[jsherman999]

I'd like to hear the current consensus on the potential introduction of a new 135mm Limited series lens in 2010.

How close is this rumor to reality, and has anyone heard any specs? f/1.8? f/2.4? f/3.5?

Is the whole thing just an oft-repeated pipe dream?

Ogl, what does the Russian camera mafia say?


.

[RawheaD]

I think it's a pipe dream, but if we get it, and it's a DA Limited (as it probably would be), then it's going to be f3.5. It seems that despite what some people say about how much easier it is to make faster lenses for crop sensors, Pentax consistently puts out DA Limiteds at least 1/2 stop slower than what would've been considerd "Fast Primes" back in the day.

DA 70/2.4 Lim, 21/3.2 Lim, 40/2.8 Lim.

If it's a DA*, then we might see f2.4 :-)

[jsherman999]

I don't think it will be slower than f/2.8, no matter what it is.

[ixian]

Our Limiteds tend to have a bit untypical focal lengths... I would rather expect something like 110mm or 127 or whatever, but definitely not a 'classic' 135mm

[jsherman999]

Our Limiteds tend to have a bit untypical focal lengths... I would rather expect something like 110mm or 127 or whatever, but definitely not a 'classic' 135mm

I know, but all I've heard about is a 135mm.

I'd love a 150mm limited....

[pxpaulx]

How about 108 then? A little ode to Lost! (the TV series)

Edit: ok, 108 seems alittle too odd, what would be the purpose? A 135mm, being 200mm equivalent would be pretty nice. But being as it fall into the range of the 50-135mm, it would have to be quite nice and fast to make its' way into very many bags.

[thibs]

I'd say a 100/110/115mm is the most likely in this area, if they ever do.

[netuser]

Think so ? hmmmmmmmmmmmm

seems profit onour days is on zoom lens, no ?

[lithos]

Our Limiteds tend to have a bit untypical focal lengths... I would rather expect something like 110mm or 127 or whatever, but definitely not a 'classic' 135mm

Pentax does the 43- or 31- or 77mm thing not because they design the lenses to have exactly those focal lengths, but as a show of...well, I 'suppose you could call it either attention to detail or honesty.

Few of any lenses ever made, by any manufacturer, are exactly the focal length it says on the filter ring. Most are off, some way off. Differences of up to two millimetres, sometimes even more.

Put it another way, if the 43mm wasn't Limited, I bet Pentax just would've called it a 45mm. Although I do suspect this one was actually designed to be 43mm, since that's the perfect normal lens for a 35mm frame. I'm guessing Pentax decided, retroactively, it's a pretty mark of distinction.

The 31mm would've been labeled a 28, the 77 a 75. The wider-angled DA Limiteds available are probably all pretty accurately named, except maybe the 40 (old design) and the 35 (not Pentax's design...though it'd be interesting to find out if I'm wrong.) Wide angle lenses are normally given the proper focal length; at the wide end a millimetre can make a real difference. And anyway, most of them conform to the standard "multiples of five" rule, save the 21 (a common length, sort of,) which really only seems to matter with lenses over 28mm, funnily enough.

So, what Pentax has done, and will continue to do with this 135mm prime if they make it, is probably just put something like "telephoto lens, about 135mm" on the spec sheet, and then make the best possible lens for the criteria, within the ballpark of 135mm. Might be 130, might be 141, might be 128.

Then again, all makers do this, but only Pentax labels them as correctly.

[thibs]

The 35 limited is a Pentax design.

Tokina did 10-16/2.8, 12-24/4 and 100/2.8 macro (I always forget one in this list, I may have again). The rest is Pentax (they aren't better or worse for that reason btw).

[marcinski]

The 35 limited is a Pentax design.

What about Tokina 35mm f/2.8 Macro?

Marcin

[ilya80]

What about Tokina 35mm f/2.8 Macro?

Those lens are different design.

[StephenMerola]

I would buy in Fa 135mm f/1.8 or less lens. That would be awesome!!

[FullertonImages]

I just don't se the point of prime lenses that aren't faster than f/2.8. I mean I see the point of how small the Ltd lenses are, but if the 77 can be f/1.8 and pretty small still, then the 135 could be 1.8 and still pretty small. But I have a 50-135 f/2.8 with insane IQ, why would I ever buy a prime that is slower, or even the same speed? I would love to see a DA* 135mm f/1.8, and would buy one immediately.

[jsherman999]

I just don't se the point of prime lenses that aren't faster than f/2.8. I mean I see the point of how small the Ltd lenses are, but if the 77 can be f/1.8 and pretty small still, then the 135 could be 1.8 and still pretty small. But I have a 50-135 f/2.8 with insane IQ, why would I ever buy a prime that is slower, or even the same speed? I would love to see a DA* 135mm f/1.8, and would buy one immediately.

The 50-135 is pretty big - the Limited would probably be about the size of the FA 135 2.8, or smaller, and would probably be a tad sharper wide open than the 50-135.

I used to have the 50-135 and loved it, but a very small 135 would have got the call on a lot of travel, portrait and walkabout situations where I didn't want to carry the big DA*.

I'd like very-small/sharp or kinda-large/fast/sharp - a 135 f/2.4 limited would be pretty sweet if it were very small, or an f/1.8 if it were about the size of the DA 50-135.

slow/large would be pointless.



.