[Shuttershane]

I figured I would start up a thread about this upcoming lens. Personally I am excited about it. Right now my 2 goto lenses for portraits have been the 120mm f4 and 150mm f2.8. 90% of the time I use the 120 at about f11-16. I use the 150mm usually at f2.8 for that really shallow dof. The issue with the 150 is how long it is. The issue with the 120mm is that its a macro....so if you miss focus it's a pain (slowwwww). I think the 90 will fill the gap.

I really hope this lens is nice and sharp.

I also hope its affordable. Anyone have any guesses as to what the price will be?

Anyone else excited about this lens?

[Adam]

My price guess: $2999. I'm sure it'll do well as a portrait lens, though I would opt for something a little longer.

[Yamanobori]

... though I would opt for something a little longer.

The mock up I saw at the Pentax Photo Salon was really long for a 90mm--significantly bigger than my 120mm. I will probably stick with my 120 and 67 105...

[NotaxPen]

I don't understand why anyone would want this focal length for portraits. Come on, 60mm equivalent??? WTF are they smoking.
It's not freaking rocket science to figure out they need the crop sensor eqivalent of the fabulous 135mm LS.

[Paul MaudDib]

I don't understand why anyone would want this focal length for portraits. Come on, 60mm equivalent??? WTF are they smoking.
It's not freaking rocket science to figure out they need the crop sensor eqivalent of the fabulous 135mm LS.

Because it's meant for the 645D. 55mm is a normal there, this is a (90/55 = 1.63x normal) ~81mm equivalent lens on crop sensor. Just a bit shorter than 135mm on film (~90mm equivalent).

I wonder how well it'll sell considering it fills a role similar to the 120mm Macro, which is offered in a FA version and is only a small fraction of what the 90/2.8 is speculated above to cost. There's also a 90mm f/2.8 leaf shutter lens for P67, which while manual focus will work fine on the 645. Come to think of it, there's a P67 non-LS 90/2.8 as well. It just seems redundant given the existing/adaptable glass. I'm a 67 guy though, not 645, so maybe everyone has been crying out for an autofocus option between 75 and 120mm and I just don't know it.

[Yamanobori]

And the lens can be optimized for the sensor giving better resolution. It also communicates with the body and so exif and corrections can be attached/made to the file. I have a 67 105mm and I expect this to be a finer lens.

Actually, this will be a great lens for portraiture. The 120mm is a little too long and compresses features too much IMHO. I think they are also billing this for copy work, where this is also a great focal length.

[Shuttershane]

My price guess: $2999. I'm sure it'll do well as a portrait lens, though I would opt for something a little longer.

Man I hope your guess is wrong. I was thinking $1999. $2999 is a little steep IMO. I don't think I would pay $2999 for that lens

[Paul MaudDib]

And the lens can be optimized for the sensor giving better resolution. It also communicates with the body and so exif and corrections can be attached/made to the file. I have a 67 105mm and I expect this to be a finer lens.

Actually, this will be a great lens for portraiture. The 120mm is a little too long and compresses features too much IMHO. I think they are also billing this for copy work, where this is also a great focal length.

"Optimizing for the sensor" seems like a lot of marketing doublespeak to me, on everything except rangefinder lenses. My P67 lenses are quite sharp. If there's something to optimize, then there's a difference in the way film and a sensor receive light. Not just spectral sensitivities, but an actual physical difference in ability to collect light. An example would be if sensors received light coming in at an oblique angle more poorly or something, and that caused color fringing or vignetting at the edges. Since all SLR lenses have the rear element quite far from the film, that seems unlikely. It could be a point with rangefinders, where the rear elements are often much closer to the film/sensor, and I believe Leica does use microlenses and such to try and counter this. They're still known for a bit of a red tint to the edge of their images.

I agree body communication could be a thing, autofocus will be nice, but I doubt it will perform *that much* better than an adapted P67 90/2.8. It's a really good lens with a lot of fans, seems like moreso than the 105/2.4. I'm not saying the new 90/2.8 isn't a good purchase for anyone, only that it seems like it's trying to fulfill a very specific niche (covers 645, 75 is too wide, 120 is too long, zooms are too slow, must have autofocus) and the number of people who both fit in that niche and have $2000-3000 to blow on a lens seems small to me. And yet people tell me there's no market for a FF DLSR body

---

Last edited by Paul MaudDib; 02-09-2012 at 01:14 PM.

[klaus123]

Hello

I would be curious whether this lens in section view is similar to the old 6x7-90/2,8LS.
Honetly I am a little bit disappointed that Pentax does do not exceed the 2.8 to 2,4 or 2.0. With the sensor significantly smaller than full 645 that should have been feasable

[Yamanobori]

"Optimizing for the sensor" seems like a lot of marketing doublespeak to me, on everything except rangefinder lenses. My P67 lenses are quite sharp. If there's something to optimize, then there's a difference in the way film and a sensor receive light. Not just spectral sensitivities, but an actual physical difference in ability to collect light. An example would be if sensors received light coming in at an oblique angle more poorly or something, and that caused color fringing or vignetting at the edges. Since all SLR lenses have the rear element quite far from the film, that seems unlikely. It could be a point with rangefinders, where the rear elements are often much closer to the film/sensor, and I believe Leica does use microlenses and such to try and counter this. They're still known for a bit of a red tint to the edge of their images.

I agree body communication could be a thing, autofocus will be nice, but I doubt it will perform *that much* better than an adapted P67 90/2.8. It's a really good lens with a lot of fans, seems like moreso than the 105/2.4. I'm not saying the new 90/2.8 isn't a good purchase for anyone, only that it seems like it's trying to fulfill a very specific niche (covers 645, 75 is too wide, 120 is too long, zooms are too slow, must have autofocus) and the number of people who both fit in that niche and have $2000-3000 to blow on a lens seems small to me. And yet people tell me there's no market for a FF DLSR body

They can give it more of a telecentric design, which is important with DSLRs, not just rangefinders, and they can also emphasize resolving power over contrast. None of that is marketing but practical changes to the optical formula.

I hope the new lens works better than a P67 90mm. The P67 105mm is OK on the 645D; I have not heard the 90mm is much better.

The number of people who blow $10K on a camera are small too.

[Digitalis]

"Optimizing for the sensor" seems like a lot of marketing doublespeak to me, on everything except rangefinder lenses.

Actually Leica range finder lenses aren't optimised at all for digital sensors* - Leica continues to make their lenses the way they have since the 1950's. However Pentax adds ghostless coatings to counteract ghosting that can be an issue with faster lenses** Also there are other coatings and optical design principles that have to be used to make the most of a CCD sensor - but those optimisations are more important on wide angle rather than short telephoto lenses.


*apart from the lens coding barcodes on the lens mounts, but they only provide rudimentary amount of information on the lens that was used.

**have Have seen it with my SMC-K 50mm f/1.2, which curiously produces ghosts that are nearly always red.

[NotaxPen]

Because it's meant for the 645D. 55mm is a normal there, this is a (90/55 = 1.63x normal) ~81mm equivalent lens on crop sensor. Just a bit shorter than 135mm on film (~90mm equivalent).

I wonder how well it'll sell considering it fills a role similar to the 120mm Macro, which is offered in a FA version and is only a small fraction of what the 90/2.8 is speculated above to cost. There's also a 90mm f/2.8 leaf shutter lens for P67, which while manual focus will work fine on the 645. Come to think of it, there's a P67 non-LS 90/2.8 as well. It just seems redundant given the existing/adaptable glass. I'm a 67 guy though, not 645, so maybe everyone has been crying out for an autofocus option between 75 and 120mm and I just don't know it.

The 135 LS I speak of is NOT a 35mm lens. It is a 645 Leaf Shutter lens which is the equivalent of a 35mm 85mm.

If the 645D crop factor is indeed 1.27, a direct comparison would be 135/1.27=106.3.
106.3mm would be the same FOV on the smaller sensor.
Now of course I'm not expecting exactly 106.3mm, but how about getting in the same ballpark.

The 645 135LS was already a slightly wide-ish portrait lens. Most 645 systems used 150mm, Double the focal length of the "Normal" 75mm.

What am I missing here?

[Shuttershane]

i think the term "portrait lens" is very subjective. Back when I was using MF Film everyone pretty much said 120mm -150mm...anything longer would flatten things. When I moved to my first DSLR everyone was saying 50mm (35mm film equiv). I personally hated using a 50mm so I opted for a canon 85mm and shot it around f8. For me this worked well....no noticeable distortion. I know most people in the portrait professional would laugh at the idea of a 50mm (35 equiv) as a portrait lens.

Now my studio is not as large as I wish it would be. If I had more room a 150mm would be perfect but for now the 120mm works perfectly for me. Going down to a 90mm will work fine for me. I do professional portraits but not on a large scale. Most of my stuff is a mix. Yes I would of rather seen something a little longer

[Venturi]

90mm on a 645D (44x33) has an equivalent angle of view to:

135: 71mm
APS: 46mm
645: 115mm

[RonHendriks1966]

I think for the current sensor this would make a nice portraitlens. I did expect something like 105mm or so. For a real size next 645D it would be a little short for portrait I guess.