[Fogel70]

That doesn't currently apply to Pentax 645 lenses, so why would it apply to Pentax FF lenses?

Pentax 645 lenses at SRS

Because 645 is a much larger format than FF, so f/2.8 is considered fast on that system, and Pentax fastest zoom lenses for 645 is f/4.5.

[Barry Pearson]

Because 645 is a much larger format than FF, so f/2.8 is considered fast on that system, and Pentax fastest zoom lenses for 645 is f/4.5.

Somehow this feels wrong. So although a Pentax FF would be intermediate in sensor size between APS-C and 645, it would be expected to have a lens range typically with faster apertures than either of them?

No one would look at the K-mount lens range and say "f/2.8 is for zooms". That only applies to 2 out of about 11 in the current range, neither of which I have. 2 of my primes are f/2.8 and f/4 respectively, yet these are respectable lenses in the K-mount range, (although I accept they are not normal or WA): 100mm WR Macro and DA* 300mm.

I am one of those likely to buy a Pentax FF if I can see its advantages, but experience had told me that I don't need such fast lenses as those quoted. Would such lenses be necessary for Pentax FF to take off, or is it a niche requirement that Pentax could afford not to pursue? I suspect the latter, at least initially.

[RonHendriks1966]

I have the feeling that when Pentax would introduce a zoomseries off lenses that have a fast aperture off f3.5 the lenses would shrink in size, and would be a lot cheaper.

14-28mm/f3.5
28-80mm/f3.5
80-200mm/f3.5

Won't break the bank nor your back.

[Fogel70]

Somehow this feels wrong. So although a Pentax FF would be intermediate in sensor size between APS-C and 645, it would be expected to have a lens range typically with faster apertures than either of them?

Users getting FF want lenses to match the best lenses competitors have. And as Pentax probably can't compete with the cheapest FF cameras on the market, they need to compete on the middle range of the FF market (D800, 5D Mk III). F/2.8 prime lenses is not what those users want, they want top of the line f/2.8 zoom lenses or f/1.4 - f/2.0 WA to normal prime lenses.

No one would look at the K-mount lens range and say "f/2.8 is for zooms". That only applies to 2 out of about 11 in the current range, neither of which I have. 2 of my primes are f/2.8 and f/4 respectively, yet these are respectable lenses in the K-mount range, (although I accept they are not normal or WA): 100mm WR Macro and DA* 300mm.

I did not say that all zoom lenses should be f/2.8, so there is a place for slower than f/2.8 zoom lenses too, but slower zoom lenses will mostly be needed when there are cheaper FF cameras available.. But a 28/2.8 prime lens would be comparable to a 100/4 macro or a 300/5.6 prime lens.

I am one of those likely to buy a Pentax FF if I can see its advantages, but experience had told me that I don't need such fast lenses as those quoted. Would such lenses be necessary for Pentax FF to take off, or is it a niche requirement that Pentax could afford not to pursue? I suspect the latter, at least initially.

Then FF will probably be too expensive for you until it's available in the low budget segment ($1500).

[Winder]

It would be interesting to see the data on this. I imagine it's true, though.

Range Finder Magazine runs a yearly industry report. If you subscribe to PDN or Range Finder I think you can access it on-line.

[Winder]

I'm not familiar with the sequence of Sony lenses, nor the details for wedding photographers (although I can speculate).

How would this translate to a Pentax FF? Zooms? Wide and mid-range? What aperture?

The CZ 85 & 135 were released first if I recall, but the 24-70 CZ was released with the A900.

[NotaxPen]

My first camera was FF and I only had a 50mm f1.8. I think they could launch a FF with only one lens, or no new lenses, just with what's already available. Most of the persons who want FF Pentax already have FF lenses. Sure, they will have to eventually introduce new lenses to entice new users and hopefully users of other brands, but all they really need to launch a FF camera is ........ ... ..... A FF CAMERA!

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Users getting FF want lenses to match the best lenses competitors have. And as Pentax probably can't compete with the cheapest FF cameras on the market, they need to compete on the middle range of the FF market (D800, 5D Mk III). F/2.8 prime lenses is not what those users want, they want top of the line f/2.8 zoom lenses or f/1.4 - f/2.0 WA to normal prime lenses.

I m not worried about the cost of lenses, but about their size and weight. Currently, I'm running two systems - Nikon for FF and Pentax for APS-C. The only f2.8 zoom I have for FF is the 14-24G, and I find that bulky and prone to flare, though it is an amazing lens in other respects. For wider apertures, I rely on primes. I did have the Nikon AF-S 80-200 f2.8, but because of its size and weight I sold it and bought the much lighter 70-300 f4.5-5.6G, which though not as good optically, is sharp enough for what I do. For me, the Pentax system is about all-weather, go anywhere portability and I for one (though I may be in a minority) would be happy with a set of optically great f4 zooms if Ricoh ever decide to make a full-frame camera system. Personally, I'd like to see a 12-24, 24-105, and 70-300. That would do me nicely!

[Barry Pearson]

I m not worried about the cost of lenses, but about their size and weight. Currently, I'm running two systems - Nikon for FF and Pentax for APS-C. The only f2.8 zoom I have for FF is the 14-24G, and I find that bulky and prone to flare, though it is an amazing lens in other respects. For wider apertures, I rely on primes. I did have the Nikon AF-S 80-200 f2.8, but because of its size and weight I sold it and bought the much lighter 70-300 f4.5-5.6G, which though not as good optically, is sharp enough for what I do. For me, the Pentax system is about all-weather, go anywhere portability and I for one (though I may be in a minority) would be happy with a set of optically great f4 zooms if Ricoh ever decide to make a full-frame camera system. Personally, I'd like to see a 12-24, 24-105, and 70-300. That would do me nicely!

My "workhorse" lenses are all f/4: 12-24mm, 17-70mm, and 60-250mm. I too would be happy with optically great f/4 zooms, as long as they were very good fully open.

[Aristophanes]

Users getting FF want lenses to match the best lenses competitors have. And as Pentax probably can't compete with the cheapest FF cameras on the market, they need to compete on the middle range of the FF market (D800, 5D Mk III). F/2.8 prime lenses is not what those users want, they want top of the line f/2.8 zoom lenses or f/1.4 - f/2.0 WA to normal prime lenses.

By far the best sellers for Canon is their f/4 L-glass. It hits a sweet spot for price/performance for pros and amateurs alike. I see them everywhere.

The market for cameras over $2,000/body unit is tiny. Pentax has never ever sold into that category in their history in 135 neither in lenses nor in bodies, even taking into account the LX. Look for a D600 competitor because it is impossible given Pentax's limited lens production capacities to compete with either Canon or Nikon optical factories which have something like a dozen lines going full on all the time, and Pentax with 2.

Since the camera market is slowing releasing a top-end FF at $3,000/unit is suicide because you now have even less buyers. For Pentax it's all about a minimum break-even volume.

Pentax needs a cheap body to leave consumer headroom for decent glass. Over 80% of lenses sold are zooms.

You have to remember the entire medium format digital market is under 3,000 units per year, and Pentax may have 20% of that market.

[hangman43]

My "workhorse" lenses are all f/4: 12-24mm, 17-70mm, and 60-250mm. I too would be happy with optically great f/4 zooms, as long as they were very good fully open.

F/4 might work for you but I personally would not be able to survive what I do without a 70-200mm F/2.8 80 percent of my shooting could be done with a slower lens but at least 4 events a year I would have to have a fast zoom.

[Aristophanes]

F/4 might work for you but I personally would not be able to survive what I do without a 70-200mm F/2.8 80 percent of my shooting could be done with a slower lens but at least 4 events a year I would have to have a fast zoom.

And there's the crux of the Pentax FF lens dilemma.

Some will require the f/2.8 but most will only be able to afford the f/4's.

And most shooters mix in both for economy.

To get a sliver of the FF market at a viable size to be profitable will mean Pentax has to dabble in both at very, very small volumes, but still stay price competitive both in glass and bodies with Canikong and Sonly.

[rawr]

The Sigma and Tamron 70-200 2.8's are FF, as are their 28-75 2.8's. There are also some nice FF 1.4's (35, 85 etc) that are available for FF K mount from third parties. Fast lens using Pentax FF users will hardly be left with no options if there is any delay in Pentax revitalising it's FF lens lineup.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

The Sigma and Tamron 70-200 2.8's are FF, as are their 28-75 2.8's. There are also some nice FF 1.4's (35, 85 etc) that are available for FF K mount from third parties. Fast lens using Pentax FF users will hardly be left with no options if there is any delay in Pentax revitalising it's FF lens lineup.

Agreed, but for FF to be viable for Pentax, I imagine they would need to sell appropriate lenses as well.

[Barry Pearson]

Agreed, but for FF to be viable for Pentax, I imagine they would need to sell appropriate lenses as well.

Should Ricoh/Pentax supply only those fast FF lenses, especially zooms? Or should they sell both those fast lenses and cheaper and lighter f/4 FF lenses? (Or something else?)

If they sell only those fast lenses, I doubt if they will sell many of them. I don't think the sort of people who will buy an FF camera from Pentax will typically (there will be exceptions) buy a whole set of such lenses, and their return on investment will be slow. If they sell both sets of lenses, I would expect them to sell far more of the cheaper, lighter, ones. I assume that is what is happening with their current variety of lenses.

I don't believe that Pentax could expect to help gain a return on their investment in an FF camera by selling lots of expensive fast zooms. I think the most they will be able to do to start with is supply a sufficient set of FF lenses for enable them to claim that the FF camera is part of a viable system, and hope to sell those cheaper lenses in large numbers.

Later they may add to the FF range of lenses. But they know they are not only competing with Sigma for such lenses, but also with older FF Pentax lenses! How many people say in forums "I want an FF camera so that I can exploit my old glass"?

I would like to know how these return on investment decisions are made in Ricoh. Can the advocates of a new product X say "it will help sell product Y" and get away with it? Or does product X mostly have to stand by itself? I find it hard to believe they can say "make an FF camera, then to get a return also invest in fast zooms and sell them in sufficient quantities to supplement the return on the FF camera".