[24X36NOW]

Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro EX DG OS HSM Lens (for Pentax)

Do you mean this one??

Hoping not. I have "orders in" at three different camera stores to see which one gets it first - most likely as shown in the link it will be B&H. This lens is one of only three lens I would ever purchase with a version of hsm. The 86mm front filter should be interesting too.

...And if this lens is pulled from production; would that also include the Sigma 150mm macro as well?

Sigma never planned to make those lenses (among others) in PK mount, "placeholders" at camera stores notwithstanding. Check Sigma's website.

150 Macro OS - Sigma, Nikon, Canon, Sony

180 Macro OS - Sigma, Nikon, Canon, Sony

105 Macro OS - Sigma, Nikon, Canon, Sony

120-300 OS - Sigma, Nikon, Canon

50-150 OS - Sigma, Nikon, Canon

Sigma Corporation of America - Digital camera lenses, Digital Cameras, Electronic Flashes, Camera Accessories

[photoedr]

I don't even want a FF if there isn't an amazing update the the current K-5. APS-C works great for me. The Limited lenses are brilliant with an APS-C sized camera body....

[maxfield_photo]

I don't even want a FF if there isn't an amazing update the the current K-5. APS-C works great for me. The Limited lenses are brilliant with an APS-C sized camera body....

I think many folks share this concern, that, if a Pentax Full Frame were to materialize it would mean an end to the development of APS-C bodies. Really I don't think you have to worry about that. Full Frame isn't for everyone. It certainly isn't for birders, or most sports shooters, it isn't for folks who shy away from heavy gear, it isn't for your average family event archivist. APS-C may be feeling the squeeze from cell phone cameras, but anyone who has ever owned even a half way decent lens understands that cell phone optics just can't compare, even if the sensors are getting better. APS-C still has a very viable position in the market and Pentax isn't about to stop catering to their largest consumer base just because they have something with a bit more horsepower. (Look at me speaking as if this has already happened) APS-C and Full Frame can peacefully coexist, and even compliment each other as they do for other brands.

[arnold]

Given the quality being achieved with APS-C, just what or how much does it lack compared to FF? Why not just go to medium format if you need more detail?

[NightPorter]

Pentax is hurting their fans and thinks they are stupid.
K-5 will be my last Pentax camera if Pentax will not launch FF in coming months.
Pentax will be a hopeless company and I will go for Nikon D800.
If Pentax is still disappointing their Pentaxians, I believe there are a lot of Pentaxians will jump this boat like me !!!

[ElJamoquio]

Given the quality being achieved with APS-C, just what or how much does it lack compared to FF? Why not just go to medium format if you need more detail?

FF will give you 1.5x better resolution, give or take.
FF will give you 1 stop less DOF with the same lens.
If you're happy with the DOF you have now on APS-C, you could do the same on FF with a smaller, lighter, and much cheaper lens.
All currently sold FF cameras come with bigger viewfinders than any APS-C viewfinders.

Doing this on medium format would cost quite a bit more - about 3x more for the body. The bodies that are available right now are much larger and heavier than a APS-C/FF body. A FF body technically doesn't have to be much larger than an APS-C body.

[arnold]

FF will give you 1.5x better resolution, give or take.
FF will give you 1 stop less DOF with the same lens.
If you're happy with the DOF you have now on APS-C, you could do the same on FF with a smaller, lighter, and much cheaper lens.
All currently sold FF cameras come with bigger viewfinders than any APS-C viewfinders.

Doing this on medium format would cost quite a bit more - about 3x more for the body. The bodies that are available right now are much larger and heavier than a APS-C/FF body. A FF body technically doesn't have to be much larger than an APS-C body.

Interesting thanks. Given that old manual focus1.4 lens' are a lot cheaper than the new stuff, and should suit most for shallow DOF, it comes down to resolution and cost mostly. As far as resolution goes, how many yearning for a FF are shooting at the maximum quality available on their APS-C and finding a K5 lacking? If one needs more than that, isn't one in the professional league, and as such, be using a larger format camera anyway? Most are not pixel peepers (I am a little when I am trying to record details, so would buy one for a reasonable price), so I wonder about the motivations here. Status? Mine is bigger than yours?
It would be interesting to do a survey on the last years pictures of a professional, and ask another professional to pick the one's not F.F.

[Frogfish]

Interesting thanks. Given that old manual focus1.4 lens' are a lot cheaper than the new stuff, and should suit most for shallow DOF, it comes down to resolution and cost mostly. As far as resolution goes, how many yearning for a FF are shooting at the maximum quality available on their APS-C and finding a K5 lacking? If one needs more than that, isn't one in the professional league, and as such, be using a larger format camera anyway? Most are not pixel peepers (I am a little when I am trying to record details, so would buy one for a reasonable price), so I wonder about the motivations here. Status? Mine is bigger than yours?
It would be interesting to do a survey on the last years pictures of a professional, and ask another professional to pick the one's not F.F.

To address the points you raised :

1. You can also buy excellent legacy glass for Nikon at a fraction of the cost of new lenses.
2. Resolution - it's not about whether people are shooting to the max on their K5s (I know I'm not). I am amazed at how far I can crop into a photo and retain detail with the D800. If you don't need that much then the 5DIII or new D600 still offer more over the current batch of APS-C cameras. Hopefully Pentax will announce a 24MP FF camera at Photokina to join the club. If you are a landscape shooter then resolution is even more important to bring out the fine detail.
3. MF cameras are very expensive, bulky, heavy and not designed for the same purposes as DSLRs (all that applies to the lenses too). They are not an alternative for 99% of people and shouldn't be brought into an APS-C / FF discussion (quite aside from the fact they cost well beyond most people's pockets) !
4. Motivations vary from person to person and your comment sounds more like a dig than a genuine observation . I don't think people moving up from APS-C are motivated by status or size but by quality and by being able to achieve something they can not with APS-C (there are other advantages to FF than just resolution or low DoF with slower lenses, advanced AF systems probably accounts for just as many transitioning to FF). I will agree that some people with money who haven't owned a DSLR before just want the biggest and the best to impress their friends. I know someone, very affluent, who bought a D2, and 3 of Nikon's best zoom lenses, when it came out a few years ago - he used it a few times, probably in full auto and then buried it in the cupboard where it remains to this day.
5. Your survey would be a little pointless, TBH, there are equally wonderful photos taken on APS-C as on FF, it's just that FF has some advantages, whether you need that or not is something else, maybe most people don't because it doesn't shoot their style.

[Anvh]

4. Motivations vary from person to person and your comment sounds more like a dig than a genuine observation . I don't think people moving up from APS-C are motivated by status or size but by quality and by being able to achieve something they can not with APS-C (there are other advantages to FF than just resolution or low DoF with slower lenses, advanced AF systems probably accounts for just as many transitioning to FF).

Why wont they be able to fit such AF with an ASP-C camera?
As far as i know the Canon 7D is such a camera.

[Anvh]

If you're happy with the DOF you have now on APS-C, you could do the same on FF with a smaller, lighter, and much cheaper lens.

Yes and no, you can buy older glass that are indeed cheaper but with todays glass the FF lenses need to make a larger image circle then the APS-C lenses so they are bigger and heavier to start with and more glass means more expensive.
All in all i think there is little in between APS-C and FF when it comes to DOF and modern lenses.

[ElJamoquio]

Yes and no, you can buy older glass that are indeed cheaper but with todays glass the FF lenses need to make a larger image circle then the APS-C lenses so they are bigger and heavier to start with and more glass means more expensive.
All in all i think there is little in between APS-C and FF when it comes to DOF and modern lenses.

24-105 f/4 FF Canon: $950, 670 grams
17-55 f/2.8 APS-C Canon: $1050 , 650 grams
15-65 f/2.5 APS-C Canon (the actual comparable lens): ? Certainly heavier and more expensive

40mm f/2.8 FF: ~$350, 50 or 90 grams
28mm f/1.8 APS-C: ?

50mm f/1.4 FF: ~$350, 250 grams or so
32mm f/0.9 APS-C: ?

24mm f/2.8 FF: $450 (canon), 250 grams or so
15mm f/1.8 APS-C: ?

24-85 f/3.5-4.5 FF: $600 (in 'expensive Nikon'), 410 grams or so
16-55mm f/2.2-2.9 APS-C: ?

28-300 f/3.5-5.6 FF: $800 (in expensive Nikon), 800 grams
18-200 f/2.2-3.6 APS-C: ?

[Anvh]

You try to proof your point with 1 lens?

24-105 f/4 FF Canon: $950, 670 grams
17-55 f/2.8 APS-C Canon: $1050 , 650 grams

This actually proof my point there is little in between.

[ElJamoquio]

you forgot to quote:

15-65 f/2.5 APS-C Canon (the actual comparable lens): ? Certainly heavier and more expensive

There's a big difference in weight in cost between a 15-65 f/2.5 and a 17-55 f/2.8. Even assuming you have a 17-55 f/2.5 you're still going to increase your glass volume by 40%. On top of that you're going from a 3.3x zoom to a 4.3x zoom. I'd guess it'd be 50% more expensive at least.

I assume you don't want to price out a 32mm f/0.9 lens. Fair enough.

The only 28mm f/1.8 I know about is FF. Sorry.

I also don't know any 50mm f/4's. I do know that they'd be very light and quite cheap.

50mm f/1.8 FF: $250
32mm f/1.2 APS-C: ?

21mm f/3.2 APS-C: $650, 140 grams
33mm f/5 FF: ?
35mm f/2.4 FF: $250, 124 grams

It's tough to make a direct comparison, true, because there's not many slow (f/4-f/8) FF lenses out there. There are some, but they're never directly comparable.

For instance - Nikon 24-120 f/4 - 700 grams, $1300.
Nikon 15-77 f/2.5 - doesn't exist, would be huge and expensive
Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 - 750 grams, $1400

So yes, if you don't care about a lens that's wider, longer, faster, cheaper, and lighter, yes, they're the same.

If you want a lens that's exactly comparable you'd have to design it yourself, yes. With the coming decrease in sensor prices manufacturers will start producing cheaper FF lenses (as Nikon has already done).

[Anvh]

The thing between FF and APS-C lens is that the differnce is almost cancelled out.
FF needs large image circle and so large elements which mean more material and heavier lens, APS-C needs larger aperture making the lens bigger as well.

Problem for APS-C DSLR is that they are all stuck with a FF mount so FF lenses have an edge there since the mount is designed for them.

[ElJamoquio]

The thing between FF and APS-C lens is that the differnce is almost cancelled out.

Ignoring the wider, longer, lighter, cheaper, and faster advantages that we now 'cancel out', the FF lens will also have 1.5x better resolving power.

Problem for APS-C DSLR is that they are all stuck with a FF mount so FF lenses have an edge there since the mount is designed for them.

True. So the reality is that pentax can continue with APS-C and hope customers ignore the other advantages... or pentax can produce a FF camera.