[vrphoto]

After 2 phone messages about a delivery that I thought were phishes, one knock at the door and one new lens has landed in time for my lockdown walk! No notification from CR Kenndy, so wasn't expecting it. Pity that the reason I bought early is a trip that has now been cancelled. Still, the lens won't go to waste

[Sandy Hancock]

I'll be picking mine up from the office after my operating list. Happy days.

[repaap]

You lucky guys! This lens will be mine later this year...untill then I'll admire your pictures with it ..

[Smolk]

I haven't heard any direct comparisons of the new zoom with the 40mm Ltd, 43 Ltd limited, or even 21mm Ltd? From all that I hear it might blow them out of the water - but how real is that?

[StigVidar]

I haven't heard any direct comparisons of the new zoom with the 40mm Ltd, 43 Ltd limited, or even 21mm Ltd? From all that I hear it might blow them out of the water - but how real is that?

I have compared it against DA21/3.2 and the zoom is sharper. But I still think DA21 is a good lens. I bought it for it's size and nothing else.

Edit: I also have the DA40/2.8 and the zoom is sharper than that by quite some margin.

[Smolk]

I have compared it against DA21/3.2 and the zoom is sharper. But I still think DA21 is a good lens. I bought it for it's size and nothing else.

Edit: I also have the DA40/2.8 and the zoom is sharper than that by quite some margin.

That's interesting, I thought the 40mm had a reputation for sharpness and even distribution of sharpness at that. I don't have the zoom so I can't compare the lenses. Perhaps the newer design is more suited to the newer sensors.
The compact size of these lenses has something going for it.

[repaap]

That's interesting, I thought the 40mm had a reputation for sharpness and even distribution of sharpness at that. I don't have the zoom so I can't compare the lenses. Perhaps the newer design is more suited to the newer sensors.
The compact size of these lenses has something going for it.

To me this is not surprising, given the new standards of DA and DFA* lenses another fact that all DA limiteds are old design. Looks like higher MP cameras are coming, so Pentax is getting ready. That said, DA and FA limiteds are not developed with sharpness first priority. It is more about pixiedust/overal rendering and look.

[mbukal]

not to be rude so I will keep quiet about the expression he would say about Pentax if he had to rely on secondary manufacturers for his lenses, I hope I won't experience that, that Pentax fills its holes with "consumer" lenses from other manufacturers (together with their own the best lenses) to meet the needs of a lower price but with decent features intended for those users who do not need a top solution and who can not afford or justify it, such as advanced amateurs
when will Pentax do it DFA * 24-70 / 2,8, DFA 24(28)-135 / 4 (with the new fast SDM and the same sharpness throughout the frame) now users of apsc format have better primary lenses than users of ff for the same purpose, ie users of apsc are in a superior position with lenses,which is totally contradictory in anticipation of ff

[BigMackCam]

now users of apsc format have better primary lenses than users of ff for the same purpose, ie users of apsc are in a superior position with lenses,which is totally contradictory in anticipation of ff

It's just chronology. Of course, full-frame users have an outstanding D*FA50/1.4 and D*FA85/1.4, whilst APS-C users have no such equivalent lenses of that standard. I hardly think we can say the lens offering for either format is superior to the other. Different, definitely. Superior? That would depend on the use cases and preferences of the individual...

[mbukal]

good try BigMackCam, but, DFA * 50 / 1.4 + DFA * 85 / 1.4 are by no means primary lenses, they are dedicated lenses, primary lenses would be DFA * 24-70 / 2.8 + DFA * 70-200 / 2.8, consumer lenses would be DFA24-70 / 2.8 + DFA 24-135 / 4 + DFA70-210 / 4, input lenses would be DFA28-105 / 3.5-5.6 + DFA70-300 / 4.5-5.6, within such limits of lens characteristics I say that users of apsc Pentax format are superior to users of ff Pentax format + that I can use ff lenses in apsc format without any problems, but vice versa without some big compromises is not possible,
the three levels I mention can be called by any name, but they exist if you look at the range of Pentax lenses in apsc format,, but there is no such thing in ff - unfortunately

[Serkevan]

good try BigMackCam, but, DFA * 50 / 1.4 + DFA * 85 / 1.4 are by no means primary lenses, they are dedicated lenses, primary lenses would be DFA * 24-70 / 2.8 + DFA * 70-200 / 2.8, consumer lenses would be DFA24-70 / 2.8 + DFA 24-135 / 4 + DFA70-210 / 4, input lenses would be DFA28-105 / 3.5-5.6 + DFA70-300 / 4.5-5.6, within such limits of lens characteristics I say that users of apsc Pentax format are superior to users of ff Pentax format + that I can use ff lenses in apsc format without any problems, but vice versa without some big compromises is not possible,
the three levels I mention can be called by any name, but they exist if you look at the range of Pentax lenses in apsc format,, but there is no such thing in ff - unfortunately

FF and APS-C systems have different holes.
I'd also argue that your definitions for "consumer" and "primary" lenses are, well, arguable. The DFA 28-105 is a fantastic lens, well beyond entry level... And, while I'd like to see a 24-105/4, it would have to be a truly outstanding and affordable lens for me to actually replace the trusty workhorse. I don't think there's any sense in putting the DFA 24-70/2.8 as a "consumer" lens, when a 24-105/4 would be the better option (or, frankly, the 28-105).
IMHO, the zooms we have available are all nice and sharp. There's no need to have three levels of each lens... I only miss *two* zooms in FF land: the 70-300 variable aperture and an f/4 or variable UWA zoom. Everything else is covered well enough and are not really priorities, even if some lenses would be lovely to have (as the aforementioned 24-105/4).

The primes are the ones lacking. There's no prime wider than 31mm as of now, there's no medium tele (105/135) portrait lens, there's no tilt-shift, no super tele prime...

[BigMackCam]

good try BigMackCam

I'm not trying. I simply have an opinion (as you do); and my opinion is, it's just chronology that results in APS-C users having what you refer to as superior "primary" lenses at this point in time. A year or two back, that wasn't the case... No K-3III back then, no new DA*16-50/2.8. The APS-C range was overdue some development, and we all know Ricoh doesn't develop everything for each format in parallel. So even if APS-C has, in your opinion, pulled ahead at this precise time, it won't be long before the full frame range is further developed. It's just chronology

[mbukal]

So even if APS-C has, in your opinion, pulled ahead at this precise time, it won't be long before the full frame range is further developed. It's just chronology

reading this I think we mean the same thing, but our interpretations differ, again in relation to this part of the text in my homeland it would be said: "let your words be gilded"

I simply have an opinion (as you do):

1. apsc: DA*11-18/2,8+DA*ll16-50/2,8+DA*50-135/2,8+DA*60-250/2,8
2. apsc: DA10-17/3,5-4,5+DA16-85/3,5-5,6+DA18-50/4-5,6+DA18-135/3,5-5,6+ DA20-40/2,8-4+DA55-300/4,5-6,3
3. apsc: DA18-55/3,5-5,6+DA18-270/3,5-6,3+DA55-200/4-5,6+DA55-300/4-5,8
(this shows that the Pentax Prince / King is in apsc format by choice of the original lens, both in range and in the capabilities of the user)

1. ff: DFA*70-200/2,8+.....
2. ff: DFA15-30/2,8+24-70/2,8+DFA70-210/4+DFA150-450/4,5-5,6+....
3. ff DFA28-105/3,5-5,6+....
(by this it is seen that the Pentax in ff is the great poor among the great with its range of lenses,given what is mentioned below, this difference only increases in favor of apsc, and ff lags even further behind)

and there is still a large combination of choices with slightly older DA lenses in apsc, in ff combinations with FA lenses they are far smaller and harder to access,
from this one can definitely notice a large deficit of ff lenses as a whole versus apsc,
i have classified the examples in category 4 as dedicated lenses,
i have classified DA + FA + DFA prime numbers into a separate category with three subcategories, normal + asterisk + limited, but they are not currently being discussed because they still fall into a separate “dedicated” category.

[BigMackCam]

there is still a large combination of choices with slightly older DA lenses in apsc, in ff combinations with FA lenses they are far smaller and harder to access,
from this one can definitely notice a large deficit of ff lenses as a whole versus apsc

Indeed... And again, it's down to chronology. Pentax was an APS-C-only system for some years before the K-1 was finally released, so it makes sense that there's a bigger back-catalogue of digital-era APS-C lenses available.

More lenses will come for full frame... but it will take time, and patience from the user base; and different individuals will have differing opinions on which lenses are already good enough, which are most urgently needed... and which - to use your terminology - are "primary" lenses...

[mbukal]

Indeed... And again, it's down to chronology. Pentax was an APS-C-only system for some years before the K-1 was finally released, so it makes sense that there's a bigger back-catalogue of digital-era APS-C lenses available.

More lenses will come for full frame... but it will take time, and patience from the user base; and different individuals will have differing opinions on which lenses are already good enough, which are most urgently needed... and which - to use your terminology - are "primary" lenses...

nicely said, an excerpt from the context , but you left out an important part of the text: from this one can definitely notice a large deficit ff of the lens as a whole compared to apsc, then the next: shows that Pentax in ff is very bad with lens range,
reading my texts it can be freely concluded that I think that Pentax is a greatness in photo equipment, but that it is poor in size,

Pentax’s newer lens menu isn’t exactly rich with the offering on offer today , will be offered something tomorrow, the day after tomorrow , will I be then alive at all?

better to be small and rich than big and poor (I guess a Chinese proverb)