, because you are actually using the F2.8 advantage ALL THE TIME.

(Don't mind me, just trying to help people enhance their LBA)
Eric

Thanks Eric, that is useful info that had passed me by.
I tried the 70-200 f2.8 in the shop recently, and boy is that a big and heavy lens. I can't justify it however hard I look at it. Now if I win the lottery that's a different matter .

[Dan Rentea]

It pains me to admit, but it drives me a little crazy when people say they will never use the F2.8...

I have the same feeling when people say they will never use the f1.2 or the f1.4... Love the f4 lenses for lots of things: they are small, light, sharp wide open, without CA... But in certain situations the f1.2 lenses or the f2.8 lenses are needed.

[UncleVanya]

Why does it bother you when people have different photographic preferences?

[Erictator]

Why does it bother you when people have different photographic preferences?

It only bothers me when people espouse their preferences based on misinformation.

[totsmuyco]

I'd love to have a 70-200 f2.8. However, the cost, the weight and my tendinitis can't justify it. I hope my rehab can fix it including my trigger thumb. It's quite irritating to walk around with a painful elbow and painful trigger thumb.