[deus ursus]

It depends of what you want to capture. I first started thinking of higher ISO when I saw some photos at MSNBC-online of the NCAA "Final Four", that used a small enough aperture that they showed people watching the action, as well as the action itself. [...]

+1

I've taken the 'job' of shooting the various kids' football teams in our sports club when we're out on tournaments, and the one shot I like most is of one of the boys running with the ball and his parents cheering in the background, slightly blurred, but not more than that you can clearly see their expression.

[Belnan]

Do you mean faster to focus or wider aperture?

Sorry, I mean faster autofocus. In all other respects it is supposedly a stellar lens. I don't own it but with the new da* ultra wide and new da* 16-50 on the way I think a new 50-135 would set up the apsc system pretty well.

[mbukal]

Sure - and I myself don't own any monster lens because I want a reasonable size. But there are people willing to buy a $1500 f/2.8 zoom (or similar). There are, in fact, people even willing to spend the $2000+ the 150-450 costs. Thor has stated many times that he is not too happy with needing ISOs over 6400 for his photos - and the only option is a faster lens there (although maybe the 70-210/4 would fit the bill as well).

a member of this forum bdery mentioned that DFA 70-210 / 4 SDM is the fastest telezoom lens he has tried so far (I see no reason not to trust him-given his objectivity in the reviews he has written), optical DFA 70-210 / 4 SDM is better than DA 55-300 / 4.5-6.3 PLM and the same is better than DA 55-300 / 4-5.8 WR, then optical of both DA lenses is better lens DA * 60-250 / 4 = and DFA * 70-200 / 2.8 DC is better than all mentioned, the logic is clear for someone who knows what he needs, I don't see the need to complain that there is no choice now (at least in the telezoom range), of course the capabilities of the lens should follow the capabilities of the photo body, then it is a quality whole in which there is very little or no room to complain

[ffking]

It has always been a practice of the critics to compare expensive gear with Pentax's cheaper offerings

It's quite simple - they're comparing flagship to flagship - how could that be wrong?

[Serkevan]

a member of this forum bdery mentioned that DFA 70-210 / 4 SDM is the fastest telezoom lens he has tried so far (I see no reason not to trust him-given his objectivity in the reviews he has written), optical DFA 70-210 / 4 SDM is better than DA 55-300 / 4.5-6.3 PLM and the same is better than DA 55-300 / 4-5.8 WR, then optical of both DA lenses is better lens DA * 60-250 / 4 = and DFA * 70-200 / 2.8 DC is better than all mentioned, the logic is clear for someone who knows what he needs, I don't see the need to complain that there is no choice now (at least in the telezoom range), of course the capabilities of the lens should follow the capabilities of the photo body, then it is a quality whole in which there is very little or no room to complain

Yes, the 70-210/4 is a good option, but it's bulkier and heavier than it's needed for APS-C. The 50-135 f/2.8 is 135g lighter, 4 cm shorter and one stop faster (at the cost of not really being usable in FF mode, of course). I agree that there's no real need for a "mid tier" constant f/4 telezoom when the PLM is *that* good, but the f/2.8 Star option should be there (and since Pentax are making the 16-50 PLM, then they are probably going to follow suit with an updated 50-135/2.8 DC, SDM or PLM).

[mbukal]

Yes, the 70-210/4 is a good option, but it's bulkier and heavier than it's needed for APS-C. The 50-135 f/2.8 is 135g lighter, 4 cm shorter and one stop faster (at the cost of not really being usable in FF mode, of course). I agree that there's no real need for a "mid tier" constant f/4 telezoom when the PLM is *that* good, but the f/2.8 Star option should be there (and since Pentax are making the 16-50 PLM, then they are probably going to follow suit with an updated 50-135/2.8 DC, SDM or PLM).

anyway DFA 70-210 / 4 has internal focus and zoom, DA 55-300 PLM extends in three parts, with DFA it is much easier and more practical to work, unfortunately the current DA * 50-135 / 2.8 is too slow compared to DA55 -300 / 4.5-6.3PLM and DFA 70-210 / 4 SDM, when and if Pentax makes a new DA * 16-50 / 2.8 + 50-135 / 2.8 with PLM speed, it will make it fantastic zoom range absc of 11-18 + 16-50 + 50-135 mm with f2.8 (with Pentax optics in full = quality worthy of the label *, so some ff users // 15-30 + 24-70 // will be envious on apscs lenses, and maybe not

[Larrymc]

Until we have seen how the "K-3ii replacement" handles higher ISO values, we won't know - we cannot base our thoughts on what the K-3ii itself does.

Do you actually think that the K-New high ISO performance will not equal or surpass what the KP and K-1II are capable of? I think in every measure of performance the K-New will at least easily equal or surpass the KP and possibly the K-1II. I think if all Ricoh/Pentax wanted was equaling the KP high ISO performance they would have brought forth a new APS-C camera a couple of years ago. They obviously wanted the K-New to out perform the stellar KP an K-1II. I look forward to its arrival.

[reh321]

Do you actually think that the K-New high ISO performance will not equal or surpass what the KP and K-1II are capable of? I think in every measure of performance the K-New will at least easily equal or surpass the KP and possibly the K-1II. I think if all Ricoh/Pentax wanted was equaling the KP high ISO performance they would have brought forth a new APS-C camera a couple of years ago. They obviously wanted the K-New to out perform the stellar KP an K-1II. I look forward to its arrival.

I expect it to out-do the KP ....... but we won't know anything until Pentax reveals it to us.
Until then, all we will have is words.

[Paul the Sunman]

I expect it to out-do the KP ....... but we won't know anything until Pentax reveals it to us.
Until then, all we will have is words.

Words are what PF is all about. Photography is only the excuse.

[BROO]

I see there is a new article at Pentaxofficial.com
https://pentaxofficial.com/en/6628/

[calsan]

All the tilt screen speculation can finally be put to bed.

[yucatanPentax]

All the tilt screen speculation can finally be put to bed.

Yes, it's all about the super-improved optical viewfinder. (and there's an entirely new improved image sensor, imaging engine, and accelerator unit --- which are almost mentioned as an afterthought).

So, from now on, we must concentrate debate on how wonderful the optical viewfinder is: super wonderful, medium delightful, somewhat fabulous, the best thing since sliced bread, or dammit, imma spend all day laying in the mud again.

[Paul the Sunman]

Hmm, so the K-new will be 1 cm thinner than the KP! I guess this is their response to compact mirrorless cameras.

[PJ1]

It's nice to have the explanation. I think it will be ground-breaking in other areas.

[ehrwien]

Hmm, so the K-new will be 1 cm thinner than the KP! I guess this is their response to compact mirrorless cameras.

If you ignore the grip