[texandrews]

just....make....lenses....

so, out of curiosity, what lenses do you want to see? I have my list, but mainly(not all...) they are "renewals", not out right new lenses.

[2351HD]

so, out of curiosity, what lenses do you want to see? I have my list, but mainly(not all...) they are "renewals", not out right new lenses.

I prefer good quality zooms over primes for landscape work as you can act quickly under changing light with a zoom. So I would like to see Pentax do what Fuji is doing, a 45-100 and 100-200, plus a wide prime that takes filters of 18mm equivalent.

Those two zooms are on the Pentax roadmap but never happened.

[rdenney]

I prefer good quality zooms over primes for landscape work as you can act quickly under changing light with a zoom. So I would like to see Pentax do what Fuji is doing, a 45-100 and 100-200, plus a wide prime that takes filters of 18mm equivalent.



Those two zooms are on the Pentax roadmap but never happened.

The 45-85 is one of those already. But it could be slightly updated (as the the 35 was slightly updated), particularly to include weather sealing.

Likewise the 80-160.

A 20-23mm rectilinear would be nice. Put it in a tilt-shift barrel and own the world. Of course, you’d have to own the world to be able to afford it. It needs to be wider enough than 28 not to compete with the 28-45.

A fast 75, say f/1.8, would be very popular.

Update the 300 A* optics to have silent focusing, vibration reduction, and weather sealing.

That’s the easy button, in terms of bringing product to market. But it competes with cheap legacy glass, and that may be part of what is holding Ricoh back. Better would be a 55-110, f/4, with all the goodies, and a 100-300, f/4, both to modern high-end optical standards. Those would be different enough to make legacy glass owners want them.

Rick “whose Canon kit has three L lenses: 24TSE, 24-105/4, and 70-200/4, plus a host of other lenses not really needed to be productive” Denney

[leekil]

A fast 75, say f/1.8, would be very popular.

What is the maximum aperture capability of the 645 system? It's not documented nearly as well as the K-mount. Is a 1.8 even possible?

[SylvainB]

The 45-85 is one of those already. But it could be slightly updated (as the the 35 was slightly updated), particularly to include weather sealing.

Likewise the 80-160.

A 20-23mm rectilinear would be nice. Put it in a tilt-shift barrel and own the world. Of course, you’d have to own the world to be able to afford it. It needs to be wider enough than 28 not to compete with the 28-45.

A fast 75, say f/1.8, would be very popular.

Update the 300 A* optics to have silent focusing, vibration reduction, and weather sealing.

That’s the easy button, in terms of bringing product to market. But it competes with cheap legacy glass, and that may be part of what is holding Ricoh back. Better would be a 55-110, f/4, with all the goodies, and a 100-300, f/4, both to modern high-end optical standards. Those would be different enough to make legacy glass owners want them.

Rick “whose Canon kit has three L lenses: 24TSE, 24-105/4, and 70-200/4, plus a host of other lenses not really needed to be productive” Denney

Any new lens from your list would be a very good sign from Pentax. They have advertised the robustness of the camera, but legacy lenses are not all weather type, so that shoud be considered a priority. The modernized DFA 35mm was not changed on this aspect, that was a bit of a disappointment (even if the 28-45 zoom covers the need).

I don't think there is a potential conflict with old lenses if they revamp some of them : after all, the existing A line didn't prevent them to update everything in FA. They would just push the line-up in modern coatings / all weather / maybe modern AF motors age.

[kaseki]

What is the maximum aperture capability of the 645 system? It's not documented nearly as well as the K-mount. Is a 1.8 even possible?

I've wondered that myself. If there are about 3 inches from the lens flange to the focal plane, an f/1.8 ray bundle there would have to come from an aperture of more than 1.5 inches at the flange. Without digging out a lens to measure, I don't think that diameter would leave room for the usual connector pins, levers, and retention parts. Having an exit aperture much closer to the focal plane would intrude on the mirror assembly, and we haven't considered correction lenses for flatness of field. With digital cameras providing historically fantastic ISO values, only DoF would seem to inspire such a low f/# goal, once film photography is sent to the dust bin of history.

Then again, I am certain rdenney has more experience with camera lens aspects than I have, so I am hesitant to second guess him.

[rdenney]

No, I didn’t consider the flange opening size. F/1.8 might not be possible. Mamiya has an 80mm f/1.9. And the 105/2.4 also works fine. Maybe make a 645-specific version of the old Takumar 67 105/2.4 in a modern, full-featured barrel.

I use my 180/2.8 Sonnar without issue, but it’s a Sonnar design and a longer focal length. I think thinner selective focus at portrait length than that would require a larger format.

But, really, f/2.8 is plenty fast for medium format. And we already have a 75/2.8. Upgrading it to the same standard as the 55 DFA would be fine.

But a fully updated short telephoto zoom would be more important.

Rick “dreaming doesn’t require calculations” Denney

[BostonUKshooter]

The 45-85 is one of those already. But it could be slightly updated (as the the 35 was slightly updated), particularly to include weather sealing.

Likewise the 80-160.

A 20-23mm rectilinear would be nice. Put it in a tilt-shift barrel and own the world. Of course, you’d have to own the world to be able to afford it. It needs to be wider enough than 28 not to compete with the 28-45.

A fast 75, say f/1.8, would be very popular.

Update the 300 A* optics to have silent focusing, vibration reduction, and weather sealing.

That’s the easy button, in terms of bringing product to market. But it competes with cheap legacy glass, and that may be part of what is holding Ricoh back. Better would be a 55-110, f/4, with all the goodies, and a 100-300, f/4, both to modern high-end optical standards. Those would be different enough to make legacy glass owners want them.

Rick “whose Canon kit has three L lenses: 24TSE, 24-105/4, and 70-200/4, plus a host of other lenses not really needed to be productive” Denney

...………..A 20-23mm rectilinear would be nice. Put it in a tilt-shift barrel and own the world. Of course, you’d have to own the world to be able to afford it. It needs to be wider enough than 28 not to compete with the 28-45.


Interesting that Hassy have just released their new 21mm rectilinear for the X1D...I wonder if they will eventually do an HTS type tilt/shift converter to go with it?

[rdenney]

...………..A 20-23mm rectilinear would be nice. Put it in a tilt-shift barrel and own the world. Of course, you’d have to own the world to be able to afford it. It needs to be wider enough than 28 not to compete with the 28-45.


Interesting that Hassy have just released their new 21mm rectilinear for the X1D...I wonder if they will eventually do an HTS type tilt/shift converter to go with it?

Doubtful. They would insist that the sorts of corrections that can be made using shift can be done in software, and that their lens is won't deliver the expected performance if tilted. Tilt in particular requires that the lens cover a significantly expanded image circle, and (Hartblei notwithstanding) the best lenses with movements were designed for the larger image circle to begin with.

Pentax already has a lens design that can do this, though it would need to be tweaked to be just a bit shorter. But the manufacturing difficulties are not insignificant, which is the reason they don't make that lens any more. That's why they would own the world--it's hard to do and they will likely not have competition. But that's also why it would cost the world to buy one. I would guess it would be a challenge to be profitable with a proper 21mm lens in a tilt-shift barrel at a price point of $10,000, and I'm not sure that's a price that fits with Pentax's brand image.

People want everything. They want a lens that will resolve a 50 or 100MP sensor at wide apertures, with motion control (requiring some elements that are gyro-controlled), fast autofocus (requiring a lightweight internal focus group), close focusing (requiring floating elements), with minimal fall-off (which requires a rectilinear design even if mounted on a short-flange mirrorless camera), weather sealing, professional ruggedness (made more difficult by all those moveable bits), light weight, reasonable filter capability, extremely short focal length, a smooth and tight focus ring, and a cheap price. This is simply unrealistic.

But we already hear the complaining when Pentax charges $4600 for a new 28-45, which is by all accounts a world-class lens with all the features. Hey, stuff is expensive. Even if Pentax came out with an extreme wide in a tilt-shift barrel, who could afford it? I'm not sure Ricoh is willing to have loss leaders at that level.

Rick "medium format has always been expensive" Denney

[BostonUKshooter]

Doubtful. They would insist that the sorts of corrections that can be made using shift can be done in software, and that their lens is won't deliver the expected performance if tilted. Tilt in particular requires that the lens cover a significantly expanded image circle, and (Hartblei notwithstanding) the best lenses with movements were designed for the larger image circle to begin with.

Pentax already has a lens design that can do this, though it would need to be tweaked to be just a bit shorter. But the manufacturing difficulties are not insignificant, which is the reason they don't make that lens any more. That's why they would own the world--it's hard to do and they will likely not have competition. But that's also why it would cost the world to buy one. I would guess it would be a challenge to be profitable with a proper 21mm lens in a tilt-shift barrel at a price point of $10,000, and I'm not sure that's a price that fits with Pentax's brand image.

People want everything. They want a lens that will resolve a 50 or 100MP sensor at wide apertures, with motion control (requiring some elements that are gyro-controlled), fast autofocus (requiring a lightweight internal focus group), close focusing (requiring floating elements), with minimal fall-off (which requires a rectilinear design even if mounted on a short-flange mirrorless camera), weather sealing, professional ruggedness (made more difficult by all those moveable bits), light weight, reasonable filter capability, extremely short focal length, a smooth and tight focus ring, and a cheap price. This is simply unrealistic.

But we already hear the complaining when Pentax charges $4600 for a new 28-45, which is by all accounts a world-class lens with all the features. Hey, stuff is expensive. Even if Pentax came out with an extreme wide in a tilt-shift barrel, who could afford it? I'm not sure Ricoh is willing to have loss leaders at that level.

Rick "medium format has always been expensive" Denney

Thanks the info.....I had a Hartblei 45mm t/s but was very disappointed with the image quality on the 645Z , so sold it in favour of the DA 25mm....not quite wide enough on occasions, especially for interiors....so stitching works well enough when needed...Hartblei have hinted that they will do a 'new' version of the t/s for 645....but prevaricate when reminded...Stefan Streib of HCam says it cant be done economically, which is what you're confirming....

[leekil]

No, I didn’t consider the flange opening size. F/1.8 might not be possible. Mamiya has an 80mm f/1.9. And the 105/2.4 also works fine. Maybe make a 645-specific version of the old Takumar 67 105/2.4 in a modern, full-featured barrel.

I was thinking of it from the POV of how the camera determines what the aperture it has is, and what the available range is if 2.8 is the largest native lens aperture that Pentax produces.

[SylvainB]

...………..A 20-23mm rectilinear would be nice. Put it in a tilt-shift barrel and own the world. Of course, you’d have to own the world to be able to afford it. It needs to be wider enough than 28 not to compete with the 28-45.


Interesting that Hassy have just released their new 21mm rectilinear for the X1D...I wonder if they will eventually do an HTS type tilt/shift converter to go with it?

Just a remark, in case some people don't know : HTS is quite a nice piece of equipement, but to enlarge the image circle, it multiplies focal length by x1,5. So wide angles are not so wide when mounted on HTS.

[2351HD]

People want everything. They want a lens that will resolve a 50 or 100MP sensor at wide apertures, with motion control (requiring some elements that are gyro-controlled), fast autofocus (requiring a lightweight internal focus group), close focusing (requiring floating elements), with minimal fall-off (which requires a rectilinear design even if mounted on a short-flange mirrorless camera), weather sealing, professional ruggedness (made more difficult by all those moveable bits), light weight, reasonable filter capability, extremely short focal length, a smooth and tight focus ring, and a cheap price. This is simply unrealistic.

But we already hear the complaining when Pentax charges $4600 for a new 28-45, which is by all accounts a world-class lens with all the features. Hey, stuff is expensive. Even if Pentax came out with an extreme wide in a tilt-shift barrel, who could afford it? I'm not sure Ricoh is willing to have loss leaders at that level.
Denney

I am not sure anybody ever asked for a 1.5kg semi-wide angle zoom that cost $4600, is f/4.5 and is only a DA design. As good as it is, its still a big-ass lens.

Considering they have the excellent DFA35mm, a newly designed 23 prime f/4 would be fine for landscape work.

For that same weight of 1.5kg, I would have preferred a useful sharp ultra-wide that was lighter and a second lens at 35mm.

[H.Abendsen]

Let’s hope!

I only hope they raise the sensor size to full 645 surface... and dont raise the resolution too much.

And since people are talking mirrorless all the time... according to what one can read out of this years photokina interviews, ... mirrorless is most likely to arrive at mid-format first.
I guess there would be an adapter for sure - but its also possible they dont even change the mount and flange focal distance... but of that I am not so sure.

[johnha]

I only hope they raise the sensor size to full 645 surface... and dont raise the resolution too much.

And since people are talking mirrorless all the time... according to what one can read out of this years photokina interviews, ... mirrorless is most likely to arrive at mid-format first.
I guess there would be an adapter for sure - but its also possible they dont even change the mount and flange focal distance... but of that I am not so sure.

The 645D & Z are very deep cameras, but the image plane is in front of the top-plate LCD - there's only about 2.5" between it and the lens mount (the film bodies held the film magazine behind this plane). A 3-3.5" (or so) deep body would be a small price to pay to maintain the existing lens mount (and likely to give a form-factor similar to a P67).

John.