[TwoUptons]

Finally, a modern set of three Pentax macro extension tubes. When is the last time Pentax gave us these? Well, one can dream.

Honestly I'm really surprised they haven't released macro tubes yet. They would sell fairly well and there is no glass in tubes so they might be cheaper to design than a new lens.

If it's not macro tubes, can this rumor about a rumor be about a FF AW 1.4x teleconverter?

I have a suspicion the extension tubes would be a lot more expensive than I would like... based on what they were charging for the bellows thing a few years ago...

And how many people would really buy them? You'd need more than 1:1, and I think most of the industrial folks who would have bought something like that in the 60s or 70s have switched to smaller-sensor digital solutions.

I will agree that a FF 1.4x converter would be appreciated, especially with that 70-300... just sayin'

-Eric

[kwb]

I don't see anything wrong with the translation.

Me neither. Thanks for the news and translation, Mistral!

[zapp]

The pullout design of the 560 mm prototype would be weird.
Lens modules to mix and match would be weird. Leica ones offered 1.4x and 2x back modules for two tele front modules.
A zoomable TC 1.4-2x would be really weird.
A Ltd tele (zoom) lens would look weird.
A wide angle lens with ND filter wheel would look weird.
… this post becomes weird.

[MMVIII]

I want leaf shutter lenses, and T&S. Weird enough?

[mbukal]

The main evidence is a patent that surfaced last September.
New Lens Patents, including 24-90 f4 - PentaxForums.com

The other thing that makes me think this will come is that it is an obvious gap in the line-up. They have the 70-210/4, so it kind of implies a mid-level standard zoom should come.

However, Pentax has not said anything about it, and I'm sure that such a lens would not be described by anyone as weird or innovative, which is what this rumour would seem to be claiming.

I mentioned that DFA 24-90/4 lens approx. 36 hours ago here on the forum as a personal wish for Pentax to make it very quickly/soon because there is an obvious hole in the ff range, and I think that I was answered by the members that I will not see it soon such a "cheap lens", do you have any concrete knowledge about the "cheap DFA 24-90/4 DC WR" ,therefore, it is described as cheap, so even the adjective strange does not look bad on it

[Rondec]

I mentioned that DFA 24-90/4 lens approx. 36 hours ago here on the forum as a personal wish for Pentax to make it very quickly/soon because there is an obvious hole in the ff range, and I think that I was answered by the members that I will not see it soon such a "cheap lens", do you have any concrete knowledge about the "cheap DFA 24-90/4 DC WR" ,therefore, it is described as cheap, so even the adjective strange does not look bad on it

I think we just said it wouldn't be sold cheaply, not that Pentax wouldn't come out with one. The Canon 24-105 f4 sells for 1300 and Nikon's 24-120 f4 sells for 1100.

[luftfluss]

Tilt-shift zoom with adjustable soft focus effect?

[mbukal]

I think we just said it wouldn't be sold cheaply, not that Pentax wouldn't come out with one. The Canon 24-105 f4 sells for 1300 and Nikon's 24-120 f4 sells for 1100.

ok, logically, how much does the DFA 24-70/2.8 cost, then 20mm longer range and "2 apertures" less, Nikon has even 30mm more and most likely stabilization in the lens..., then, more of us who notice it claim that there is noticeable hole in the ff range ... I repeat that I have no knowledge about the canikosony photo range, the price, DFA 24-90/4 DCWR would be really strange if it appeared now with a price lower than the DFA24-70/2.8, for such a strangely low price it would surely have a strange increased demand, really in those conditions in every way the DFA 24-90/4 DC WR would be a strange lens

[Serkevan]

ok, logically, how much does the DFA 24-70/2.8 cost, then 20mm longer range and "2 apertures" less, Nikon has even 30mm more and most likely stabilization in the lens..., then, more of us who notice it claim that there is noticeable hole in the ff range ... I repeat that I have no knowledge about the canikosony photo range, the price, DFA 24-90/4 DCWR would be really strange if it appeared now with a price lower than the DFA24-70/2.8, for such a strangely low price it would surely have a strange increased demand, really in those conditions in every way the DFA 24-90/4 DC WR would be a strange lens

The 24-70/2.8 is a tamron rebadge, and goes for 1300€. The 28-105 goes for 700€ (it went up in price, used to sell for 600€ at the Ricoh storepage). A 24-90/4 would probably go for 900-1000€. Maybe a bit higher because of course.

[Rondec]

ok, logically, how much does the DFA 24-70/2.8 cost, then 20mm longer range and "2 apertures" less, Nikon has even 30mm more and most likely stabilization in the lens..., then, more of us who notice it claim that there is noticeable hole in the ff range ... I repeat that I have no knowledge about the canikosony photo range, the price, DFA 24-90/4 DCWR would be really strange if it appeared now with a price lower than the DFA24-70/2.8, for such a strangely low price it would surely have a strange increased demand, really in those conditions in every way the DFA 24-90/4 DC WR would be a strange lens

A Pentax designed 24-90 f4 will be somewhere in the 1000 to 1100 dollar range (roughly 1000 Euros). As Serkevan says, the 70-210 f4, 24-70 f2.8 and 15-30 f2.8 are Tamron rebadges. The 24-70 seems to be selling for roughly the same price as the Tamron versions do, the 70-210 is marked up a couple hundred dollars and the 15-30 is marked up 400 dollars.

Regardless, if you look at brand name 24-100mm f4 zooms, they aren't cheap. If Pentax designs their own 24-70 f2.8 zoom, it will probably end up closer to 2000 dollars than 1000 dollars.

[Sandy Hancock]

Not an interesting lens
It's even better not to have one

This is one of your most enigmatic posts, and that is saying something

[luftfluss]

It's nearly a senryu...

Not interesting
A lens, better not to have one
Pentax is coming

[Rondec]

Not an interesting lens
It's even better not to have one

Well, the beauty of Pentax releasing uninteresting lenses is that we have the choice of purchasing or not. Lenses that I don't find interesting are someone else's favorite.

[Sandy Hancock]

Well, the beauty of Pentax releasing uninteresting lenses is that we have the choice of purchasing or not. Lenses that I don't find interesting are someone else's favorite.

Oh my God! THIS!!
Just relax, people. Have fun.

[mbukal]

A Pentax designed 24-90 f4 will be somewhere in the 1000 to 1100 dollar range (roughly 1000 Euros). As Serkevan says, the 70-210 f4, 24-70 f2.8 and 15-30 f2.8 are Tamron rebadges. The 24-70 seems to be selling for roughly the same price as the Tamron versions do, the 70-210 is marked up a couple hundred dollars and the 15-30 is marked up 400 dollars.

Regardless, if you look at brand name 24-100mm f4 zooms, they aren't cheap. If Pentax designs their own 24-70 f2.8 zoom, it will probably end up closer to 2000 dollars than 1000 dollars.

yes, bingo, DFA* are expensive because they justify the price with their overall characteristics (Unfortunately, Pentax does not yet have the holy DFA* trinity, imagine if canon didn't have the L trinity/ I don't know how it is now in the mirrorless system ) , DFA with a constant blend throughout the entire range has its own certain emphasized characteristics and those who need them will pay for them, DFA with a variable blend again has some of its own characteristics that satisfy a certain circle of users, the specified price range justifies my stated wishes for the release of Pentax lenses, so there would be both cheap and more expensive and the most expensive lenses, while Pentax is not able to provide users with such support, I do not want Pentax to start any new production line, there no I include the renewal of several existing production DSLR lines, sudden rapid release DFA 24-90/4 DCWROS + in-camera stabilization or DFA 65-320/4.5-5.6 DCWROS + in-camera stabilization all in Pentax design at a price below 900 euros would really be considered a strange lens, and for some, a "cheap" lens