[D1N0]

Apparently nobody reads Pentaxrumors any more. I don't but someone on Facebook did: Rumors about two new Pentax lenses: 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 and 50-135mm f/2.8 - Pentax Rumors

And updated HD version of the DA* 50-135 and a stabilized FF 70-300mm 4.5-5.6. Any other sources on it? I seem to remember we already knew the 70-300mm would have SR but don't remember a full product name mentioned.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

I saw that yesterday, but was waiting to see if anyone posted. Hahaha!

I'm pretty excited about the DA* 50-135mm f/2.8.

hopefully Ricoh revamps all the DA* lenses with better AF motors.

[BarneyL]

The stabilized 70-300 rumor has been around for a while, but it's the first time I hear about the new DA* 50-135.

[othar]

While it's nice to see (hear of) some new(ish) lenses, I don't understand why any of them needs in lens SR.
Seems like a waste of R&D in my opinion, as there already is a SR system in the body (if it where a long tele lens, where IBIS is not as effective as with shorter lenses, then maybe, but 300mm is not that long).

edit: I've never tried a stabilized lens, but isn't it better to see in the viewfinder how unstable you actually are, so you have a direct feedback to improve your standing / technique?

---

Last edited by othar; 03-14-2022 at 01:41 PM.

[UncleVanya]

While it's nice to see (hear of) some new(ish) lenses, I don't understand why any of them needs in lens SR.
Seems like a waste of R&D in my opinion, as there already is a SR system in the body (if it where a long tele lens, where IBIS is not as effective as with shorter lenses, then maybe, but 300mm is not that long).

edit: I've never tried a stabilized lens, but isn't it better to see in the viewfinder how unstable you actually are, so you have a direct feedback to improve your standing / technique?

Stabilization doesn’t have to be always on. Some systems have it engage at the time of exposure in one mode. This saves power but can lead to framing errors.

In theory longer focal lengths are more effectively stabilized optically than via ibis. Perhaps this is a design that has some lineage with a third party that has made this lens with stabilization in the past and up-cycling that aspect of the design could make a lot of sense and allow for dual stabilization options.

[repaap]

While it's nice to see (hear of) some new(ish) lenses, I don't understand why any of them needs in lens SR.
Seems like a waste of R&D in my opinion, as there already is a SR system in the body (if it where a long tele lens, where IBIS is not as effective as with shorter lenses, then maybe, but 300mm is not that long).

edit: I've never tried a stabilized lens, but isn't it better to see in the viewfinder how unstable you actually are, so you have a direct feedback to improve your standing / technique?

I think that it is good especially if this zoom lens is light, to have SR to stabilise the view. Should be quite effective all in all.


I'v been waiting for this to go along with DFA 28-105 when traveling, could be nice with K-3III too...let us see how it will be

---------- Post added 03-14-22 at 23:06 ----------

50-135/2.8 PLM sounds like good news too!

[house]

To me it *feels* like the new DA* zooms have seen pretty small adoption? Is it just my biases and the internet is full of samples? What do people think?

[UncleVanya]

To me it *feels* like the new DA* zooms have seen pretty small adoption? Is it just my biases and the internet is full of samples? What do people think?

Isn’t there only one? The 16-50 PLM?

[house]

DA*1118 is part of the new DA* specification

[othar]

In theory longer focal lengths are more effectively stabilized optically than via ibis.

I concede that the consensus seems to be that IBIS is not as effective for longer focal lengths, but 300mm is not terribly long (especially on a FF body) in my opinion.

I think that it is good especially if this zoom lens is light, to have SR to stabilise the view. Should be quite effective all in all.

I'll admit I have never tried a stabilized lens and maybe it is something I'd enjoy, but it certainly is no feature I anticipate at the moment.

[texandrews]

Well... will this new stabilized lens work with IBIS?

[UncleVanya]

I concede that the consensus seems to be that IBIS is not as effective for longer focal lengths, but 300mm is not terribly long (especially on a FF body) in my opinion.



I'll admit I have never tried a stabilized lens and maybe it is something I'd enjoy, but it certainly is no feature I anticipate at the moment.

I think the K-1 has better IBIS than my Sony A7R3 and I have a Tamron 70-300 RXD which lacks OSS - I haven’t pushed it far so I can’t say what the actual effectiveness is vs using my FA* 300 on my KP as an example. The common wisdom is that OSS is better at long focal lengths but I can’t say I’ve seen any direct comparisons that have any real rigor to the testing.

[Kunzite]

Maybe it's a matter of not being left behind.
The others can combine optical with in-body stabilization, with results as good as 8 stops and - with wide angle lenses - exposure times of several seconds. Pentax improved their in-body SR, but their best is still at about 5.5 stops.

I think Pentax should reserve in-lens SR for some lenses, particularly skipping primes with up to moderate focal lengths. Or at least D FA* primes (which should be about the ultimate optical quality) and Limiteds.
For a zoom like the 70-300, why not? It should help, even at that focal length.

[vector]

I think the most notable difference is that you will be able to see the benefit in the viewfinder. I use my DA*300 with the TC and there are times I wish the lens were stabilized and all the little jitters were smoothed out. If the in lens stabilization can work with the IBIS then there is even more benefit. I am definitely interested.

[Mistral75]

Well... will this new stabilized lens work with IBIS?

That seems to be the tricky part:

HD Pentax-D FA 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED PLM WR SR (...) that will be combining in-body and in-lens stabilization (...)

I was also told that the development of the new HD Pentax-D FA 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED PLM WR SR lens has begun quite a while ago but was delayed by difficulties in making the sensor stabilization and optical stabilization work together.

I heard the same from a source of mine, with the following addition: the difficulties in the development of the dual stabilisation (lens + sensor) would be linked to the system, and in particular the initially chosen optical scheme, requiring, for the dual stabilisation to work correctly, data transfer rates between body and lens (and vice-versa) higher than what the communication protocols of the KAF4 mount could allow. As a result, the engineers would have had to go back to the drawing board, so to speak, and in particular to rework the optical scheme.

The above comes from a person who, considering their job, sounds legit but it's the first pieces of information I received from them. Take it therefore with the appropriate grain of salt, even though the Pentax Rumors article corresponds exactly to part of what they told me, which tends to give credence to the whole of what they said.