[fwbigd]

According to Photo Rumors Ricoh has file a patent for a full framed 60mm F2.8 Macro. The latest patents from Canon, Olympus, Ricoh, Sigma and Panasonic | Photo Rumors

[Na Horuk]

60mm f2.8 macro? Well thats weird. Pentax already has 35mm, 50mm, and 100mm, and all are very good. 60mm seems like an odd focal length for macro, when you already have a nice lineup.. and the 50mm and 100mm are already full frame..

[Dan]

60mm f2.8 macro? Well thats weird. Pentax already has 35mm, 50mm, and 100mm, and all are very good. 60mm seems like an odd focal length for macro, when you already have a nice lineup.. and the 50mm and 100mm are already full frame..

The current 50mm macro does not have SR; the new lens is listed as "Macro 60mm f/2.8 SR (35mm Full Size)". This may suggest that Pentax has given up on introducing SR in the body of their FF camera, and will instead issue a new line of premium FF lenses incorporating SR. This would also explain why Pentax has not updated the 50mm macro the way they did the 100mm (with a metal body and weather seals). The current 50mm macro is very sharp, but its plastic construction has a rather cheap feel to it.

Dan

[ofer4]

Canon has a 60mm f2.8 macro, too, don't they? Trying to keep up with the Joneses?

And, to be fair, this post also showed a 35mm macro. At that FL, you'll be shoving your camera up a bug's nose to get the shot.

[boriscleto]

Canon has a 60mm f2.8 macro, too, don't they? Trying to keep up with the Joneses?

Nikon does too.

Nikon 60mm AF-D Micro
Nikon 60mm AF-S Micro

[Kikool_CH]

If it helps,

The Canon's 60mm macro is an EF-S, APS-C only, whereas the Nikon's are FF lenses.

Edit : Tamron also makes the TAMRON SP AF 60mm F/2.0 Di II (for Canon, Nikon, and... Sony)

[Na Horuk]

Interesting. Is there any reason why in-lens SR would work better for macro lenses than in-body SR?

Edit: Just remembered that patents can also be used to trick the rival brands and don't always mean that kind of lens is coming. We've seen it before

[vonBaloney]

Interesting. Is there any reason why in-lens SR would work better for macro lenses than in-body SR?

That's an interesting point -- the in-body SR isn't the best for macro distances, so maybe an in-lens macro-specific SR. That would be a special lens indeed...

[Ben78]

Interesting. Is there any reason why in-lens SR would work better for macro lenses than in-body SR?

Stabilised viewfinder would be a big plus for in lens SR for macro. Bugger 60mm though, give me a 180mm!

[blende8]

I would never buy a lens with wobbling elements.
Never, ever.

[vonBaloney]

I would never buy a lens with wobbling elements.
Never, ever.

They are out there already in various forms -- they seem to work great, probably better than Pentax's in-camera version but at much greater cost and weight. It sounds like where it is available for a Pentax lens (like the newest Bigma), the majority prefer the OS stabilization of the lens to the in-body version. Maybe because you can see the difference in the optical viewfinder. But it would be nice for handheld macro. Wobbling elements are nothing to fear, just like wobbling sensors aren't. I don't know exactly how they work, but probably just like a bellows lens (moving elements have always been with us) -- I imagine there is just one element that is allowed to move laterally, shifting the image around a bit, pretty much just like the sensor shift.

But it also seems like Pentax should just add the extra sensors it needs to the body so it could handle this with the sensor also. (As I understand it, the Pentax sensors are only currently only picking up rotational movements.)

[Paul MaudDib]

They are out there already in various forms -- they seem to work great, probably better than Pentax's in-camera version but at much greater cost and weight.

Pentax DA 18-55 AL WR: 225g, $196 at BH
Canon 18-55mm IS II: 201g, $199 at BH

Say what now?

[vonBaloney]

Pentax DA 18-55 AL WR: 225g, $196 at BH
Canon 18-55mm IS II: 201g, $199 at BH

Say what now?

But you have to "re-buy" the feature for each lens...

[ElJamoquio]

But you have to "re-buy" the feature for each lens...

At an extra $3 / lens!


When I first purchased a 'real' digital camera, Pentax had a great incentive - focus and stabilization are in the camera, and as such the prices of lenses were reasonable.

Now the Pentax lens prices are enormous; if anything more than other manufacturers. They still take great pictures of course but the cost advantage in lenses just isn't there.

[vonBaloney]

At an extra $3 / lens!


When I first purchased a 'real' digital camera, Pentax had a great incentive - focus and stabilization are in the camera, and the prices of lenses are reasonable.

Now the Pentax lens prices are enormous. They still take great pictures of course but the cost advantage in lenses just isn't there.

You're comparing apples & oranges, but yes their lens prices are too much. And don't have OS anyway cause they don't need them...