[Mister Guy]

A lot of people are commenting on the image being photoshopped; the image of the lens looks like a CAD (Computer Aided Design) drawing. Images like this are made on CAD by engineers. It's a mock up of the final product with color and texture compared to a wire diagram. I've seen images like this at work when new products are being designed or finalized. This is usually before production begins though. Depending on the date of the image, this lens might be in production already or getting close to being.

Repeating this.

Doesn't look shopped to me because it doesn't look real at all. That kind of shine says textured overlay to me all day long. As Steelski noted, though, that doesn't mean it will NEVER exist, just that this isn't a picture of a physical prototype. CAD is at least slightly better than a straight up shop, because there's always the hope that it really was Pentax engineers designing it, although it could just as easily be a bored kid in Graphics 101. CGI doesn't meant it can't be real, just that that particular picture isn't "real".

[ogl]

Well, If its better optically than the curranent 100.
WR, great !!!. meaning you can get those raindrops easier.

Also. Photoshopped...... CAD. And. what is your popint. it does not mean it's not real.

DFA100 has 4 stars at photozone.de.

[marcinski]

And only 2.5 stars for built quality. Even the kit lens has 3

Marcin

[Angevinn]

Repeating this.

Doesn't look shopped to me because it doesn't look real at all. That kind of shine says textured overlay to me all day long. As Steelski noted, though, that doesn't mean it will NEVER exist, just that this isn't a picture of a physical prototype. CAD is at least slightly better than a straight up shop, because there's always the hope that it really was Pentax engineers designing it, although it could just as easily be a bored kid in Graphics 101. CGI doesn't meant it can't be real, just that that particular picture isn't "real".

By what I stated earlier I meant that the lens is most likely real. CAD is a difficult program to use. The image of the lens most likely originally came from a Pentax engineer.

I was just responding to all of the members who were stating the image of this lens was a bad Photoshop job.

I'm looking forward to this lens and many more DFA's! I'd love to see a nice DFA 85mm 1.4 prime from Pentax and a great wide angle prime like a DFA 16mm 2.8. I had the Nikkor 16mm 2.8 AI-S when I shot Nikon film cameras and loved it. I'd buy a well made 16mm DFA prime from Pentax in a heartbeat.

More than anything I am looking forward to a FF Pentax DSLR!

[Supernaut]

For a while ago, there was a rumor that sony were about to launch a 80-200/1.4 (yes, the numbers are physically crazy, but still...). A fake of course, but made in CAD (or similar) and made really good. Just to show what people with too much time are able to:

[ogl]

He-he...Weight 1080 g and f/1.4.... Is it plastic?

[ogl]

DFA100/2.8 macro WR could be real.

[Supernaut]

He-he...Weight 1080 g and f/1.4.... Is it plastic?

Yes must be. Also it does magic with the not too enormous front glass.
Its well made and would the data sheet been more realistic, people would still belive.

DFA100/2.8 macro WR could be real.

Yes it could, I'm just showing that it's easy to fool people with skills outside PS. The sony image is high res too, could easily slip past forum scrutiny.

[clover]

if it is a CAD picture, then, it means that the design might change again ( like the 60-250mm). CAD picture is more "credible" then

[Adam]

Could be an early prototype afterall- and make their design engineer failed to communicate with the naming department

However, while the K-7 photos posted here last March were real, these aren't as amusing- and the numbers show it.

[noblepa]

I'm surprised that, since this is alledgedly a D-FA lens, which implies 24 x 36mm coverage, someone hasn't pounced on this as proof-positive that Pentax is about to release a FF dslr.

I don't believe that FF camera from Pentax is imminent, but this does raise the question, "why are they releasing a lens with FF coverage?" (if indeed, they are releasing such a lens). This inconsistency makes me think that this lens is a hoax. Even if they were to release this lens, I wouldn't think that they would call it a D-FA. It would be simply another DA lens.

[Miserere]

I think it's real, and this is why:

1. Pentax already has a DFA 100mm macro
2. Pentax already has a DFA 50mm macro
3. Pentax already has a DA 35mm macro
4. Nobody has asked for a new 100mm macro
5. The non-macro gap for primes between 55mm and 200mm is still there
6. There is still no fast, affordable, APS-C, normal prime

It makes absolutely NO SENSE for Pentax to release this lens...so...it must be true!

.

[Urkeldaedalus]

I think it's real, and this is why:

1. Pentax already has a DFA 100mm macro
2. Pentax already has a DFA 50mm macro
3. Pentax already has a DA 35mm macro
4. Nobody has asked for a new 100mm macro
5. The non-macro gap for primes between 55mm and 200mm is still there
6. There is still no fast, affordable, APS-C, normal prime

It makes absolutely NO SENSE for Pentax to release this lens...so...it must be true!

.

Haha, that's exactly what I was thinking. Pentax's beloved reverse logic strikes again!

[ogl]

+1. It's natural Pentax logic.

The photo of lens is removed already from social net.

[gazonk]

I think it's real, and this is why:

It makes absolutely NO SENSE for Pentax to release this lens...so...it must be true!

.

LOL! But seriously, I think it makes a lot of sense to make WR version of the 100 mm Macro.