[thibs]

I don't think PLM means focus by wire.
It can but doesn't imply focus by wire.

A focus by wire on a DA* would be a major mistake IMO

[Serkevan]

I don't think PLM means focus by wire.
It can but doesn't imply focus by wire.

A focus by wire on a DA* would be a major mistake IMO

In general, it does. It's a linear motor, so the elements are simply moved back and forth inside the barrel, not with its rotation. I'm sure one could devise a way to allow for true manual focus... But at that point you'd just go for SDM.

[reh321]

In general, it does. It's a linear motor, so the elements are simply moved back and forth inside the barrel, not with its rotation. I'm sure one could devise a way to allow for true manual focus... But at that point you'd just go for SDM.

AF failure is so rare these days it is not worth thinking about.
Sort of like thinking of aperture control failing for a K-3.

[TwoUptons]

I've never had an aperture actuation failure on a Pentax 110 lens, either

Now, where's that 8-25mm f2.8* lens they promised in 1978?!

-Eric

[repaap]

I’m not sure what is the problem with focus by wire all of the sudden. No one has had any complaiments with 55-300 PLM. Vise versa. It has been all praise. Fast(unbelieable) focus. All working as it should, but better and faster.

This is what they are going for with this DA* 16-50.

As they said it. In order to get ALL of the good things on performance, this has to be done. This includes also that video continious AF but it will affect also AF in general. You want to get Pentax ready to stand for 2021 and more. This needs to be done. (Plenty to choose from with older stuff btw.)

Let’s have it.

Note 2. AF with K-3 III is already way above anything we have had so far. This will get it to be couple notches up more.

[mtkeller]

I'm going to predict this lens will launch in the US$1200-1400 range.
It will need to be close to perfection for that price in my book.

That would put it just below the DA*11–18mm. Sounds about right, as a "standard" zoom should be a bit less expensive to develop and produce than an UWA lens.

[STARHUNTER94]

That would put it just below the DA*11–18mm. Sounds about right, as a "standard" zoom should be a bit less expensive to develop and produce than an UWA lens.

I didn't think about this. Hopefully you are right.

[JPT]

That would put it just below the DA*11–18mm. Sounds about right, as a "standard" zoom should be a bit less expensive to develop and produce than an UWA lens.

I think this is a good way of thinking about it. Based on the prices here in Japan, the DFA standard zoom is priced at about 85% of what the DFA wide angle zoom costs. If you apply the same thinking to the DA* zooms, you could figure out the likely pricing for your market. For Japan, after the street price has settles, that would make it about JPY 120,000-130,000.

Actually, I don't think it is as much about the cost of development as it is about the number of lenses they can hope to sell over the product lifetime. They will sell a lot more standard zooms that wide angle ones - I as a user would consider the former, but never the latter, for example.

I know that the 11-18/2.8 had a rather troubled development (went back for a redesign for a specific problem uncovered in testing), so it probably did cost a lot to develop. However, I think the price is ultimately decided relative to other lenses in the lineup and market norms.

[caliscouser]

However, I think the price is ultimately decided relative to other lenses in the lineup and market norms.

Yes, and I think as was mentioned also manufacturing cost.

Larger more expensive glass elements in the 11-18 wide angle lens.

Also as a PLM lens the 16-50 should have smaller glass elements to keep the mass and inertia down, which presumably are cheaper to produce.

This should be a higher volume product than the wide angle and could actually be one of their highest margin lenses if they get the IQ right and price it right.

[jersey]

I would not count on new lens to be cheaper then 11-18. If it will be as good as Pentax is promising it to be, then it will be more expensive. Pentax is targeting the premium part of market and with K-3/3 it looks like it is then just as body price is up, the lenses will also probably start to move toward areas reserved for Leica/Zeiss/Voigtlander.


I would not be surprised if there is already a plan to replace all older lenses or built up new line of lenses based up on PLM and development from new 16-50 for new cameras. Of course if both K-3/3 and new 16-50 sell as expected by Ricoh.

[Ishpuini]

That would put it just below the DA*11–18mm. Sounds about right, as a "standard" zoom should be a bit less expensive to develop and produce than an UWA lens.

Good thinking, and if so, that would be good news to me, because I was fearing more expensive. But you're correct about the price positioning of a standard vs a UWA.

[Jonathan Mac]

Without tracking back through the whole thread - do we have any update on when this lens will be released?

[jersey]

"Soon by Pentax". We hope 2021.

[Pål Jensen]

I'm not so sure that a 16-50 is cheaper to manufacture and develop than a wide angle zoom. The 11-18 is just a wide angle zoom with limited zoom range. The 16-50 is both a strong wide angle and a short telephoto in one lens. It has to be corrected accordingly and perform at all focal lengths. Conflicting properties. The 16-50 will probably cost less mostly due to higher production volumes

[Smolk]

The main question will be, will it come out in a silver edition ?