[starbase218]

I think this is a letdown. If not for us, then for Pentax itself. The K-3 is a great professional-level fast APS-C camera. But more than that, it was perceived by some to be unique in its class. The D7100 and 70D came close, but the K-3 has a bigger buffer and build quality and can be considered a level above those competing cameras. The problem, however, was that Pentax did not release any interesting lenses to capitalize on that achievement. Worse still, Tamron and Sigma seem to be dropping support for the K-mount. A great camera is a good start, but it's the system as a whole that matters most.

And now, the situation has changed. Canon has announced the 7D mark II, and 3 new lenses. And both Tamron and Sigma (not to mention Tokina - you can get the 16-50 and 50-135 2.8's for Canon) fully support the EF mount. I think this will make it a lot more difficult for Pentax to change the market as they want to. The Canon alternative is a very viable one.

Also, there is no indication whatsoever regarding the intended audience of at least 2 of these lenses. The "large diameter zoom" is supposed to be the 70-200, and that was a * lens on the roadmap. But while the standard zoom had the * designation at first, it was removed later on. So there is no clue as to the intended audience for this lens. And the description "high magnification super zoom" reminds me of the 18-270, not a 100-400. Regardless of what it will be, there is again no indication of the intended audience for this lens.

I'm not saying Pentax is doomed, but I am saying that perhaps Pentax is making it increasingly difficult for itself to achieve its ambitious objectives as outlined by Ricoh. Especially considering the release of the niche-niche (niche within a niche) 20-40mm Limited. I have to wonder if these three lenses could have been ready now by postponing development of that lens.

[Raffwal]

So much talk of the coming FF camera since Ricoh acquired Pentax. Countless posts during the last year how the Photokina 2014 announcement was virtually certain. And now, Ricoh announces virtually nothing. If I cared any more, I'd be seriously pissed.

[i_trax]

i just purchased DA 18-135 ( used) and tonight Carl Zeiss Jena II 2.8 28mm macro PKA ( used ) , I have well too many lenses as it is.
I probably will be ok for next 10 years with my lenses so I am very happy with Pentax progress, but on the other hand if they come up with fast good 16-85 and 100-400 I probably will get them, no hurry but.......
very happy with Pentax!

[monochrome]

The FF is dead. Long live the FF.



645Z

[JinDesu]

I have a feeling where this thread is headed . . .

Don't worry, I took care of that heading in my first post.

[Stavri]

I think this is a letdown. If not for us, then for Pentax itself. The K-3 is a great professional-level fast APS-C camera. But more than that, it was perceived by some to be unique in its class. The D7100 and 70D came close, but the K-3 has a bigger buffer and build quality and can be considered a level above those competing cameras. The problem, however, was that Pentax did not release any interesting lenses to capitalize on that achievement. Worse still, Tamron and Sigma seem to be dropping support for the K-mount. A great camera is a good start, but it's the system as a whole that matters most.

I personally have the opposite problem on the pentax system, too many great lenses and too little cash on my bank account. I don't understand why people complain (or worry about the future with lens manufacturer's "dropping" the support of the K-mount) The Fa/ Da limited and Da* lenses are top notch. We shouldn't equate older design with outdated-ness. If you want faster primes you still have great Sigma lenses (20,28 f1.8, 30 f1.4, 85mm f1.4 etc) Pentax only need a few more lenses in its lineup like an affordable long telephoto zoom which is being addressed in the roadmap.

The Pentax FA 43mm f1.9 was shipped in Leica mount for god sake, that's how great of a lens it is. The Fa limited are in the Leica/Zeiss category and lenses don't get any better than that. And the Da* zooms and primes are great. If you're one of those that worry about bumping your MTF values by 150 every year to feel "competitive" then in my opinion photography may not be for you.

If you want more "choice" then go with Canon,the company hasn't been profitable for a long time, i wonder why?!

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM



Canon standard zoom lenses

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM
Canon EF 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 V USM
Canon EF 28-90mm f4-5.6 II
Canon EF 28-90mm f4-5.6 II USM
Canon EF 28-90mm f4-5.6 III
Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 III
Canon EF 28-105mm f4-5.6
Canon EF 28-105mm f4-5.6 USM
Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 II USM
Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 28-300mm f3.5-5.6L IS USM


Canon telephoto zoom lenses

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III
Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM
Canon EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6
Canon EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

Canon wide-angle prime lenses

Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
Canon EF 24 mm f/2.8
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM
Canon EF 28mm f/2.8
Canon EF 35mm f/2.0
Canon EF 35 mm f/1.4L USM



Canon standard prime lenses

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM


Canon telephoto prime lenses

Canon EF 85 mm f/1.8 USM
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
Canon EF 100 mm f/2.0 USM
Canon EF 135 mm f/2.8 SF
Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM
Canon EF 200mm f2L IS USM
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 400 mm f/5.6L USM
Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 600mm f/4.0L IS USM
Canon EF 800mm f5.6L IS USM
Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM


Canon EF-S lenses

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS
Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro USM



Canon macro, TS and TC lenses

Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro USM
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
Canon EF 180 mm f/3.5L Macro USM
Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro
Canon MP-E65 f/2.8 1-5 x Macro
Canon TS-E 17 mm f/4L
Canon TS-E 24 mm f/3.5L
Canon TS-E 24 mm f/3.5L II
Canon TS-E 45 mm f/2.8
Canon TS-E 90 mm f/2.8
Canon Extender EF 1.4x II
Canon Extender EF 2X II

[starbase218]

If you're one of those that worry about bumping your MTF values by 150 every year to feel "competitive" then in my opinion photography may not be for you.

Well, you have me all figured out, haven't you?

For the record, I use a MacBook Pro with retina screen. So even if I wanted to pixel-peep, I can't, because the pixels are too small for the human eye to discern. And you know what? I'm actually happy about it.

In terms of lenses, I find myself wanting a new tele. I have had the 55-300 for over 5 years and it's been great, but now I want something better. And the choices, unfortunately, are limited. The 60-250 is an option, but the 250 seems to be less than that (perhaps something like 220) and I really like being able to go to 300mm.

But my post was meant as constructive criticism towards Pentax. I think they may have had a window of opportunity: the K-3 was perceived as a unique camera, as it was the only recent professional APS-C camera, or at least it was perceived that way, and that's what matters. But some of Pentax's lenses are not perceived as being so great. DA* lenses in particular, have the reputation of being slow to autofocus.

Note that I write things like "they have the reputation" and "the K-3 was perceived as...". Whatever the truth is, it doesn't matter when it comes to selling gear. Perception matters. (Though, in this case, I think the perception of DA* lenses being slow to focus when compared to other brand's professional line-ups is pretty accurate.)

With regard to your claim that Canon hasn't been profitable for a long time: I'm not sure of the relevance, but this seems to contradict it anyway: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/canon-net-profit-jumps-22-on-mfp-sales-2014-07-24.

---

Last edited by starbase218; 09-15-2014 at 08:31 AM.

[savoche]

I'll bet they still won't fill the gap between the DA40 and the FA43. When will they start listening to their customers?!!11!

[Kenntak]

Don't worry, I took care of that heading in my first post.

Oh I see that, LOL

[Stavri]

Well, you have me all figured out, haven't you?

For the record, I use a MacBook Pro with retina screen. So even if I wanted to pixel-peep, I can't, because the pixels are too small for the human eye to discern. And you know what? I'm actually happy about it.

In terms of lenses, I find myself wanting a new tele. I have had the 55-300 for over 5 years and it's been great, but now I want something better. And the choices, unfortunately, are limited. The 60-250 is an option, but the 250 seems to be less than that (perhaps something like 220) and I really like being able to go to 300mm.

But my post was meant as constructive criticism towards Pentax. I think they may have had a window of opportunity: the K-3 was perceived as a unique camera, as it was the only recent professional APS-C camera, or at least it was perceived that way, and that's what matters. But some of Pentax's lenses are not perceived as being so great. DA* lenses in particular, have the reputation of being slow to autofocus.

Note that I write things like "they have the reputation" and "the K-3 was perceived as...". Whatever the truth is, it doesn't matter when it comes to selling gear. Perception matters. (Though, in this case, I think the perception of DA* lenses being slow to focus when compared to other brand's professional line-ups is pretty accurate.)

Shopping on a Pentax system is like shopping at Trader Joe's, they don't carry lots of brands and the selection might feel limited, but the products taste great and are good for you. (As a bonus it drastically cuts down my shopping time)

I agree with you 100% that the pentax system is lacking in options for high quality long telephoto lenses. I also understand your question (and frustration), why make an awesome APS-C camera, such a great tool for wildlife photography, when there's not a lot of quality glass to go with it? I assume Pentax surveyed the market and decided that it is too niche to invest heavily in it. (Canon/Nikon only profitable products are they're entry/mid level cameras. Pentax cannot afford to throw capital around and needs to stay profitable right now, which explains the new KS-1) For wildlife and birding enthusiasts Pentax is indeed lacking and Canon and Nikon are better systems in that regard (by their extensive glass lineups and 3-rd party support, which makes their long telephoto lenses more affordable to own). I personally have a Sigma Ex DG 300mm f2.8 (one of the few lenses where the 1.4x and 2x TC work well in AF) but my set up is not affordable by any means. The DA*300 seems a better choice although not cheap, and works well with the new 1.4x converters. For longer and faster glass, one has to shell out lots of money no matter what system they use.

[shhh]

Agree with Stavri's post above.

Pentax have a great body in the K3, and really the long telephoto selection lets it down, A 70-200 f2.8, or a longer 100-300 maybe at f4.

This would be great for wildlife, and in my view should have been a priority to get to the market at the time the K3 was being developed. Not just the rehash of the 55-300.

Sorry, just my two cents worth

[Doundounba]

BTW, let's hope Ricoh will define "coming" (as in "Three New K-Mount Lenses Coming") a bit more precisely than "soon" before Photokina is over...

[Stavri]

Agree with Stavri's post above.

Pentax have a great body in the K3, and really the long telephoto selection lets it down, A 70-200 f2.8, or a longer 100-300 maybe at f4.

This would be great for wildlife, and in my view should have been a priority to get to the market at the time the K3 was being developed. Not just the rehash of the 55-300.

Sorry, just my two cents worth

300mm is considered the minimum focal distance for wildlife/birding. You need 400mm + (500-600mm optimal) to get outstanding results in reality. The newer DA 560 is a great performer and affordable (I saw a used ones on ebay selling for $3700, that's brand new Sigma EX 300 f2.8 or used Sigma 500mm f4.5 money) I can see why Pentax has decided that this lens answered the needs of birding enthusiasts for the moment.

here's some photos with the DA 560 from a fellow member: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/273130-nature-bird-sh...m-f-5-6-a.html