[BROO]

I would be ok with that as a Limited with WR and not a * lens. Just new motor, coatings, and KAF 4 on the old design. then maybe it won't cost $6K USD.

Thinking about it a little longer, 300 f/2.8 (plus the TCs you mentioned) might be the most desirable one. IMHO the best compromise, considering portability, focal length, lens speed and noise handling on KP or the future K3 III.

An old design FF 300 mm f2.8 Limited? I would rather a DA*250mm f2.0 IS (more compact, faster, sharper) 350mm f3.5 with existing DA teleconverter and quite a good wedding portrait lens for those long shots with bokeh backgrounds.



If Ricoh really do want to make a statement then this would be the lens to do it with.

I am talking about the kind of lens Olympus made but for ASP-C cameras.

Hands On: Olympus 250mm 2.0 OM Zuiko Auto-T - phillipreeve.net

---

Last edited by BROO; 06-28-2020 at 06:56 PM.

[monochrome]

Would you buy a DFA* 300/2.8 or a 400/4 that is at least 2.5 kg and cost around $7k?

I think
$7,000 lenses are for people who can sell prints and image files* for $500 or $1.000 and for people who have $7,000 laying around in the checking account and simply want the very best regardless of the economic logic.

I know of three recent transaction between $8,000 and $10,000 for an FA*600/4 with all the original accessories. If three people I know in my little slice of the world will pay that for a used lens, there must be several thousand Pentax users globally who qualify and would buy either above lens.

* Missouri Conservationist Covers

[wkraus]

The Zeiss Distagon T* F1.4 35mm lens is available as an industrial version with M42 mount, easy to adapt.

I have a copy of the Carl Zeiss SLR lenses catalogue from a few years back. I value it.

One of the lenses they feature is the Distagon T* F 1.4, 35mm lens, as per full frame, if I have interpreted the specs properly Alas no K mount for this lens, even back then.

Zeiss calls it "The Modern Light Artist". They advertise it as capable of excellent bokeh and excellent for a wide range of use...reportage, portrait or landscape photography.

To me, a fast 35mm @ F 1.4 would be a wonderful 'everyday' lens for a camera like my K1, but probably with the battery grip and spare battery removed...to cut away weight/size...to complement everyday carry.

Not too wide angle, but enough...also close enough to a 'normal' for me. And fast @ F 1.4 for low available light, which is one of my passions.

Now a 35mm F 1.4 from Pentax would be a dream lens for me.

[lesmore49]

The Zeiss Distagon T* F1.4 35mm lens is available as an industrial version with M42 mount, easy to adapt.

Didn't know that, thanks for the info.

Now I'm curious as to why Zeiss would still have on offer the M42 screw mount, which Pentax discontinued around 1975 or so, but Zeiss discontinued the ZK mount...the Pentax K bayonet mount....which is still very much a current lens mount.

I realize that not enough customers bought the ZK mount, but I would think even less would buy the M42 mount.

Possibilities why the M42 is still on offer, but the ZK is not....I'm thinking may include :

- Pentax popularized the M42 mount when it adopted it and there were other manufacturers who had it before, during the reign of the Pentax M42 screwmount (as it became known) ...and I suppose after. Although I don't think the M42 screwmount could possibly be in much of a demand.

- The fact that it is described as an 'industrial' mount makes me wonder what industrial uses this mount was used for ?

- Zeiss still has M42 mount 'Pentax mount' lenses still available in their stores.

Anyway, very interesting to contemplate. As much as I think Zeiss lenses are great, they do have one disadvantage for me. They're manual focus (I could be wrong) and I've got old eyes which need bifocal assistance. I would much prefer to have a lens with auto focus.

[Serkevan]

Didn't know that, thanks for the info.

Now I'm curious as to why Zeiss would still have on offer the M42 screw mount, which Pentax discontinued around 1975 or so, but Zeiss discontinued the ZK mount...the Pentax K bayonet mount....which is still very much a current lens mount.

I realize that not enough customers bought the ZK mount, but I would think even less would buy the M42 mount.

Possibilities why the M42 is still on offer, but the ZK is not....I'm thinking may include :

- Pentax popularized the M42 mount when it adopted it and there were other manufacturers who had it before, during the reign of the Pentax M42 screwmount (as it became known) ...and I suppose after. Although I don't think the M42 screwmount could possibly be in much of a demand.

- The fact that it is described as an 'industrial' mount makes me wonder what industrial uses this mount was used for ?

- Zeiss still has M42 mount 'Pentax mount' lenses still available in their stores.

Anyway, very interesting to contemplate. As much as I think Zeiss lenses are great, they do have one disadvantage for me. They're manual focus (I could be wrong) and I've got old eyes which need bifocal assistance. I would much prefer to have a lens with auto focus.

Pentax did popularize the M42 mount but it's a pretty standard mount otherwise - there are a bunch of East German cameras from the 1950s that used the same mount, including IIRC some from Zeiss Ikon (Praktiflex from 1949 comes to mind). It's also a mount with a fairly long registration distance which makes it easy to adapt them to a variety of shorter-flanged systems. Considering how simple it is to adapt M42 to mirrorless systems, it might just be a nod to their history...

[BarneyL]

Now I'm curious as to why Zeiss would still have on offer the M42 screw mount, which Pentax discontinued around 1975 or so, but Zeiss discontinued the ZK mount...the Pentax K bayonet mount....which is still very much a current lens mount.

The M42 mount is still used in industrial applications.


These industrial lenses cannot be bought in any photographic store, and I also doubt whether one can buy those directly from Zeiss for general photography.

There used to be M42 mount line of Zeiss classic lenses (Zeiss ZS) for still photography, but those got discontinued along with ZK.

[NZ_Ross]

Anyway, very interesting to contemplate. As much as I think Zeiss lenses are great, they do have one disadvantage for me. They're manual focus (I could be wrong) and I've got old eyes which need bifocal assistance. I would much prefer to have a lens with auto focus.

Zeiss ZK lenses are manual focus

[superdave]

Would you buy a DFA* 300/2.8 or a 400/4 that is at least 2.5 kg and cost around $7k?

It don't have to be that expensive...

If Sigma can make a 120-300mm f2.8 for $3k, why a 300mm f2.8 prime would necessarily cost more that a zoom? Aren't they easier to make?

I don't need the absolutly best image quality, but I definitly want more speed or range than my 300mm f/4. 300mm f4 cost about 1k and its IQ is good enougth for me, but I would be ready to go until 3k for a 300 f2.8 or even 4k for a 500 f5.6 sush as the Nikon one. There is also the option to make a long lens APS-C only, to reduce cost and weight.

[MMVIII]

I don't need the absolutly best image quality, but I definitly want more speed or range than my 300mm f/4. 300mm f4 cost about 1k and its IQ is good enougth for me, but I would be ready to go until 3k for a 300 f2.8 or even 4k for a 500 f5.6 sush as the Nikon one. There is also the option to make a long lens APS-C only, to reduce cost and weight.

Just out of curiousity, what makes the 4k for a hypothetical Nikon-like 500 f5.6 anyhow more attractive than the 4.8k for the real Pentax DA 560 f5.6?

[Mistral75]

(...). There is also the option to make a long lens APS-C only, to reduce cost and weight.

The reduction would be minimal. The aperture of a long lens is determined by the diameter of its first element(s). So are its weight and cost: large diameter lens elements are fairly expensive, in particular when made of speciality glass such as FLD glass. In the end, with a market potential reduced by it not being useable with 24x36 cameras, a large aperture APS-C long lens would be more expensive than a 24x36 one.

[superdave]

Just out of curiousity, what makes the 4k for a hypothetical Nikon-like 500 f5.6 anyhow more attractive than the 4.8k for the real Pentax DA 560 f5.6?

Half length, half weight, and price. 560 is a monster...

[Kunzite]

It don't have to be that expensive...

If Sigma can make a 120-300mm f2.8 for $3k, why a 300mm f2.8 prime would necessarily cost more that a zoom? Aren't they easier to make?

I don't need the absolutly best image quality, but I definitly want more speed or range than my 300mm f/4. 300mm f4 cost about 1k and its IQ is good enougth for me, but I would be ready to go until 3k for a 300 f2.8 or even 4k for a 500 f5.6 sush as the Nikon one. There is also the option to make a long lens APS-C only, to reduce cost and weight.

That is a complicated question and I don't have a clear answer.
However, we know what others did, and the safest is to assume Pentax will have to play by the same rules. Nikon's is $5500, Canon's is $6100, Sony's is $7500.
Hard to believe Pentax can do it for $1000.

Making it APS-C only would increase its price rather than decreasing it, as it would sell to APS-C-only users.

[BROO]

A 300mm f2.8 prime would need to be super sharp. Just like the FA* 300mm f2.8. They should make it a star lens to enable extra high resolution sensors to be optimized into the future. The potential for cropping should be maximized by doing so. It would be big and heavy and expensive in line with
the best 328s.

[repaap]

Echoing Kunzite and BROO at here.

Lookin at the latest of Pentax/ricoh high end releases. anyone even thinking of Sigma/Tamron price can just forget it(and especially older Sigma zooms/primes). Look at Sony, Nikon, Canon and think about those prices. Perhaps put a little a bit more on top of that. High quality cost a lot.

Have a look of Nikon recent 120-300/2.8...11.499€(10.000 atleast)

compared to sigma 120-300/2.8... 3.000€?

If Ricoh will produce something like that, imagine how much it would be. Anything between 5.000-10.000 €. You going to buy that?


Nikon 500/5,6 is 4200€
Pentax 560/5,6 is 4800€(can be had for less if you are lucky, because it is older desing)

Pentax made 500/5.6, like Nikon would be atleast 4.800 €, if not more.


Nikon 300/2.8 is around 5200-5800€
Ricoh 300/2.8(being DFA*) you can believe it will be atleast 6000€ at launch.

Anyone thinking of those old times of Pentax being a almost as good -but cheaper- times. It is over. Ricoh is getting Pentax slowly at he same ballpark, not just by lenses, but for sure with camera too. There is just going to be mirror in it.

Face the facts please. look at that beautiful 85/1,4. Samples are coming out from early adopters, and they do look as good as suspected. Jaw dropping performance from wide open.

I think that modern complete lineup is needed, and there is need for newly made *200/2.8 and *300/4 too as well as that *300/2.8 (why not that 135/2 Limited too) and TC. (And600/4). There is actually not much that needs to come up after those.


I think the point is that it is going to cost you, as much as the other brands are asking, atleast.

[noelpolar]

All I know (intuitively).... is the future K1-new will be awesome... and my next pentax purchase.