[rawr]

This thread should be stickied.

[monochrome]

@Adam I agree with rawr

[interested_observer]

Yeah, I think there's a wink in his comment. Our lens catalog is excellent.

Both Canon and Nikon have larger lens libraries because they support both lenses with and without stabilization. Given that the stabilization will hopefully be in the body, that essentially doubles Pentax's lens count....

[monochrome]

Both Canon and Nikon have larger lens libraries because they support both lenses with and without stabilization. Given that the stabilization will hopefully be in the body, that essentially doubles Pentax's lens count....

Alternative view, it halves CaNikon's (FL)/(Av) count.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 02-12-2016 at 02:50 PM.

[Imp]

the D-fA 31 is in the wrong place (maybe you mean the HD 40 f/2.8 ltd there), and it'll likely be a 15-30 f/2.8 lens.

Thanks for the compilation!

[dadipentak]

Not too shabby if you look at the 4 (D FA/DA) + 12 (FA) current 645 lenses

But those twelve 645 lenses don't help unless there's a modern 645>K adapter. OTOH, if there were such, Pentax would be offering a pretty attractive system with lots of interchangeability.

[Adam]

But those twelve 645 lenses don't help unless there's a modern 645>K adapter. OTOH, if there were such, Pentax would be offering a pretty attractive system with lots of interchangeability.

I meant that if the 645Z was able to be successful with such a small lens lineup, the FF should be just fine

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[Adam]

Thread has been stickied as requested.

I added some lens database links to the first post, if you don't mind. I also moved the AF 35-70mm lens to the manual focus section, since its unique autofocus is not compatible with modern bodies.

[bertwert]

Thanks for this...
Not that I'll be getting a FF.

[kh1234567890]

Why is the DA55-300 not there ?

[Adam]

Why is the DA55-300 not there ?

Not FF-compatible (most DA lenses aren't). You can of course use DA lenses in crop mode, though.

[kh1234567890]

Originally posted by kh1234567890
Why is the DA55-300 not there ?
Not FF-compatible (most DA lenses aren't).

I must have a 'good' one then ...

[VoiceOfReason]

I do wonder if they will bring back the Sigma 100-300 f/4 and the Sigma 12-24 now.

[rawr]

I do wonder if they will bring back the Sigma 100-300 f/4 and the Sigma 12-24 now.

Sigma seem to only produce small batches - eg the 8-16mm was unavailable for a while in Pentax, now it seems to be available again. Ditto for Sigma on other mounts - eg the Sigma 24-105 on Nikon seems to regularly drop in and out of availability. So it's very possible they could re-issue K-mount lenses that they think might be in demand again.

[beholder3]

The two D-FA lenses in white type in the uppermost chart - is this a new piece of info that has been leaked, or is that still your best working hypothesis? (Not bothered either way; just wondering whether I've missed something, especially with the quite believable and almost-substantiated rumour going around that the UWA zoom will be a rebadged Tamron 15-30.)

They are just a working hypothesis. Actually today it really sounds like 15-30 for the UWA zoom. We'll see soon enough.

the D-fA 31 is in the wrong place (maybe you mean the HD 40 f/2.8 ltd there), and it'll likely be a 15-30 f/2.8 lens.

Yes, I'll correct that in a new version. Some drag and drop error of mine.