[ZombieArmy]

I just hope they put a lightweight crop body in their lineup to support this KP is on the heavy side

As long as you have extensive 5 axis IBIS moving forward I don't think you're going to be seeing a super light rugged body. I think the KP is about as light as it gets, even going as far as the too slim for its own good battery.

[Rico]

Funny how this thread devolved into a discussion of what a unicorn should look like and what its retail price should be. First thing to remember is that no one can build a unicorn for any cost, so we have to settle for something that has only some of the traits of a unicorn and accept the decision of someone else as to what the non-unicorn parts will be. Second thing to remember is that given a choice between an improved version of an old thing or a new thing with features that weren't available when the old thing was introduced, people will spend their money on the new thing.

Let's say for a second I were to declare that unicorns don't exist. I am fairly certain there would be multiple users that would immediately start saying no you are wrong Rico unicorns do exist. Some would say they had a pet unicorn when they were a child. Others might say they had a friend that not only had a unicorn they had several unicorns. There might be another to insist they grew up on a farm were they only breed unicorns. A few might suggest they often see unicorns when they fart but this only occurs after they drop some acid so they can not be absolutely sure they exist but they seem real. And yet another who sees unicorns everyday out there window just in the meadow on the other side of the pond just out of reach of their longest focal length lens that unfortunately only has screwdrive autofocus which the noise scares away the unicorns so they can not show any real evidence of the unicorns but they exist in that meadow on the other side of that pond.

I have to say though PentaxForums has come a long way. If I had started a discussion about modernizing the FA LTD's say 5 years ago I am certain my private message box would have been filled not only with vial hate messages but at least half a dozen death threats.

[ZombieArmy]

Let's say for a second I were to declare that unicorns don't exist. I am fairly certain there would be multiple users that would immediately start saying no you are wrong Rico unicorns do exist. Some would say they had a pet unicorn when they were a child. Others might say they had a friend that not only had a unicorn they had several unicorns. There might be another to insist they grew up on a farm were they only breed unicorns. A few might suggest they often see unicorns when they fart but this only occurs after they drop some acid so they can not be absolutely sure they exist but they seem real. And yet another who sees unicorns everyday out there window just in the meadow on the other side of the pond just out of reach of their longest focal length lens that unfortunately only has screwdrive autofocus which the noise scares away the unicorns so they can not show any real evidence of the unicorns but they exist in that meadow on the other side of that pond.

I have to say though PentaxForums has come a long way. If I had started a discussion about modernizing the FA LTD's say 5 years ago I am certain my private message box would have been filled not only with vial hate messages but at least half a dozen death threats.

Yeah well I did see a guy with an 8-2000 f/2 constant aperture lens that was as long as a roll of quarters when fully zoomed out that also covered medium format.

[Rico]

I have the Voigtlander 20mm f3.5.

Well built metal pancake, a sort of Full Frame DA21.

But it demonstrates ultimately how counterproductive it can be to put little lenses on big sensored cameras.

It's got a lot of uncorrected distortion, and as the M20 has been described, needs to come down to f8-f11 for sharpness. At that focal length there's an expectation that this be corner to corner, too.

I rarely put it in the bag.

APS-C is all about size and cost cutting, the larger formats and the larger lenses accompanying them are in pursuit of higher IQ and sacrifice both those factors.

I have both. Horses for courses, etc.

I understand for a couple of people it's their unicorn, but it's a mistake to think that of others. We welcome opinions here, but that's far removed from market research.

The twenty something FF prime was not popular in the forum members' poll of desired products. Canon and Nikon have also gone without one in their new mount launches, it's something for the future.

Since getting the K-1 I don't think I have even used my M20 on it. My A-series 28mm ƒ2 replaced it. The M20 worked great on my K-5 though. I never shot below ƒ8 with it. Such a wide angle I didn't see the point or need to. The M20 actually worked great for shooting hyper-focal length at ƒ8. Infinity focus was anything beyond 1.5 meters anyway.

[Mountain Vision]

As long as you have extensive 5 axis IBIS moving forward I don't think you're going to be seeing a super light rugged body. I think the KP is about as light as it gets, even going as far as the too slim for its own good battery.

The battery on the KP is the other reason I chose the K-1 over the KP. Pairing my K-5IIs with the K-1 using the DLI90 made a lot more sense to me than mixing and matching batteries.

[repaap]

Well, I’d like to have 20 or even 18 mm small prime with not much distortion, unlike voigtländer. With 7 or 9 blades. I have 15-30 for more wide shots, but small prime would be nice bonus. I like A 24/2.8, but it is little too narrow and not sharp enough for K-1. 15-30 is great but it needs proper handlng, it is a bit large to be un noticed by others..

[clackers]

Since getting the K-1 I don't think I have even used my M20 on it. My A-series 28mm ƒ2 replaced it. The M20 worked great on my K-5 though. I never shot below ƒ8 with it. Such a wide angle I didn't see the point or need to. The M20 actually worked great for shooting hyper-focal length at ƒ8. Infinity focus was anything beyond 1.5 meters anyway.

Yeah, one of this forum's very best photographers, Singapore's Pinholecam, did a bicycle tour in Western Australia with the K-1, FA 77, FA 31 and M20.

But for his next trip in New Zealand, I noticed he had the K-1, FA 77, FA31 and the Samyang 14mm.

That Samyang is a much, much bigger and heavier lens, and you don't want to carry any extra bulk or weight when on a bike. But he did.

Perhaps the Samyang is a good lens, and the M20 is a small one, and ultimately it's about the pictures.

[clackers]

Well, I’d like to have 20 or even 18 mm small prime with not much distortion, unlike voigtländer.

Well, distortion is corrected by a lot of glass, so that rules out small for an ultrawide, Repaap.

I note that Nikon have a 20mm f1.8 on their roadmap. It will be a good big lens, or a weaker small one, up to the designer.

Lenses around the natural registration distance, the 35 to 55mm range, don't need a lot done to them. Longer than that is harder, and wider is hardest of all, as Roger Cicala says.

It's no surprise from a difficulty of design point of view, ignoring marketing, that the DFA* primes will probably come out in the order 50mm, 85mm, 35mm, and twentyish.

[beholder3]

The Laowa 12mm F2.8 is fast ultrawide glass for FF and it is "small" (but heavy due to top level metal contruction and a lot of glass inside).

If you can somehow transform Laowas design logic into a 20mm F4 (both the longer focal length and then smaller aperture should make it possible to make the lens even smaller), then this would be nice.

[clackers]

The Laowa 12mm F2.8 is fast ultrawide glass for FF and it is "small" (but heavy due to top level metal contruction and a lot of glass inside).

If you can somehow transform Laowas design logic into a 20mm F4 (both the longer focal length and then smaller aperture should make it possible to make the lens even smaller), then this would be nice.

Slowing down the lens is of course a compromise a designer can make to improve other areas ... It's the basis of the DA Limiteds.

Another way is to cheat - put less glass in and secretly do RAW cooking to sharpen the corners and distortion correction, even before it gets to Lightroom, so it limits what you can do in post.

Not accusing anyone in particular. (Cough) m43 (Cough) Company beginning with 'F'. (Cough)

[Rondec]

Well, distortion is corrected by a lot of glass, so that rules out small for an ultrawide, Repaap.

I note that Nikon have a 20mm f1.8 on their roadmap. It will be a good big lens, or a weaker small one, up to the designer.

Lenses around the natural registration distance, the 35 to 55mm range, don't need a lot done to them. Longer than that is harder, and wider is hardest of all, as Roger Cicala says.

It's no surprise from a difficulty of design point of view, ignoring marketing, that the DFA* primes will probably come out in the order 50mm, 85mm, 35mm, and twentyish.

Honestly, I would be pretty happy with a DA 15 for full frame -- 22mm and f4 would be fine and it wouldn't have to have good corners wide open. I know it is a bit of a specialty lens, but the DA 15 has really nice rendering, excellent flare resistance (at least partly due to its lack of glass), and of course a very small size. It doesn't really have much distortion either. On the other hand, it isn't fast and needs to be stopped down at least to f5.6 to have good corners on APS-C. And it has terrible bokeh (I know some people act like it is OK, but it really isn't).

But I guess it depends on what people want. My guess would be 20mm and f2 or f2.8 -- something that would probably be usable for astrophotography and would have minimal coma and distortion and decent sharpness wide open. Basically a lot bigger lens than I am looking for (but still smaller than the DFA 15-30).

[clackers]

I know it is a bit of a specialty lens, but the DA 15 has really nice rendering, excellent flare resistance (at least partly due to its lack of glass), and of course a very small size. It doesn't really have much distortion either. On the other hand, it isn't fast and needs to be stopped down at least to f5.6 to have good corners on APS-C.

We differ a bit here, I think. The testing shows it's not until f22 that the edges (not corners) are anywhere near centre sharpness, it's a huge dropoff in a landscape lens. Barrel distortion is 1.2% but it's notorious for field curvature. Some argue there are situations where you have to choose what's in focus in the frame, what's not.

I'd love to see its MTF curves.

It's a must take for me on APS-C with a three prime bag, having said all that.

But if I'm bothering to lug a full frame camera out the front door I've done that for IQ reasons and I want the lenses to match.

Similar to I'm not putting f4 zooms on my K-1, I can put my f2.8 zooms on my APS-C for those results cheaper and smaller.

[Rondec]

We differ a bit here, I think. The testing shows it's not until f22 that the edges (not corners) are anywhere near centre sharpness, it's a huge dropoff in a landscape lens. Barrel distortion is 1.2% but it's notorious for field curvature. Some argue there are situations where you have to choose what's in focus in the frame, what's not.

I'd love to see its MTF curves.

It's a must take for me on APS-C with a three prime bag, having said all that.

But if I'm bothering to lug a full frame camera out the front door I've done that for IQ reasons and I want the lenses to match.

Similar to I'm not putting f4 zooms on my K-1, I can put my f2.8 zooms on my APS-C for those results cheaper and smaller.

I've been pretty happy with mine at f8 on APS-C. But I said in my post that I thought that Pentax would probably go for something bigger that was usable for more applications than just landscape stopped down.

[clackers]

I've been pretty happy with mine at f8 on APS-C. But I said in my post that I thought that Pentax would probably go for something bigger that was usable for more applications than just landscape stopped down.

I think you're right.

[repaap]

Well, distortion is corrected by a lot of glass, so that rules out small for an ultrawide, Repaap.

I note that Nikon have a 20mm f1.8 on their roadmap. It will be a good big lens, or a weaker small one, up to the designer.

Lenses around the natural registration distance, the 35 to 55mm range, don't need a lot done to them. Longer than that is harder, and wider is hardest of all, as Roger Cicala says.

It's no surprise from a difficulty of design point of view, ignoring marketing, that the DFA* primes will probably come out in the order 50mm, 85mm, 35mm, and twentyish.

As others also stated, it would not have to be fast 20 mm. I’d be happy for 20/4 or even 3,5. Faster than that is too much.

---------- Post added 01-12-19 at 15:09 ----------

We differ a bit here, I think. The testing shows it's not until f22 that the edges (not corners) are anywhere near centre sharpness, it's a huge dropoff in a landscape lens. Barrel distortion is 1.2% but it's notorious for field curvature. Some argue there are situations where you have to choose what's in focus in the frame, what's not.

I'd love to see its MTF curves.

It's a must take for me on APS-C with a three prime bag, having said all that.

But if I'm bothering to lug a full frame camera out the front door I've done that for IQ reasons and I want the lenses to match.

Similar to I'm not putting f4 zooms on my K-1, I can put my f2.8 zooms on my APS-C for those results cheaper and smaller.

Well yes and no. Depends what are you going to shoot.