[gazonk]

a WR version of the 55-300. It's simply crazy that the 50-200 is in the K-7 WR double kit, while the K-x can be had with the 55-300. I have nothing against the 50-200, in fact I think it's an excellent lens if you consider the price and the super compact size, but from all I've seen the 55-300 beats it IQ-wise (and of course also in range).

[TOUGEFC]

Pentax really needs to release more WR len's

[Pentaxie]

Pentax really needs to release more WR len's

You echoed my thoughts.

[jct us101]

a WR version of the 55-300. It's simply crazy that the 50-200 is in the K-7 WR double kit, while the K-x can be had with the 55-300. I have nothing against the 50-200, in fact I think it's an excellent lens if you consider the price and the super compact size, but from all I've seen the 55-300 beats it IQ-wise (and of course also in range).

For some reason I thought that they made that. I just realized that it was the 50-200mm though. I'm not sure putting the optical formula of that lens into a waterproof case would be possible though.

[gazonk]

I'm not sure putting the optical formula of that lens into a waterproof case would be possible though.

Neither am I, but are you not sure because you think there's something about the lens that would make it more difficult to make WR than the 50-200, or do you simply not know (like me)?

[thibs]

a WR version of the 55-300. It's simply crazy that the 50-200 is in the K-7 WR double kit, while the K-x can be had with the 55-300. I have nothing against the 50-200, in fact I think it's an excellent lens if you consider the price and the super compact size, but from all I've seen the 55-300 beats it IQ-wise (and of course also in range).

+1. That's why I still own the 50-200 (WR) and not (yet) the 55-300.

[jct us101]

Neither am I, but are you not sure because you think there's something about the lens that would make it more difficult to make WR than the 50-200, or do you simply not know (like me)?

Well to be entirely honest, I don't know. But given the size of the lens, it just seems like it would be pretty difficult to put it in a weather sealed case that is a reasonable size.

[thibs]

Well to be entirely honest, I don't know. But given the size of the lens, it just seems like it would be pretty difficult to put it in a weather sealed case that is a reasonable size.

Mmm not weather sealed but weather resistant. Not exactly the same, from Pentax own words.

[calcad]

I think we miss a fast long prime lense (400mm f4 would be great) and a teleconverter (1,4 or 1,7)

[Drinkkeri]

It probably is. But add me to that crazy list as well Make that a SDM model as well.

No, no, no, no. Pentax version of Tokina 11-16/2.8 should be done before that. 24/1.4(or at least f/2), 35/1.4, 85/1.4 and 135/1.8 are too more important than supertele.

Let me just say that I am very curious. I hear whispers of the new lenses here and there, but then I have been hearing them for almost a year now. Part of the deal was that they wanted 645D out first. I wasn't sure why they all of sudden have to WR the D FA. What's up with that?? I sense scrambling. Maybe FF is sooner than expected?

I am not still so sure about FF. Just a thought of buying all the stupid lenses again - wait, that sounds pretty fun . . . . .

[gazonk]

I am not still so sure about FF. Just a thought of buying all the stupid lenses again - wait, that sounds pretty fun . . . . .

FF is probably the only logical step if a new camera should be significantly more than just a "K-7 Super" (which, btw, I guess we may see in some months, albeit probably not with the "Super" name).

I thought "how should Pentax be able to maintain 3 lens series (645, FF and DA)?", but then I remembered that they actually maintained 3 lens series until very recently (67, 645 and FF) - in fact maybe they still make some of the 67 lenses? AND: For a very short period in 1984-1985 (shortly after the 645 introduction and before the Auto 110 disappeared) they actually had 4 series: 110, 35mm, 645 and 67!

[ghelary]

FF is probably the only logical step if a new camera should be significantly more than just a "K-7 Super" (which, btw, I guess we may see in some months, albeit probably not with the "Super" name).

I thought "how should Pentax be able to maintain 3 lens series (645, FF and DA)?", but then I remembered that they actually maintained 3 lens series until very recently (67, 645 and FF) - in fact maybe they still make some of the 67 lenses? AND: For a very short period in 1984-1985 (shortly after the 645 introduction and before the Auto 110 disappeared) they actually had 4 series: 110, 35mm, 645 and 67!

I think ultimatly as sensors are reaching their limits in performance (at least not progressing that mush from one generation to another) the fututre will be of offering a choice of sensors in the same body ie, an option with 10Mpx and better low light performance, 20Mpx and no AA filter, a sensor optimised for color accuracy etc...

That a 2 cent guess, but it would be a low cost / high value offering IMO. Once you got a good body with good ergonomics, why change ?

So, are there any optical tricks where DA line ups can be used with a coupler or something without going dimmer on FF sensor??

The thing is that if and when FF comes out, I know I would still be dumb enough to buy it, meaning that I will buy the lenses too.

Gee, I might as well bend over now.

Ouch. Where is Pentax K-y when I need it?

[Danny Delcambre]

I want DA 31 and DA 50 i hope so.....