[Smolk]

A fast wide aperture filling the gap between the 21mm and the 31mm would seem to be overdue. A FF 26mm could be very attractive. The roadmap is vague enough to allow for this distance.
A 28mm has been missing in action for a long time now. But I seem to recall that there was speculation that the original plan for a 1.4/35mm had been abandoned for a 1.4/24mm. I don't know how hard that info was.
I'm saving up for a K-1 III with the best OVF ever - and if it comes, I'd be eying that 85mm too.

[thibs]

Both 35/1.4 and 24/1.4 were discussed (rumours).
The current state of affairs is of course, unknown.

[jersey]

Like everything in Pentax world. It is rumors until it materializes. I sold most of my DA Limiteds, put money away and wait for 35 or 28 FA* now.

[Rondec]

Both 35/1.4 and 24/1.4 were discussed (rumours).
The current state of affairs is of course, unknown.

I'm pretty sure the next DFA * prime will be a 35mm f1.4. I remember Ooku saying that was the focal length.

[APB]

There are lenses out there now that will fulfil your desires, as you have admitted yourself.

Do you want Pentax to produce similar, but inferior lenses that are cheap ?

The most common complaints we see on these forums are that Pentax do not produce enough fast lenses, or that what they do produce is too expensive.

Welcome to the real world.....you cannot have it both ways.

No I would not like Pentax to make inferior lenses. I agree that the two lenses which I referred to are both excellent lenses apart from the fact that they both would benefit from improved AF. Also, extending the range of the 60-250 to 70-300 would suit me more (maybe with in-lens stabilizaton too and even internal zooming). As to the expense, I did infer in my original post that I would be happy to pay for a quality lens which would give me years of service. I don't want it both ways, just the one way; an excellent quality, versatile, well built and reliable telephoto/super telephoto zoom DA* lens with fast AF to pair with my K3 iii and when required 1.4 TC (and also thinking of the next iteration K3 iv which may have an even higher resolution sensor).

[zapp]

Interesting that most of us think about single lenses they “need” while Pentax, in my opinion, covers lens line-ups. DFA* 85/50 add 35 to be complete. DA* 11-18, 16-50, add 50-135-remake to be complete an up to date line of f/2.8 zooms. FA Ltd 21/31/43/77 looks complete to me. A tele Ltd would be nice, but is it missing? DFA* 80-200 lacks Pentax 15-30 and 24-70 to be complete, but f/2.8 DFA basic designs are available. A DFA 70-300 should be positioned just below 150-450 and hopefully adds OIS. A nice roundup for a tele would be a 4/400 with 1.4x TC build in. It would cover 400/560 focal length and fit in Pentax price range. Replace 560, cover large aperture 400 and become the long oven pipe lighthouse lens from Pentax. Everything more extreme will break the boundaries. Pentax presented many macro lenses in recent years. No 200mm version, but several 100s and the FA 50 is still in place. A DFA* macro would be something.
Looking back, Pentax filled many gaps. 21 Ltd rounded off the ltd FA line. DFA* 85/50 started a large aperture line for high end FF primes. F/2.8 zooms for apsc and ff are available, not all as * design. Similarly DA was carefully added/replaced. An awesome job considering that maybe one or two really new design can be presented per year.

[jersey]

The issue with Pentax lineup is that it is a mix of current, outdated and OMG so old. With last two being majority. With weird choices on top of it.


DA* primes - 55 is outdated, same with 300, while 200 is removed. Ok, both 55 and 300 are not bad, but SDM makes them less then desirable. There are no 18, 24 and 35 DA* (equivalents to 28, 35 and 50 FF) so no "classical" prime focal lengths

DA* zooms - 11-18 and 16-50 are modern. 50-135 is outdated and maybe will be replaced, 60-250 is removed and there is no sign of replacement

DA Limiteds - looks ok, but only one lens can be considered modern digital lens: 20-40. Rest is ok optically, lacks in build (AF motor and AW/WR)

FA* primes - 50 and 85 so the longer end is covered, still no 28 and 35. If 35 shows you could say that most is covered here


FA* zooms - with only one FA* zoom there is no coverage


FA Limiteds - more or less same as with DA Ltd, only one lens can be called modern digital-era lens. 31, 43 and 77 should be on their way to museum.

I doubt Pentax is thinking in line-ups. Unless it is considering sensor sizes as line-up and even then it makes little sense if you have consumer level 15-30 and 24-70 standing proudly with star level 70-200. APS-C is little better, but here most lenses are either very old, removed from sales without same-level replacement. Again: 11-18 and 16-50 star accompanied by 55-300 DAL? Ever heard even craziest rumors about Pentax making FA* level UWA and standard zooms? Or long tele-zoom DA*? No? I thought so.

Even if Pentax is covering focal lengths, it is doing it in a way that is doing it's best to turn possible customers away from the brand.

[reh321]

The issue with Pentax lineup is that it is a mix of current, outdated and OMG so old. With last two being majority. With weird choices on top of it.


DA* primes - 55 is outdated, same with 300, while 200 is removed. Ok, both 55 and 300 are not bad, but SDM makes them less then desirable. There are no 18, 24 and 35 DA* (equivalents to 28, 35 and 50 FF) so no "classical" prime focal lengths

DA* zooms - 11-18 and 16-50 are modern. 50-135 is outdated and maybe will be replaced, 60-250 is removed and there is no sign of replacement

DA Limiteds - looks ok, but only one lens can be considered modern digital lens: 20-40. Rest is ok optically, lacks in build (AF motor and AW/WR)

FA* primes - 50 and 85 so the longer end is covered, still no 28 and 35. If 35 shows you could say that most is covered here


FA* zooms - with only one FA* zoom there is no coverage


FA Limiteds - more or less same as with DA Ltd, only one lens can be called modern digital-era lens. 31, 43 and 77 should be on their way to museum.

I doubt Pentax is thinking in line-ups. Unless it is considering sensor sizes as line-up and even then it makes little sense if you have consumer level 15-30 and 24-70 standing proudly with star level 70-200. APS-C is little better, but here most lenses are either very old, removed from sales without same-level replacement. Again: 11-18 and 16-50 star accompanied by 55-300 DAL? Ever heard even craziest rumors about Pentax making FA* level UWA and standard zooms? Or long tele-zoom DA*? No? I thought so.

Even if Pentax is covering focal lengths, it is doing it in a way that is doing it's best to turn possible customers away from the brand.

You managed to avoid the DA zooms. Maybe the ‘DA 55-300 PLM’ isn’t up to your standards, it it is fine for me; if I weren’t a Pentaxian now, the graceful higher ISO of a recent Pentax body and the DA 55-300 PLM would turn me towards them.

[OoKU]

I remember I didn't say is 35/1.4…

[OoKU]

As for why it is not 35mm, it is the result of your vote…

[jersey]

You managed to avoid the DA zooms. Maybe the ‘DA 55-300 PLM’ isn’t up to your standards, it it is fine for me; if I weren’t a Pentaxian now, the graceful higher ISO of a recent Pentax body and the DA 55-300 PLM would turn me towards them.

I ignored all consumer level lineups. FA zooms, and FA and DA primes too. There are good lenses, pretty complete lineup at least on DA side where all you actually expect is for the lens to work. But Pentax is removing from chart and hinting at production of star/limited lenses, not consumer ones. Which would correspond with general trend in industry of switching to high level/income customers and high level, high profit gear.


About turning you towards, I doubt it. You can say so because you know Pentax so you can pat yourself on the back and say: yeah, if I never heard about them I would choose them.

And who cares what is good for you? With all respect, but if Pentax wants to sell cameras and lenses outside of current Pentaxians, then putting low-level consumer grade lens in same line as highest-level pro lens like it is in case of 16-50 and 55-300 (after removal of 60-250) then all you can do is point your finger at them and laugh. Come one - you are potential customer for K-3 Mk III, go into shop, look at camera and ask for pro-level lenses and what you get? 11-18, nice. 16-50: great. Now please give me a telephoto for complete setup. Yes sir, here you are: 55-300 consumer level telephoto. No no no, give me a star. Sorry, we don't have any. We canceled what we had and never replaced it. Oh, thank you. You said Canon shop is on the other side of the street?

[Smolk]

Interesting that most of us think about single lenses they “need” while Pentax, in my opinion, covers lens line-ups. DFA* 85/50 add 35 to be complete.

Yes, that's a good perspective. Although the 24 is about as valid in a line-up, which is evident from the pro mirrorless options at Nikon and Canon - and that FL is missing. Granted, the 2/35mm is a very old design. Both would be valid options in the line-up - but there's only one lens on the map.

Looking back, Pentax filled many gaps.

Glad you out a positive spin on things! And rightly so.

[OoKU]

In fact, both 55 and 50-135 have been discontinued. At present, dealers may still have some inventory.

[jersey]

In fact, both 55 and 50-135 have been discontinued. At present, dealers may still have some inventory.

Really? 55 is missing from English product list, but it still is on Japanese one? 50-135 is on both? And if it was true, then APS-C will be without only sealed normal prime and without single "classical portrait" focal length? That sucks.

[Wasp]

I suppose that the kitchen was not big enough for both a 200/2.8 prime and a 70-200/2.8 zoom. One of them had to leave. Prime telephotos are so last century - get with the program and get a zoom!