[Pål Jensen]

DFA 4.0 24-105 - Come on! Those who like that sort of lens is raving about the current one.
DFA 1.4 35 - I guess it makes sense. FA35 though nice isn't a contemporary design
DFA macro - yup, DFA 100 has flaws (fringing)
DA 50-135 or 150 - gaah not more of those type zooms!
Prototype and or studies
DFA... 300 - sure ambitions but interesting
DFA 500 or 600 - Some people are asking for it.
DFA 24-70 - I'm guessing the ★ is missing. Makes sense for Pentax to have a DFA* zoom trinity. The fact that a wide angle one isn't on any list doesn't make sense.
New converters, dedicated to * tele line. - Sure some like those

I don't agree with Pentax focus if the above is correct. They are trotting along the same old path. The logical direction with their current focus on experience should be more primes in the 20 to 135 range. Not even more versions of their modest zooms. It really seems like catering to the old dslr world of 15 years ago. Paying premium for the experience of a noughties dslr setup doesn't make sense to me. They can't pretend to be upmarket while over producing such lenses.

Ehhh....? 95% of lens sales are zoom. Prime lenses makes most sense when they do something zooms can't do or can't do well. Such as very wide apertures and macro.....
Pentax need a modern zoom range and a modern telephoto range of lenses.....

[Andrea K]

Prototypes / Planned / forecasted lenses are
DFA 70-300 : ok, no thoughts
DFA 4.0 24-105 very exciting news, I hope max length at 8cm and with 67mm filter diameter
DFA 1.4 35 ok, no thoughts... perhaps an heir of 24 f2 was better
DFA macro very exciting news, the DFA 100 has some problems with fringing and magenta colors
DA 50-135 or 150 very exciting news, also if it will stop at 135 (200mm in FF)

Prototype and or studies
DFA... 300 I hope 2,8 with dedicated TC
DFA 500 or 600 ok, no thoughts
DFA 24-70 very exciting news, the actual Tamron rebrand isn't in pair with the 70-200 DFA*
New converters, dedicated to * tele line. I hope also some NOT dedicated to the tele...

[house]

Prime lenses makes most sense when they do something zooms can't do or can't do well.

With this kind of thinking how do you explain the optical viewfinder? Imho milc makes much more sense if you disregard the experience and focus on manufacturing cost and capabilities. It's the "convenient" choice. The path Pentax has taken is to put experience before convenience. They should make this apparent also in what lenses they choose to make. If they produced loads of lenses it would be less of an issue. They could do both. It's a lot more tricky at the current pace. They have less room to set the brand they've chosen and cater to the "practical" at the same time.

[RobA_Oz]

Have you got any links to the info, Jack?

Straight off DPR.

Asahi man used to post here, until a few intemperate remarks directed at him caused him to withdraw to the other camp.

[biz-engineer]

To me this smells of Pentax not being quite happy with the D FA 24-70, or perhaps with their reliance on Tamron

I thougth about that as well. Ricoh rely on Tamron continuing production for the 24-70 and 15-30. Tamron currently showing efforts turned towards FE mount lenses, if Tamron discontinue the 24-70 / 15-30, Ricoh would have to buy stock for the long term, or just design their own lenses. That said, after 4 (or 5) years experience with the K1, my dream lens kit to have permanently in camera bag is almost complete: 70-210 f4, 28-105 f5.6, and waiting for the 21 lld. The 70-210 can be replaced by a 70-300 f5.6 no problem.

[house]

Straight off DPR.

Asahi man used to post here, until a few intemperate remarks directed at him caused him to withdraw to the other camp.

Who was it the drove him away? Quite a few people have left because of people who can't behave. Would be interesting to check if its just the same old bad apples.

[i_trax]

Straight off DPR.

Asahi man used to post here, until a few intemperate remarks directed at him caused him to withdraw to the other camp.

Correct , and as far as i can remember , he was never wrong.

[biz-engineer]

DFA 4.0 24-105 very exciting news, I hope max length at 8cm and with 67mm filter diameter

It would be nice if Ricoh could make 3 lenses (21mm, 24-105 and 70-300) with the same filter diameter. Until now it's been all over the place: 77mm for the 70-200 2.8, 67mm for the 70-210 f4, 62mm for the 28-105, and 82mm for the 24-70... and this annoys me seriously because I needed to buy various rings for my 100mm square filters , carry those rings and change them every time I swap lenses, not to mention by circular filters are only usable on one lens. A single filter thread diameter would make life easier.

[pschlute]

That 24-105 has my credit card trying to hide.

...and the 35mm 1.4 has mine too !

[nonpigliounoshoot]

Straight off DPR.

Asahi man used to post here, until a few intemperate remarks directed at him caused him to withdraw to the other camp.

if it is possible you can put the link, I have not found it. Thanks.

[StigVidar]

if it is possible you can put the link, I have not found it. Thanks.

Re: Mystery lens: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

[biz-engineer]

Such list is good and bad.
Good because it gives plenty of choice
But it's bad for the bank account
When I bought the K1, I swore I would only have 3 lenses
How did I end-up with 9 10 Pentax lenses...

[deus ursus]

It would be nice if Ricoh could make 3 lenses (21mm, 24-105 and 70-300) with the same filter diameter. Until now it's been all over the place: 77mm for the 70-200 2.8, 67mm for the 70-210 f4, 62mm for the 28-105, and 82mm for the 24-70... and this annoys me seriously because I needed to buy various rings for my 100mm square filters , carry those rings and change them every time I swap lenses, not to mention by circular filters are only usable on one lens. A single filter thread diameter would make life easier.

Like they did with the M lenses, all but the extreme tele lenses had 49 mm filter thread.

[Paul the Sunman]

It would be nice if Ricoh could make 3 lenses (21mm, 24-105 and 70-300) with the same filter diameter.

I can see that this would be a minor convenience. But I'm not sure it is sufficient to outweigh a sub-optimal optical design. I would rather they just went with whatever works best.

[sundown]

24-105 is going to be very popular!