[RMabo]

Pentax representatives has officially stated in interviews that Pentax will release a new lens serie with the same optical design as the current serie. Now, why release a new lens serie without optical changes, and what changes are made in those new lenses if the changes are not to the optics?

Answer is simple - the new lens serie will have weather sealing and improved in-lens autofocus motors for the improved AF in the new and coming bodies. No optical changes because it would cost too much to change the optics, it does not cost really as much - and does not take as long time doing - to add weather sealing to existing lenses.

Of course those new lenses needs a new name in order to avoid confusing with the existing serie.

A 18-55 II with weather sealing is a logical choice, it will also match the weather sealed new in-between camera - the camera in-between the new K-7 and the existing K-m. And it will bring down the price of the new K-7.

The K-m has the DA L-lenses, without weather sealing.
The new and coming weather sealed lenses will match the new and coming weather sealed bodies well.

The 18-55 is just the beginning. I'm confident that the 17-70 will be updated soon with weather sealing also, and with improved in-lens AF for the enhance functionality in the new K-7.

For the 18-55 II, adding SDM might be too much of a job.

It will of course take some time for Pentax to add weather sealing to existing lenses, and they will not add weather sealing to all of them.

No weather sealing to the Limiteds, and no SDM to them.

I see the 55-300, new 18-250 zoom, and 12-24 as the most logic candidates to be released in updated versions after the new 18-55 and 17-70.

Oh, the 30 f/1.4 will come - it was removed from the roadmap beacuse it isn't part of the current DA or DA Star lens serie. It is part of the new WR and SDM serie. Name as yet unknown.

[thibs]

18-55 III then 'cos 18+55 II is already available

[gnaztee]

If this is true then this is DUMB.

Why would anyone spend $1500 on a camera body willing to put up with the IQ of the kit lens? Its image circle doesn't even cover APS-C properly.

OK beside the two hours you give the K-7 to you family to shoot then it make sense to put the "WR" kit lens on it.

Why not make a 17-70mm II and add weather seal to it. Its seals are already better than other non-* lenses,

...this would be exactly what I want. I shoot in dusty/rainy conditions maybe 5% of the time. Since I wouldn't be using the lens that much, I'd rather have something inexpensive as a "foul weather backup." The other 95% of the time I have my DA Ltds and my DA 12-24 and 55-300 combo (although if these came out in upgraded versions with SDM and weathersealing, I might be tempted to save up and get them...though more for the SDM).

[Supernaut]

Oh, the 30 f/1.4 will come - it was removed from the roadmap beacuse it isn't part of the current DA or DA Star lens serie. It is part of the new WR and SDM serie. Name as yet unknown.

I hope you are right here

[Zebooka]

Full name of new lens - SMC PENTAX-DA 1:3.5-5.6 18-55mm AL WR


Pentax - that's a right move!

[mattdm]

Oh, the 30 f/1.4 will come - it was removed from the roadmap beacuse it isn't part of the current DA or DA Star lens serie. It is part of the new WR and SDM serie. Name as yet unknown.

Hmmm. I'd prefer it not to be in the same "series" as the kit lens. I'm looking for a normal lens to basically keep on the camera all the time, and it needs to compete optically with at least the DA 40mm Limited.

[RBellavance]

I have no "optical" need for a 18-55/3.5-5.6 lens (I already have a Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 for a "walkabout zoom"), but if I end up buying a K-7 I will very likely buy it with the WR kit lens anyway, just to have a weather-resistant complete kit.

The DA*16-50 is too large & too expensive for my needs.

Oh, and I'd be *all over* a DA30 WR (no need for a * IMHO) as long as it is f/2 or faster.

[*isteve]

Err, our friends remark in this thread, then another post in this thread, a few posts in the other forum and a few emails I received privately from people who have bought it.

Ofcourse it's range and constant f4 make it very usefull and therefore desirable.

One of the early detractors was me. The first one I bought was faulty. Since I found a good one I can say its the most usable lens I own and sharper than the 16-45.

Of course, lots of people that dont have one can say anything, but my opinion matches Klaus' very closely. Its a good standard lens. If you get a good one.

[cwood]

Of course, lots of people that dont have one can say anything, but my opinion matches Klaus' very closely. Its a good standard lens. If you get a good one.

Many of us prefer to hear the opinions of those who have used the gear over those who have not. Somehow opinions always seem "tamed down" (good or bad) after a person has actually used a piece of gear. So the quiet voice of reason like yours in this case, spoken as words of experience "Its a good standard lens", are drowned out by people who have never tried the thing but still insist "the 17-70 is the worst".

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.