[gtl]

I dont know about that, but if so..... an extra 220grams in weight is still certainly worth it for a lens that lets in twice the amount of light

Well I think things have to be relative. 220g is over half the Pentax FA 24mm weight.

[eddie1960]

Comparing a prime to a long zoom is silly.

The FA/24 is 405g, the FA 50/1.4 is only 220g, the 35/2 is 195g.

The FA 100-300 is 395g, but is a lot longer, for obvious reasons.

For a prime, the FA*24/2 is a large lens.

Just as a comparison, the Leica Summilux-M 24mm f/1.4 ASPH is 468g and the Leica 21mm Super-Elmar-M f/ 3.4 ASPH Lens is only 285g.

Fast glass gets big and heavy faster than it attains FOV. With the Leica's lose ~ 2 stops and you lose almost half the size and mass. Now you see why high-ISO sensors are sooting a lot of problems.

Nikon come in at 620g on the 24mm 1.4, but hell it's 1.4 as well. the 24 2.8 comes in at only 270 grams and is pretty compact. both are FX. on a FF cam the 2.8 would meet most peoples needs since at 24 it's not about thin dof. the heavier one would provide subject isolation at closer quarters though (at the expense of weight)
the FA 24 looks like a good compromise in this case. still lighter and smaller than the 2.8 zooms that are ff in this range. (my sigma 24-70 comes in at 715gr. I'd rather carry the FA* any day

[Aristophanes]

That's funny, I consider the FA*24 to be one of my lightest lenses. Certainly compared to my 80-200 it's small and light, but with the exception of the Limiteds, it's not very big on my K10D with attached grip.

Nikon come in at 620g on the 24mm 1.4, but hell it's 1.4 as well. the 24 2.8 comes in at only 270 grams and is pretty compact. both are FX. on a FF cam the 2.8 would meet most peoples needs since at 24 it's not about thin dof. the heavier one would provide subject isolation at closer quarters though (at the expense of weight)
the FA 24 looks like a good compromise in this case. still lighter and smaller than the 2.8 zooms that are ff in this range. (my sigma 24-70 comes in at 715gr. I'd rather carry the FA* any day

No to be silly, but only serious………

My point was that faster and wider = bigger.

Even changing the behind the lens concept town RF = the same dynamic.

Zeiss glass has always been the heavyweight. They have no internal motors, yet have always weighed a tonne.

FF is great, but striving for a very small body when your smallest glass is going to be 400+ grams and quite bulky goes against the grain. Compact 135 cameras like the MZ-S only came out in the 1990's when colour film ISO's increased to 400 easily pushed to 800) ISO. This allowed smaller lenses with the f/3.5 becoming very common as the right compromise between DOF, speed, size, cost and design matched tot he camera.

That still exists in APS-C land as witnessed by the Pentax primes. But FF DSLR gets to be an issue because the bodies have more bulk than film cameras, and fast 2.8 constant zooms are the dominant market lenses, and they have to be large. So a larger body is necessary for balance and structural integrity and power.

It's all about compromises.

[ElJamoquio]

FF is great, but striving for a very small body when your smallest glass is going to be 400+ grams and quite bulky goes against the grain.

Huh?

Check out the FA 50mm f/1.4, the "DA" 40mm F/2.8, the F24-35...

there's definitely small FF glass out there, and if you don't want any faster than equivalent APS-C glass it's basically the same size; the comparisons I've made show the equivalent FF stuff is generally smaller and lighter. It's tough to make an exact comparison, though.

The market seems to like much faster equivalent glass on FF, though.

How much bigger and heavier do you think a FF 24-70 2.8 would be compared to the DA* 16-50 2.8?

There will definitely be a market for a FF f/4, if a zoom eventually becomes available... just like there's the same market for the Canon f/4. How much bigger and heavier do you think the FF 24-70 f/4 (faster on an equivalent basis) will be?

---

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 06-29-2012 at 11:49 AM.

[Aristophanes]

How much bigger and heavier do you think a FF 24-70 2.8 would be compared to the DA* 16-50 2.8?

900g vs. 565

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Autofocus Lens (Black) 2164

Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED SDM Lens 21650 B&H Photo Video

The market seems to like much faster equivalent glass on FF, though.

Canon's EF 85's compared in price/mass:

85/1.8 = $389 @ 425g
85/1.2 = $2,049 @ 1030g

Again from B&H.

[ElJamoquio]

900g vs. 565

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Autofocus Lens (Black) 2164

Pentax SMCP-DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 ED SDM Lens 21650 B&H Photo Video.

OK, and the 24-105 canon f/4 is about 670 grams + $950; and the 24-70 f/2.8 is something like 950 grams and $1900, and the 17-55 f/2.8 is 650 grams + $1100.

Advantage in speed is the FF 24-105 over APS-C and 17-55 (very slight), weight is the 17-55 (very slight), advantage in length is 24-105, advantage in price is the 24-105.

Just general rambling here. Other than the weight of the larger, brighter viewfinder, the larger files/slower FPS, and, well, just the general availability of FF lens options (only 35+ current lenses; with some major gaps in the Pentax-branded lineup), I haven't yet seen a disadvantage in FF... well, there's the initial cost, of course, which I'm guessing will be about $1k higher than the K-5 at intro.

[eddie1960]

OK, and the 24-105 canon f/4 is about 650 grams; and the 24-70 f/2.8 is something like 950 grams, and the 17-55 f/2.8 is 650 grams. Advantage in speed is the FF 24-105 over APS-C and 17-55 (very slight), weight is the same, advantage in length is 24-105.

Just general rambling here. Other than the weight of the larger, brighter viewfinder, the larger files/slower FPS, and, well, just the general availability of FF lens options (only 35+ current lenses; with some major gaps in the Pentax-branded lineup), I haven't yet seen a disadvantage in FF.

The argument for or against is just getting Silly

1. there are perfectly valid reasons for wanting and needing a FF
2. there are just as many perfectly valid reasons for not wanting one and using apsc (or even m 4/3) instead

that sums up the user end

the Pentax ricoh end can only adequately be answered by Pentax Ricoh but
1. FF will continue to grow and be a larger part of the market as sensor costs drop
2. Ricoh wants to grow share dramatically
3. Ricoh has said they think a 4 body DSLR line is necessary (to implement 2 I'm sure)
4 Currently we have 2 bodies. a direct replacement for 1 (the K5 ) is pretty certain in September, given #3 above a lower entry level is highly likely at the same time.....So that leaves body #4. Which could be an even more technically advanced apsc targeted at pro sport shooters (unlike due to lackof lens support) or Perhaps a FF targeted at enthusiasts that takes advantage of the same platform/features as the K5 replacement (much more likely). Pro will continue to mean Medium format in Pentax land (largely like it did for he last 40 years)

[TOUGEFC]

#4 body is the 645D

[Williunck]

I read over at the canon forums that if you drill holes in your lens housing you can eliminate up to 100 grams, 200 on the bigger lenses.

[eddie1960]

#4 body is the 645D

I disagree it's a wholly different category that doesn't even ruire being in the conventional market
In fact Pentax is the only player from that market now

[monochrome]

#4 body is the 645D

Product manager specifically said at CP+ 4 dSLRs. 645D is a specialty camera.

[TOUGEFC]

Specialty camera or not, its still a DSLR

[mecrox]

Product manager specifically said at CP+ 4 dSLRs. 645D is a specialty camera.

It's a little hard to see how that's going to happen quickly or how 4 DSLRs can be squashed into APS-C now that the format is being challenged from above and below. Over the past year, Pentax have produced only one DSLR and it's not even out yet, the K30. Are they going to produce another three between now and the end of the year? Unlikely, at a guess. In fact since the spring, Pentax have really had only one DSLR in play, the K5. The K-r has been on end of stock or last few remaining etc around here.

Even Nikon might reduce their range of APS-C cameras, for example by letting their new 3200 occupy the old slots of both the D3000 and D5000 range or at the higher end a new D400 which does the same for the D7000 and D300s. I think we may have to wait until the end of next year before we see four Pentax DSLRs out at one time, if ever. Plans change, the market moves more quickly than was thought, etc. It could be that APS-C mirrorless will play a more important role in the Pentax line than was envisaged in 2011, for example. The K-01 is a more powerful camera than the naysayers think and a K-02 done right - with a more powerful processor driving Prime M, better autofocus, EVF options and every vestige of airport furniture designer chic removed - would be even more powerful still. I'd prefer to see that prediction as "four bodies which take the full range of K-mount lenses".

[Pål Jensen]

It's a little hard to see how that's going to happen quickly or how 4 DSLRs can be squashed into APS-C now that the format is being challenged from above and below.

It isn't. It is on the increase saleswise....

[Brangdon]

1. there are perfectly valid reasons for wanting and needing a FF
2. there are just as many perfectly valid reasons for not wanting one and using apsc (or even m 4/3) instead

On 2, given a FF can be cropped to give identical result to APS-C, presumably the valid reasons for wanting APS-C are size, weight and price.