[ChristianRock]

I think they'd be very welcome as a 645 lens, too

On a Q system such a lens would weigh 1/2 lb. On a 645 system, probably at least 25 lbs...

[leekil]

Why do they put the extra numerical ranges in these?

To not reveal the actual range that a lens they plan to produce would have.

[UncleVanya]

To not reveal the actual range that a lens they plan to produce would have.

Except we have someone on the thread who has claimed to have guessed correctly every time by simply looking at the current offerings - that suggests the obfuscation is worthless.

[leekil]

All companies do it, Apple does a similar thing where they give kind of fanciful uses to not be too close to the actual intention.

---------- Post added 12-28-21 at 10:13 PM ----------

Maybe Pentax is just bad at it!

[lmd91343]

I'm holding out for the 16-250mm F1.4 DFA*. I hear it will be available by next Christmas.

The only question is will it have a detachable tripod foot.

[redpit]

I don't believe such a lens is possible. There is a reason why f2.8 zoom lenses are mostly 3X from wide to long end. Making a 6X f2.8 lens with great IQ doesn't seem feasible to me, although a 18-100/2.8 lens would be something that would make a lot of noise about Pentax if ever released.

[Michail_P]

although a 18-100/2.8 lens would be something that would make a lot of noise about Pentax if ever released.

Probably. But it would also be of a higher price than average. The only thing that would make the whole concept work is that very versatile zoom range. That would make a great all around lens even for professional use.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

There is a reason why f2.8 zoom lenses are mostly 3X from wide to long end. Making a 6X f2.8 lens with great IQ doesn't seem feasible to me, although a 18-100/2.8 lens would be something that would make a lot of noise about Pentax if ever released.

I have seen 30-100ƒ2 for 4/3's

[wadge22]

Also submitted for your consideration is Tamron 28-105 f2.8 (FF). There are and have been lenses with interesting/exceptional specs.

Again though, still no breath holding here for that apsc 18-100 2.8.

[Michail_P]

...that would be the 19-101mm F2.9 'Limited' Hyperzoom.

I'm holding out for the 17-99 F1.4 'Pro' version!


Attachment 560113

;>)

Cheers,
Cameron

What a beast it would be... sometimes I wonder if they produce the lenses and then measure the range;P.... Seriously, such patents would have better apply to the production planning and development than staying in the hypothetical zone.

---------- Post added 29-12-21 at 09:00 ----------

I have seen 30-100ƒ2 for 4/3's

That’s also a 3x(-ish) range. But yes, I got your point. It’s very wide and keeping a constant aperture is really interesting. The sensor size has definitely something to do with the design.

[Kunzite]

Why do they put the extra numerical ranges in these?

To avoid linking the patent strictly to a specific product?

[fs999]

I'm sure they can put a PLM in replacement of the ring SDM in the actual 18-135...

[MMVIII]

I have seen 30-100ƒ2 for 4/3's

I have seen 50-135f2.8 for APS-C K-mount. And now?

Edit: this thread is a waste of bytes, which should not be taken judgemental. It has it's entertaining qualities.

[bladerunner6]

Also submitted for your consideration is Tamron 28-105 f2.8 (FF). There are and have been lenses with interesting/exceptional specs.

Again though, still no breath holding here for that apsc 18-100 2.8.

But no one currently makes anything that wide and that fast, so Pentax achieving it with their more limited resources seems like a really big stretch.

[Mistral75]

Why do they put the extra numerical ranges in these?

To prevent a third party from using the corresponding invention for a lens with a very different focal length. If all numerical examples were for a 16-50mm f/2.8, said third party could claim that the patent only prevents them from designing such 16-50mm f/2.8 lenses.