[Rondec]

Apart from your emphasis on realism, which I agree with, why would a new-style SDM on the DA* 1.4/50 prevent tracking? And yes, the D FA* 1.4/50 is better, but with the compromise of higher weight, which is more than the K-3 III itself weighs, and price. Not too realistic for APS-C unless you have FF as well and share lenses between the systems.

Something similar applies to the DA* 60-250mm, which is highly regarded, apart from the old-style SDM motor.

If a new-style SDM could be implemented, the improvement of all of these lenses could be real. But I don't know what the difference between the old and new SDMs is. Perhaps someone here can illuminate us, or at least me.

It is possible that Pentax will eventually release a DA *55 II and yes, it would be able to track better with a better motor. I just think that considering the list of current lenses that need to be produced, this is probably pretty far down on lenses that will be updated.

In the meantime, if someone needs a 50-ish mm prime with fast auto focus and f1.4 capability there is a high quality modern option available.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 09-12-2021 at 05:49 AM.

[Wheatfield]

I just think that we need to be honest about what Pentax will and won't do. I think it is pretty clear that they aren't going to rebadge Tamron lenses that compete with lenses which Pentax has developed in house. That means that most of the Tamron primes are out and likely a 100-400 lens too (too close to the 150-450 even if weight would be less).

As for improving existing lenses and getting rid of the SDM motors, I think eventually it will happen, but they'll start with the lenses they sell the most of -- that would be lenses like the DA *16-50 (already done) and 50-135. The DA *55 is probably not even on the list at present because the DFA *50 does have faster auto focus and frankly is a better lens. The 55 will work for portraiture on APS-C and landscape, but any movement that requires tracking and it is done.

Anyway, as you say, when Pentax releases two to three new lenses a year, we'd rather see them focus on lenses like the DFA 21, DFA * wide angle, and DFA 70-300 variable aperture zoom, all of which are currently missing from the line up before working on lenses that replicate what they already have in the line up.

Precisely, I found it pretty frustrating in the early Pentax DSLR era when they seemed to be releasing one standard zoom after another with no regard for the fact they had no standard lens, or many prime lenses at all for the format. It was another year, another wide angle to short tele zoom" on what seemed like an eternal cycle.
To this day, they haven't released a fast standard for APS-C, something that should be a lens 101 release.
The lack of a fast standard is why I am now shooting Fuji as a second system, something I had never done before within the same format.
They came out with the X-Pro1 and a 35/1.4 lens, and they had me just on the lens.

[reh321]

Precisely, I found it pretty frustrating in the early Pentax DSLR era when they seemed to be releasing one standard zoom after another with no regard for the fact they had no standard lens, or many prime lenses at all for the format. It was another year, another wide angle to short tele zoom" on what seemed like an eternal cycle.
To this day, they haven't released a fast standard for APS-C, something that should be a lens 101 release.
The lack of a fast standard is why I am now shooting Fuji as a second system, something I had never done before within the same format.
They came out with the X-Pro1 and a 35/1.4 lens, and they had me just on the lens.

Perhaps nearly everyone is frustrated at some time. When I got my “ME/SE” in 1979, I had been using rangefinder cameras with 45mm lenses for 10 years, and I found it difficult to adjust to 50mm - but in DSLR I had only 35mm as a choice if I wasn’t happy with 50mm; 55mm was an alternative, but not 45mm. I believe that choice still exists. In “APS-C”, I have recently purchased a Takumar 28mm, which may become my standard lens when I decide not to use zoom. I understand that there is a market for only so many discrete primes …. I refuse to use a second brand for some circumstances while primarily using Pentax - I’m not sufficiently rich to support two new systems.

[Smolk]

Perhaps nearly everyone is frustrated at some time. When I got my “ME/SE” in 1979, I had been using rangefinder cameras with 45mm lenses for 10 years, and I found it difficult to adjust to 50mm - but in DSLR I had only 35mm as a choice if I wasn’t happy with 50mm; 55mm was an alternative, but not 45mm. I believe that choice still exists. In “APS-C”, I have recently purchased a Takumar 28mm, which may become my standard lens when I decide not to use zoom. I understand that there is a market for only so many discrete primes …. I refuse to use a second brand for some circumstances while primarily using Pentax - I’m not sufficiently rich to support two new systems.

The 28mm is about a 43mm FF equivalent, which is a good standard lens. And the Takumar allows for aperture priority thanks to the switch A/M on pre-K-3 III bodies.
I must admit, my early attempts with a 28mm (and 58mm) showed that I need to focus much better, a problem I did not have previously. Perhaps I relied on the focus assist too much. You don't have the microprism ring of erstwhile film cameras any more, so I need to adjust.

I wish there was an easy to read manual available for the new K-3, but that's a side-thought.

---------- Post added 09-12-2021 at 02:58 PM ----------

I just think that considering the list of current lenses that need to be produced, this is probably pretty far down on lenses that will be updated.

That may depend on how easy a new SDM-style could be fitted in. If it's relatively quick, the offerings for APS-C could be updated without too much trouble in some lenses. Quick results are worth something.

[Wheatfield]

Perhaps nearly everyone is frustrated at some time. When I got my “ME/SE” in 1979, I had been using rangefinder cameras with 45mm lenses for 10 years, and I found it difficult to adjust to 50mm - but in DSLR I had only 35mm as a choice if I wasn’t happy with 50mm; 55mm was an alternative, but not 45mm. I believe that choice still exists. In “APS-C”, I have recently purchased a Takumar 28mm, which may become my standard lens when I decide not to use zoom. I understand that there is a market for only so many discrete primes …. I refuse to use a second brand for some circumstances while primarily using Pentax - I’m not sufficiently rich to support two new systems.

One could say you chose the wrong brand if that 5mm difference was important, and that your frustration was self inflicted. Nikon had a 45mm lens at the time, albeit a rather slow f/2.8.

I certainly didn't want to go to a second camera brand, but my level of frustration with not being able to get what I felt should have been a no brainer lens pushed me into it. The price of admission wasn't terribly steep, Fuji was giving away the 35mm lens with the purchase of the X-Pro1, so it was really just buying a new body, which I would have been satisfied with except for other determining factors, listed below..

What got me into the system was discovering just how nice it was to use a camera that worked as intended. The current Pentax body of the day was the K5, and it was a less than acceptable performer.
The lack of a fast standard from Pentax gave me the impetus to look at other systems, the fact that the Fuji ran circles around the K5 in every way sealed the deal for me.

That the Fuji lenses are every bit as good as the Pentax glass made the choice very easy, and I ended up with lenses that to this day, nearly a decade later, still don't exist in the Pentax APS world.

[TwoUptons]

I'm curious what the "teleconverters dedicated to the * line" part of the original post means...

I remember the 2X-L and 2X-S from ancient Pentax history that were meant to go with certain lenses...
I wonder if it would be something like that... but that implies there would be a * replacement for the DA560...

But I'd like a non-star DFA 70-300 with an optional DFA1.4x... I'm jealous of all the 55-300 PLM folks on APS-C

-Eric

[reh321]

One could say you chose the wrong brand if that 5mm difference was important, and that your frustration was self inflicted. Nikon had a 45mm lens at the time, albeit a rather slow f/2.8.

I certainly didn't want to go to a second camera brand, but my level of frustration with not being able to get what I felt should have been a no brainer lens pushed me into it. The price of admission wasn't terribly steep, Fuji was giving away the 35mm lens with the purchase of the X-Pro1, so it was really just buying a new body, which I would have been satisfied with except for other determining factors, listed below..

What got me into the system was discovering just how nice it was to use a camera that worked as intended. The current Pentax body of the day was the K5, and it was a less than acceptable performer.
The lack of a fast standard from Pentax gave me the impetus to look at other systems, the fact that the Fuji ran circles around the K5 in every way sealed the deal for me.

That the Fuji lenses are every bit as good as the Pentax glass made the choice very easy, and I ended up with lenses that to this day, nearly a decade later, still don't exist in the Pentax APS world.

The fact remains that you get what you and others are willing to pay for. Apparently there is little market for 45mm “‘FF’ equivalent” lenses, so I use a combination of what prime and zoom lenses are available. I had Pentax before I used Canon. I had never bothered to sell off my Pentax stuff, so the switch back was relatively painless; I definitely could not have switched to Fujifilm as inexpensively as it cost me to come home to Pentax, and, besides, that was not my point. Every company has strengths and weaknesses. Switching every time that balance - or our wants - changes can be expensive. My last film camera was a Canon “Elan”, which I used for roughly a dozen years. I went through two Canon Digital Rebels in less than eight years. Yes, the Pentax K-30 suffered from “Dark Image Syndrome” …. but it is still usable with lenses that allow me to control aperture from the lens; the two Digital Rebels completely died - both ended up at the town dump - while I still use the K-30 occasionally six years after I got it, and I could still be using it regularly if I hadn’t purchased a KP for its improved graceful high ISO improvement, which I doubt if Fuji can match. Pentax has focused on bodies, and I benefit. When I purchased the KP two and a half years ago, I was expecting it to be my last body, but I am now open to purchasing another one if Pentax produces one with the K-3iii’s focusing, but half the price; yes, I didn’t expect to get an ‘accelerator’ equipped camera for $700, but then came Black Friday 2018.’

---

Last edited by reh321; 09-12-2021 at 10:18 AM.

[Rondec]

The 28mm is about a 43mm FF equivalent, which is a good standard lens. And the Takumar allows for aperture priority thanks to the switch A/M on pre-K-3 III bodies.
I must admit, my early attempts with a 28mm (and 58mm) showed that I need to focus much better, a problem I did not have previously. Perhaps I relied on the focus assist too much. You don't have the microprism ring of erstwhile film cameras any more, so I need to adjust.

I wish there was an easy to read manual available for the new K-3, but that's a side-thought.

---------- Post added 09-12-2021 at 02:58 PM ----------



That may depend on how easy a new SDM-style could be fitted in. If it's relatively quick, the offerings for APS-C could be updated without too much trouble in some lenses. Quick results are worth something.

I think we will find that even when the lenses are optically excellent, Pentax will tweak them as well as changing motors. But my guess is that it is never just as simple as just swapping out one motor for a slightly bigger/faster one.

[Kunzite]

I think we will find that even when the lenses are optically excellent, Pentax will tweak them as well as changing motors. But my guess is that it is never just as simple as just swapping out one motor for a slightly bigger/faster one.

It's as simple as completely redesigning the lens

[Wheatfield]

I'm curious what the "teleconverters dedicated to the * line" part of the original post means...

I remember the 2X-L and 2X-S from ancient Pentax history that were meant to go with certain lenses...
I wonder if it would be something like that... but that implies there would be a * replacement for the DA560...

But I'd like a non-star DFA 70-300 with an optional DFA1.4x... I'm jealous of all the 55-300 PLM folks on APS-C

-Eric

Do you know if anyone has compared the 560/5.6 to the A*600 5.6 lenses? I wonder just how much better a Star lens would be over the 560? I expect a Star lens would be an f/4 behemoth, more or less an update of the F*/FA* 600/4. For that matter do you know of any comparisons published between the 560 and 600/4 lenses?

I really wanted an FA* 600/4, but I found an A*600/5.6 for an acceptable price and saved myself a few thousand dollars. For the airtime it gets, the few 600 f/4 lenses out there are better off in the hands of people who will use them more than I would.

Sometimes it's worth buying a body to get to use a particular lens or other piece of equipment. A solution to your envy would be to pick up the 55-300 PLM lens and a body to go with it.
Solutions Я US.

[TwoUptons]

Do you know if anyone has compared the 560/5.6 to the A*600 5.6 lenses? I wonder just how much better a Star lens would be over the 560? I expect a Star lens would be an f/4 behemoth, more or less an update of the F*/FA* 600/4. For that matter do you know of any comparisons published between the 560 and 600/4 lenses?

I really wanted an FA* 600/4, but I found an A*600/5.6 for an acceptable price and saved myself a few thousand dollars. For the airtime it gets, the few 600 f/4 lenses out there are better off in the hands of people who will use them more than I would.

Sometimes it's worth buying a body to get to use a particular lens or other piece of equipment. A solution to your envy would be to pick up the 55-300 PLM lens and a body to go with it.
Solutions Я US.

I haven't seen a direct comparison between the 560/5.6 and the A*600. If I guessed, I'd expect they would be pretty similar in a lot of ways, with more CA on the 600 just due to its vintage.
I'm hoping the discontinuation of the 560 is due to not having its replacement ready when they ran out of lenses... and that it is coming soon.
I may never buy one, but to me the long telephotos are a sign that the parent company is optimistic on their future...

I have a KP and a DA-L 55-300; they're tiding me over for the moment.
For anything longer, I have the A400 f5.6 and the F1.7x, which are OK together but not ideal travel companions.

-Eric

[reh321]

I have a KP and a DA-L 55-300; they're tiding me over for the moment.
For anything longer, I have the A400 f5.6 and the F1.7x, which are OK together but not ideal travel companions.

My “DA 77-420mm” {DA 55-300mm + DA 1.4X TC} goes almost everywhere with me.

[mee]

The Pentax isn't the G2 version. Nice try.

Nice try? It seems to be the same optical formula from 1st generation to 2nd generation of that particular lens. The differences were in the packaging (casing), the in lens stabilization, and the focusing motor.

So the Pentax version wasn't affected by these items. Actually, since the Pentax 24-70mm uses IBIS, there should be less parts in it than in either Tamron G1 or G2.

[normhead]

People are going to argue for more lenses that make sense to them. As an example, a few posts up, Norm is arguing that the DA*50/1.4 with it's iffy AF is fine because he finds the 55-300PLM adequate.
Someone who actually wants an F1.4 lens is not going to find the 55-300 adequate, and may well find the AF on the 55/1.4 to be inadequate (I know I did).

Maybe it's your lens. I'm wondering for what purpose you find the focus of the DA* 55 1.4 inadequate?

Mine isn't a stellar fast focussing lens, but then I seem to never need fast focus on a 55. So, I'm wondering what you are shooting where you find it inadequate. But then compared to many, I think I'm probably more adept at being happy with what I get from a lens, and accepting any faults it may have, and only using it for what it's good at. I think many others buy a lens and would rather complain about what they think it isn't good at. If you want a faster focusing 50, there's the D-FA 50 1.4. It's not a Pentax lens deficiency, it's a "your wallet isn't big enough" deficiency.

The whole concept of Pentax needing better standard lenses at this point is pure nonsense. Not only are there good standard lenses, they come in all price ranges with the DA 35 2.4 and DA 50 1.8, covering he inexpensive, the DA*55 and 35 macro in the middle and FA 31 And DFA* 50 1.4 covering the high end.

It's all a matter of perspective. Some will be critical based on their observation that they can't buy some lens they want. Others look at what's available, buy something (or don't) and get on with their lives. You can't let people who complain about lens selection ruin your photographic experience. Just take what you have and go shoot.

People who are unhappy, have been unhappy for years. No lens release is going to make them happy. It doesn't matter what Pentax does, it's not good enough for them.

[reh321]

The whole concept of Pentax needing better standard lenses at this point is pure nonsense..........................................


People who are unhappy, have been unhappy for years. No lens release is going to make them happy. It doesn't matter what Pentax does, it's not good enough for them.

I left Pentax because in 1995 I fell in love with the Canon EF/usm lenses; I returned to Pentax in 2015 partly because I was let down by two Canon Rebel bodies and partly because the Pentax lenses have improved. I recently purchased a 20-40mm Ltd lens, and it meets my needs - I don't need any more "perfection" and it is small enough to meet my needs. I would prefer a KAF4 version of that lens, but I am certainly not 'unhappy', nor would a lens change my attitude in general, nor would a lens change my attitude toward Pentax. My feelings toward lenses are similar to my attitude toward the "Q" family .... I would make a purchase if Pentax would release something, but I don't expect that, and their actions will neither increase nor retard my photographic activity.