[jatrax]

so two consumerish(?) ff zooms covering similar focal lengths

I think they are building out 3 separate lens ranges. f/2.8 'pro', f/4 'enthusiast', and variable aperture 'consumer'. But from what we have seen so far the build quality of all ranges is very high, unlike in the past where many of the consumer lenses were cheaply made (FA 28-90...).

So having a 70-200 f/4 'enthusiast' lens and a 50-250 f/4.5-5.8 'consumer' lens is not that odd.

I would have been in the market for the 70-200 f/4 but it would have been shorter than I wanted. So a 50-250ish would be just fine as a companion to the DFA 28-105.

[zapp]

I would prefer an 85-85 zoom with slightly larger aperture.

[jatrax]

I would prefer an 85-85 zoom with slightly larger aperture.

Perhaps around f/1.4?? Or f/1.8??

[clackers]

I would prefer an 85-85 zoom with slightly larger aperture.

(Laughs)

The mockup at CP+ would have pleased you, then.

[Rondec]

so two consumerish(?) ff zooms covering similar focal lengths(70-200, 50?-300) not sure i buy that. i'd buy a wide* prime or a wr hd 50mm macro though

The 70-200 f4 is going to be a better lens than the 50-300. I would think about it more like the DA *60-250 versus, say, the DA 55-300 PLM. The 55-300 is a nice, fast focusing lens that is quite compact and is a lot cheaper, but it isn't anywhere near the quality of the 60-250 either. The 70-200 f4 isn't listed as a star lens, but it is still going to be higher quality than the 50-300, it will be bigger and priced a lot higher -- say 550 for the 50-300 (this based on Nikon's price for their 70-300 variable aperture full frame zoom) and 1200 for the 70-200 f4.

There are plenty of pros who use 70-200 f4 rather than f2.8 lenses to keep the size down on their set ups and with high iso being what it is on the K-1 II, you could probably lose a stop on the aperture and still do pretty well -- assuming that the lens is sharp wide open.

[D1N0]

50-300 on ff would be pretty sweet. Especially with fast plm focus and compact extending build.

[TwoUptons]

For me to have any interest in the 50-300, it would have to have quick af, no significant CA, and good sharpness throughout the zoom range.

I expect the 70-200f4 to have all of those. I’m hopeful, based on the recent 55-300s, for it to manage at least 2/3 of them...

-Eric

[bdery]

I would have been in the market for the 70-200 f/4 but it would have been shorter than I wanted.

Modified 60-250 and be there

[Reed]

Modified 60-250 and be there

@bdery Will you be making article about FA 35/2 vs HD FA35/2 in anytime soon?

[lsimpkins]

@bdery Will you be making article about FA 35/2 vs HD FA35/2 in anytime soon?

The Cameraville YouTube channel has been doing just.

[sculptor666]

One wonders why Canon, Nikon and Sony's portfolios include both 70-200mm f/4 and 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lenses.

they already have top tier fast wa ff primes, they already have 85, 135, etc... AND 3rd party options. pentax does not. i rather have them focus their limited resources... not on redundancy.

[Reed]

The Cameraville YouTube channel has been doing just.

Yeah, I know that channel, but I like also reading bdery work on comparing lenses in p-forums articles section

[sculptor666]

The 70-200 f4 is going to be a better lens than the 50-300. I would think about it more like the DA *60-250 versus, say, the DA 55-300 PLM. The 55-300 is a nice, fast focusing lens that is quite compact and is a lot cheaper, but it isn't anywhere near the quality of the 60-250 either. The 70-200 f4 isn't listed as a star lens, but it is still going to be higher quality than the 50-300, it will be bigger and priced a lot higher -- say 550 for the 50-300 (this based on Nikon's price for their 70-300 variable aperture full frame zoom) and 1200 for the 70-200 f4.

There are plenty of pros who use 70-200 f4 rather than f2.8 lenses to keep the size down on their set ups and with high iso being what it is on the K-1 II, you could probably lose a stop on the aperture and still do pretty well -- assuming that the lens is sharp wide open.

when i say consumerish? (note question mark ) i mean not a top level lens... not that the 70-200 won't be good. the 150-450 isn't a * lens and it's awesome. as for price... 1200 sound too close to the dfa* 70-200. i'll be surprised if it was over 1K.

---------- Post added 05-10-19 at 10:30 AM ----------

I think they are building out 3 separate lens ranges. f/2.8 'pro', f/4 'enthusiast', and variable aperture 'consumer'. But from what we have seen so far the build quality of all ranges is very high, unlike in the past where many of the consumer lenses were cheaply made (FA 28-90...).

So having a 70-200 f/4 'enthusiast' lens and a 50-250 f/4.5-5.8 'consumer' lens is not that odd.

I would have been in the market for the 70-200 f/4 but it would have been shorter than I wanted. So a 50-250ish would be just fine as a companion to the DFA 28-105.

yeah, i understand that... but i don't understand offereing a consumer lens on an $1800 camera before making the missing primes available. maybe they're making more money on the aspc plm lens vs the ff dfa* 50? or maybe they'll drop a bunch of lenses at once?

[beholder3]

yeah, i understand that... but i don't understand offereing a consumer lens on an $1800 camera before making the missing primes available.

Primes are niche lenses, all variants and everywhere.


$1800 is quickly becoming the low end for ILC - not that I like it.

If you look at recent lens prices (outside Pentax world) you'll see that (assuming three categories) the group "cheap lenses" now ends at $1,000 and "medium/affordable" at $2000. Enthusiast / Pro level stuff is regularly at $2500+.

So it all makes (unpleasant) sense.

[OoKU]