Originally posted by pres589 Yeah, and I posted why it doesn't make sense to revisit this sort of lens, the 28-300 superzoom. Were we not supposed to write comments as to why a certain idea maybe doesn't work?
If we can't critique then this thread ain't no fun at all.
You wanted to say:
Why it doesnt make sense in
your oppinion.
And keep in mind that the answer for sure wasn't meant offensive, someone just wanted to underline his point/oppinion.
BTW: This thread is kept in the Full-Frame section. ... just sayin.
---------- Post added 09-06-17 at 04:15 PM ----------
Originally posted by monochrome To properly answer the question we first need to know
- who actually buys Pentax flagship cameras (and mid-range)
- of those, who actually buys new lenses (I buy nearly exclusively used)
- and what for what purposes do Pentax people buy Pentax gear
Only then can the question be correctly answered. It might more properly be stated, "Which legacy lens designs could Pentax profitably* update and sell today?"
Appealing though the idea might be, could they really do a D FA*200/4 Macro? OTOH, would a D FA 35/2 DC WR HD sell for $499?
Yes they could. If a lens is not too wide angle, i guess not too much revision will have to be done.
And, oh yes it would!! At least one unit, since i am really hot after a full-frame capable 35mm thats weather sealed.
Not that i would have bought a K-1 already(I plan ahead...>), but I still feel hope for me, that Ricoh-Imaging once will offer a fast FF DSLR instead of a "pixeldense" one... and the sharpness on such a "D FA 35/2 DC WR HD" will be good across the whole frame on APS-C anyway, if its actually made for a FF sensor...