[lithedreamer]

In the next 6 month we get 3 till 5 new primes,next *Zoom is possible to be a medium telezoom 4.0 .
Also a wide 4.0 is possible in the next 12 month.
Both made and patented by Pentax Ricoh.
I also asked an oem for next converter,fullframe in this case,but I got no concrete answer.
The APS-C converter was produced in 400 pieces at first production run and was sold out in a couple of hours.
It was Pentax patented.

Hmm. None of that is quite what I'm looking for...

[JimBrennan]

I'm really liking my D FA* 70-200, so much so that I'm finding excuses to shoot subjects in that focal length, and I'm skeptical that the D FA 24-70 or the 15-30 (+ a whole new filter system, ouch) have the same optical quality. Do you think Ricoh might add D FA* zooms, or will they consider this range covered?

The HD FA 24-70 2.8 zoom is an awesome lens I would recommend it to anyone. Great on the K1, BIG super duper prints! Sharp !

[mee]

I hope in the middle term, if Pentax achieve more user base, we could see some f4* zooms.

Yes please. I hope these come sooner than later. 24-105 or 24-120mm f/4 and a 70-200 f/4

[Winder]

In the next 6 month we get 3 till 5 new primes

Is there any information about these 3-5 primes that you can share?

[eurostar]

Medium zoom *f/4 is exactly what I need. It looks it will be my next purchase, whenever it will come out. 24-120 would be just perfect.

[Kunzite]

After 400 was the first sale in the shops,1000 could be the standard production run.
But the first step for shipping was only approximately 400 pieces.
Best regards

P.S. :I got this from the producer.

Thank you, I was concerned about a contradiction but there's none. Indeed, a first batch don't have to be the production for a full month.

[ffking]

majoring, as they do, on optical excellence and build quality, the * lenses are fairly conservative in zoom range, and don't push the limits on max aperture either - so I'd anticipate a couple of 2-3x zoom range at maybe f/4 in D-FA* - eventually, but, unless Ricoh are going more mainstream, they might retain the Pentax tradition of quirky (although actually valid - 43mm for instance is the best approximation to the focal length of our eyes) focal lengths.

[normhead]

Why am I the only one who doesn't seem to have a problem with nice 3.5-5.6 zooms? Given the overall inefficiency of zooms in general they are in my view a waste of money. My 60-250 has a big enough front element to provide ƒ1.2 at 60mm, it gives me ƒ4. Absolute waste.

[Rondec]

Why am I the only one who doesn't seem to have a problem with nice 3.5-5.6 zooms? Given the overall inefficiency of zooms in general they are in my view a waste of money. My 60-250 has a big enough front element to provide ƒ1.2 at 60mm, it gives me ƒ4. Absolute waste.

I don't like variable zooms for a few reasons. First of all, the quality often isn't there as much. Brands seem to put a lot more effort into constant aperture zooms -- whether they be f4 or f2.8 than they do into variable aperture zooms. I don't like the fact that the apertures are wider at the wide end rather than the other way around. If I have a 18-135, I would far rather deal with an f5.6 aperture at the 18mm end than at the 135 mm end. Finally, it is kind of aggravating if you have certain settings set and then zoom in and the aperture suddenly flips to something different.

Obviously you can deal with all of these things. I own a 55-300 and if you set the aperture to f8, you can deal OK, but if you are shooting at 100mm and have an aperture of f5.6, which should give decent quality, and then zoom in to 300mm, while the aperture will stay the same, the quality of the image won't be great unless you stop down a little more. Not a big deal, but it is a lot easier if you don't have to think about it as much.

As to whether or not your 60-250 could actually be a variable f1.2 - f4 zoom, it seems unlikely, regardless of the size of the front element. Seems like the image quality would suck mightily if you let the aperture go that wide.

[normhead]

As to whether or not your 60-250 could actually be a variable f1.2 - f4 zoom, it seems unlikely, regardless of the size of the front element. Seems like the image quality would suck mightily if you let the aperture go that wide.

But , my point was, if it were a prime with that size of front element it would be 1.2. At 60 mm only a fraction of that front element is being used.

It's all about weight efficiency for me.

Another thing you seem to have not noticed, DoF is wider at the same distance with wider angle glass, so really having a smaller ƒ-stop in the long end works to keep your DoF the same.

The quality issue, I'm not even sure where that comes from. At many focal lengths at their available apertures, both the DA 18-135 and DA 16-85 out perform the DA*16-50, so I'd suggest the opposite might be true. There would seem to be more compromises in producing a fixed aperture zoom than a variable. The fact that many variable aperture zooms are cheap just means there are no bargains, well there are, the 18-55 is an incredible bargain). But look at reasonably priced variable soon like the 16-85, and the cost advantage favours variable aperture. Often, better IQ for less money.

I have no problem anyone preferring fixed aperture zooms. It's unfortunate that the reasons you use to justify that are so inaccurate. It gives the impression you are going t get better IQ from a fixed aperture zoom, and that isn't always the case. IN fact using the above lenses, you might ay if you aren't ing narrow DOF, you'll get better IQ for half the price by going variable aperture.

As for the getting caught of guard by the aperture change... that's just a function of using the lens and getting used to what it does. You make it sound like you never used a variable aperture zoom enough to get used to shooting with it. That's just part of learning your lens.

Sure it's probably easier with a fixed aperture lens. Like you might have to take the lens out 15 times instead of 10 to get used to it. But, this little thing you describe, not watching your aperture change in the viewfinder and being caught off guard or using an inappropriate setting, I can't remember it ever happening, like even once. Usually when I have an issue with aperture it's because my finger adjusted the scroll wheel while I was doing something else. I think I'm shooting ƒ8, but I'm shooting ƒ7.1. Now that's an aperture issue that's hard to deal with because I can't anticipate it. The variable aperture change when you zoom out a lens is predictable. It happens exactly the same way every time, If you're capable of learning, you're capable of dealing with it unconsciously and it becomes second nature.

It's just not something I ever think about, and I doubt anyone who has used a variable aperture lens as their main lens for a few hours does.

On the weight scale, primes are more weight efficient than zooms, variable aperture zooms are more weight efficient than fixed aperture zooms. Fixed aperture zooms are the absolute worst, if you have to carry multiple lenses in a camera bag. You can't shoot with what you can't carry. Carry a few fixed aperture zooms and you need a sherpa and a really big camera bag. Where I go, I have seen photgraphers with both. No one is ever in as bad a mood as a photographer on a portage trying to muscle a huge pelican case over a km. And I've seen photographers miss great photo opportunities because their 15-30 type zoom was so heavy they left it in camp when they went for a hike. Meanwhile I was happily snapping away with my Sigma 8-16 variable aperture lens. You can go fixed aperture, but, there are consequences.

[Rondec]

But , my point was, if it were a prime with that size of front element it would be 1.2. At 60 mm only a fraction of that front element is being used.

It's all about weight efficiency for me.

Another thing you seem to have not noticed, DoF is wider at the same distance with wider angle glass, so really having a smaller ƒ-stop in the long end works to keep your DoF the same.

The quality issue, I'm not even sure where that comes from. At many focal lengths at their available apertures, both the DA 18-135 and DA 16-85 out perform the DA*16-50, so I'd suggest the opposite might be true. There would seem to be more compromises in producing a fixed aperture zoom than a variable. The fact that many variable aperture zooms are cheap just means there are no bargains, well there are, the 18-55 is an incredible bargain). But look at reasonably priced variable soon like the 16-85, and the cost advantage favours variable aperture. Often, better IQ for less money.

I have no problem anyone preferring fixed aperture zooms. It's unfortunate that the reasons you use to justify that are so inaccurate. It gives the impression you are going t get better IQ from a fixed aperture zoom, and that isn't always the case. IN fact using the above lenses, you might ay if you aren't ing narrow DOF, you'll get better IQ for half the price by going variable aperture.

As for the getting caught of guard by the aperture change... that's just a function of using the lens and getting used to what it does. You make it sound like you never used a variable aperture zoom enough to get used to shooting with it. That's just part of learning your lens.

Sure it's probably easier with a fixed aperture lens. Like you might have to take the lens out 15 times instead of 10 to get used to it. But, this little thing you describe, not watching your aperture change in the viewfinder and being caught off guard or using an inappropriate setting, I can't remember it ever happening, like even once. Usually when I have an issue with aperture it's because my finger adjusted the scroll wheel while I was doing something else. I think I'm shooting ƒ8, but I'm shooting ƒ7.1. Now that's an aperture issue that's hard to deal with because I can't anticipate it. The variable aperture change when you zoom out a lens is predictable. It happens exactly the same way every time, If you're capable of learning, you're capable of dealing with it unconsciously and it becomes second nature.

It's just not something I ever think about, and I doubt anyone who has used a variable aperture lens as their main lens for a few hours does.

Of course, the fact that your lens covers from 60mm to 250mm is a problem if you only shoot at 60mm, but it is a benefit as well if you need more flexibility. Zooms, particularly quality ones that cover telephoto focal lengths are big puppies. I don't know what else to say there.

At f8 most modern lenses are going to be pretty decent, but as you know well, if you are shooting in questionable light or if you want to stick a TC on your lens, having a wider aperture on the long end of your lens is beneficial.

As far as the whole aperture changing with zooming, not everyone is as awesome as you, Norm, and I am not always paying close attention to my settings. I try to, but there are plenty of times when I zoom a little and suddenly my images are softer than they should be.

Be that as it may, there is a lot more quality put into a 60-250 f4 than into the DA 55-300 and it is visible in the images that are produced by both lenses (there'd better be, as the cost differential is quite a bit between them too).

[normhead]

As far as the whole aperture changing with zooming, not everyone is as awesome as you, Norm, and I am not always paying close attention to my settings. I try to, but there are plenty of times when I zoom a little and suddenly my images are softer than they should be.

It's not that I'm awesome, it's that I've had so many disasters, I check out of force of habit all the time. As I said, shorter learning curve with fixed aperture.

[Winder]

Medium zoom *f/4 is exactly what I need. It looks it will be my next purchase, whenever it will come out. 24-120 would be just perfect.

I doubt we will see more than a 3x F/4 if it has the * tag. Ricoh obviously have very limited resources when it comes to lens design. I doubt we will see any new STAR zooms for a year or two. I hope we get a STAR 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm first and updated Limited lenses.

[eurostar]

I doubt we will see more than a 3x F/4 if it has the * tag. .

24-70/4 is a tad short, compared to Canon and others 24-105, but * quality and AW would make that still an ideal lens for my needs.

[mee]

I hope we get a STAR 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm first and updated Limited lenses.

Are you planning to buy all of those including all of the updated Limiteds??