[axl]

Let's wish for something quirky, in best Pentax tradition

On APS-C, 23 mm is actually closer to the classical 35mm FOV than 24mm. f/2 doesn't even give us the DOF equivalent of a 35mm/2.8 on film, so let's go a little lower. Here's my wish, then: DA 23 mm f/1.9 WR

:-)

Not bad idea but again 23 would be too close to 21 IMO.
Let's compromise:
DA*24/1.8

so. 24/1.8 is doable but big (see Sigma's)
DA* would mean SDM and WR

how about that?

[rustynail925]

90/2 or 2.4 size between the 70 and 77

[gazonk]

so. 24/1.8 is doable but big (see Sigma's)
DA* would mean SDM and WR

how about that?

Not bad. I don't think it has to be anything near as big as Sigma's 24mm/1.8, which seems to be roughly the same size as the 24mm/1.4 lenses from C+N, albeit not quite as heavy.

[thibs]

Yep, Sigma's lenses tend to be a lot bigger/heavier than Pentax lenses.
Just compare FA50/1.4 and Sigma's 50/1.4.. I know HSM takes space but still ...

[ghelary]

as you can see from your list.
There are two big holes!
1) between 21-31
2) between 77-200 non macro

and something above 300 would really be appreciated by a lot of people

my 2p

The "classical" lens lineup was the following:
- 28 (24 is quite a modern focal lens)
- 35
- 50
- 85
- 135
- 200

To me 21 - 31 is not such a big hole. The point of a prime is to move to frame the picture. If you have a 21 or a 31 on your camera, you won't swap a 24 or a 28 for FOV concerns !

Agreed a 135 would be nice in the lineup (even if I don't use this focal lens), but you can't diss the 100 macro like that. Macro are quite often great for portrait, which is the point of the classical 135.

I feel like if we had a fast 28, some people would be complaining that we don't have a fast 24 available. I have more than a dozen primes at the moment, and I find myself shooting 99% of time with 2, the FA43 and the FA31. For that reason I have no issue with Pentax lineup.

If there is a focal lens that you are really missing, I bet the best would to go to the competition. But they don't have as much primes as Pentax... Even if each brand has jewels (Canon's 85/1.2, 17T/S, Nikon 14-24/2.8...)

[pb_red]

I don't agree with the cheap 50/1.8 if the point is to have a plastic fantastic badly performing (for 90% critics I read) lens as the Canon/1.8 at around 200 euros:
* it won't be seen as serious (really 200 is very low for a prime, stupid I know but people won't take it seriously)
* it will perform like crap giving bad reputation to Petnax primes
* it will behave like crap because at that price it would really be a piece of plastic crap.

May I remind you the Canon/1.8 doesn't even have true USM? Yeah micromotors and AFAIK no manual focus override. Oouch !

so what? you don't have to go out an buy one.
at that price point i don't think pentax will have to worry about its reputation because everyone knows you get what you pay for.

believe it or not, some of us don't mind having a poor quality lens in the bag as long as we know what its strengths and weaknesses and when to use it and when not to use it.

for example, i've taken some pretty cool shots with my $50 ebay 50mm manual but those don't even come close to what some people can do with their iPhone - i believe a guy named chase jarvis even published a little book about that

the point is, having more options is always a good thing.

[axl]

Ghelary, I see what you are saying...
my point though is, 24mm fast lens would be replacement of 35mm on FF. It's very useful FOV IMO, and probably the last one you can make decently fast without making it unnecessary big.

I on the other hand tend to shoot bit wider than you.
31 and 10-20 do it and since I have 50/1.2 I use it a lot more than 43...
Problem is UWA zooms are bricks, and sometimes just too wide (20mm) 24 comes in very handy, as it's small, and offers decently wide FOV.
I wouldn't mind trying 21 but simply can't justify it to my mrs. as she shees 20-21 as difference not big enough to spend £400

[ogl]

The 135 for sure, but 28/2 would be too close to 31/1.8 IMO, so I'd love to see more something in 24-26 range at say f2-2.4?
How about that? Shall I write to Santa

No chances to see fast 24-26.

FA31/1.8 is LIMITED and without WR and SDM.
DA*28/2 is another lens. For everyday use.

[jct us101]

Ohhhhh, are there going to be any more WR lenses? I would love to see (although I'm still not sure how possible it is to create this) the 55-300mm in a weather sealed form. The 18-250mm would definitely be an accomplishment too, considering it's almost the perfect superzoom lens already. Adding weather sealing to it would just make it that much better.

[leok]

There is nothing in Pentax's range in the equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, I find the extra reach very handy. 50-135 just isn't enough all too often...

[pb_red]

There is nothing in Pentax's range in the equivalent of a 70-200 2.8, I find the extra reach very handy. 50-135 just isn't enough all too often...

there is the pentax 60-250mm F4 and both sigma and tamron make 70-200mm f2.8 lenses

[levelred]

I wish they would come out with at nice 85mm

[jct us101]

Or how about a nice and cheap 35mm? I just realized that for some reason I really want to buy a 35mm but I don't want to spend that much on the Macro (and I don't need a 35mm macro, I would want a longer one if I got one).

[axl]

No chances to see fast 24-26.

FA31/1.8 is LIMITED and without WR and SDM.
DA*28/2 is another lens. For everyday use.

damn!
Ogl, you are like a bad santa....

[leok]

there is the pentax 60-250mm F4 and both sigma and tamron make 70-200mm f2.8 lenses

Yes, thats pretty much what I'm saying. There are times when f4 is not enough, and atm the only options are 3rd party. C*non and N*kons 70-200 2.8s are both huge sellers...