PENTAX AND NOT THE OTHER
ewelch: No. 8 is just bad. Horrid composition. Crop it!
There are a few that are just killer. The winner's photo reminds me of the work of Canadian photographer Freeman Patterson.
No 8 is so unique and unusual that make it become prominent.
jukeboxjohnnie: or you can just go buy a canon 6d at a bargain price now.....
Yes, but bargain prize for the body only and need huge investment for the lenses.
KL Matt: Dream come true. But why is the 35 in Pentax mount, but the 24 isn't????
Should be a better market for fl 24mm on Pentax mount ? Pentax also have, but old manual lens on this fl. Pentax AF star model is expensive n hard to find. Many of Pentax shooter still rely on old Sigma AF model.
Provia_fan: The 2001 model is a beautiful MZ-S adapted to digital. Love the old MZ-S. This new Pentax looks a little like a Sony A900. But anyways, well done Pentax, hope this comes true this time around.
I also got the same impression with the "giant" prism looks at the camera. Model design as seen in the Pentax K5 looks much better, simpler and look never last. Yach, maybe they would like to state that the prism is the "signature" of its icons. Just seems too naive ........
Mr Darma: It says DSLR so hopefully it will not be mirrorless. I have a complete set of 1975-1976 issue K mount lenses (not counting zooms) which were introduced with the K series cameras (24 in all). It took me 12 years to get them all and yes, some were pretty expensive. Finally I will reap my reward if this is true! :-)
Pentax name is derived from prism. Other camera brand that use from the same word was Pentacon. Unfortunately, this camera product has vanished. So, prism is the "signature" for pentax camera, but this technology has gradually change with the introduction of mirrorless camera. See objects through lens without the use of prism is getting better this day. Refering this trend and its advantages, the use of prism on camera will be superseded.
gLOWx: You want small body AND lenses ?That's why i gone m43 sensor, and don't regret it a bit ;)
You can't get all. If you choose APS-C, you will get equivalent lens size/weight, mirrorless or not. Because mirroless change mounting flange distance, nothing else. Mirrorless has strictly no impact in lens design size/weight over reflex.When you get very small APS-C lenses,it is because they have reduced aperture (f4 vs f 2.8) or reduced quality (like sliding storage position).
Here, we have a constant f2.8 zoom quality lens. It can't be smallerI even find it very small for those specs ;)If real world quality follow the specs, it is an amazing lens for a very small size.
You want smaller ? Go m43, it is the only other way i see.Chasing small lenses on big sensors is not logical, until you limit your choice to pancake lenses or fixed small focal length (like an X100) :D
Not sure can be small for fast zoom tele lens on m43?
AlanVia: First reaction looking at them as a group and individually, lenses look huge....
And the small size (compact) body become less relevant......
Andy Dan: Stupid launch imo. The Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 Contemporary Macro sells for 500$ and it's faster and has macro capabilities. It lacks weather sealing indeed but who needs weather sealing in a slow variable aperture zoom like this new Pentax? Pro's won't use it, enthusiasts won't use it...A new version of the DA 17-70mm F4 AL would have been much better...
I never use Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 "C" version but the model before it. Mine has same characteristic performance on edges (softness & high CA) with the one that reviewed by Lenstip.com.
Old model (w/ same spec?)http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=223
And here the "C" version http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=366
Pls. check also on the actual pictures that taken on field. The Pentax DA 17-70 is not as good as the Sigma on the center but much more even on the whole frame. So, it is much more useful for general purpose lens that cover many situation of photography.
Now, I still have the Pentax DA 17-70 but forced not to use it. Its SDM fail! That is why I need replacement and sincerely hope this new lens offers can meet user expectations.
NiallM: sorry but at f/3.5 it's not worth giving up the constant f/2.8 on my main walkabout, Tamron 17-50mm, as good as anything else and better than the Pentax 16-50mm. I don't live in a sunny bright part of the world so lens speed is kinda important for me. Absolutely PERFECT focal range, 16-85, but alas, too slow.
You are lucky to have Tamron 17-50 which gives consistent results. Mine is not work properly although has tried twice of the same lens. Finally landing with Sigma 17-50 2.8 HSM. Not so sharp @ f2.8 (fl50), but this lens serve better than my Tamron.
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 is not suit for general purpose lens, its edges performance is weak. I will consider this lens, if this lens in par or better than Nikon equivalent offer.
Piggy the bad: Pentax 16-85 3.5/5.6 £599Pentax 18-135 3.5/5.6 £379Both WR . Not convinced the extra 2mm @ wide angle 24mm equiv to 27mm equiv is worth the extra £220
We have to check its performance whether can deliver even sharpness on the whole frames or not. The Pentax 18-135 exhibit bad performance on the edges.
LensBeginner: Am I the only one to find the design very similar to that of the Pentax Limiteds?
It is more to Leica lens
princewolf: I rate the first picture +18.
Who or What?
This Lumix looks more camera with smartphone capabilities than the otherwise.
Chuck Lantz: All this negative stuff about huge zooms being "too heavy"? I'm beginning to think I've stumbled upon the seven dwarves' cottage in the woods.
We're talking about 500 and 600mm zooms, folks! They are SUPPOSED to be heavy, so that we can all look extra cool to the spectators watching us lug all that junk around as we show-off our credentials, walking and blocking their views in locations they can only dream of entering.
I never carry fewer than two, and sometimes three, of those monsters at what I laughingly call "work", and I just hit the big seven-oh (brag-brag-brag), so let's stop the moaning about heavy gear and start hitting the gym a few times a week, dudes and dudettes. This is PHOTOGRAPHY, people! No one said it's supposed to be easy! ;)
Technology is expected to change the size and weight of the lens. I think this lens is the response of the latest developments from Tamron that offers lenses with its strength on developing new materials that are more durable, stronger, less weight but cheaper. Sigma seems to panic .......
DrLogic: No stabilization for Sony? The extra reach is useless without stabilization... And this is a very large range kit lens - the single IQ compromise range somebody takes on a holiday to replace a whole a whole bunch of lenses, so they aren't likely to be using a tripod. Doesn't make sense.
I thought Sigma applied no stabilization to both brand because they have IS in body. With no IS, Sigma can compensate the low selling volume for both brand by reducing the production cost.
SushiEater: 150-600mm Sport is insane. It is the weight of 120-300mm OS F2.8 and I can't hike with it like I do with 50-500mm.
Just wait and see whether the updated Sigma 50-500 (600) OS HSM will be around next years to come.........
PHOTOJOE55: Doesn't it look like APS-C and 1 inch sensors are in much higher demand than Full Frame? I think Canon has 3 or 4 Full Frame cameras in their line-up and Nikon has 8 current production FX cameras. Maybe it's the cost too, but for most applications I think the smaller sensors are more than adequate. This Pentax looks like an excellent camera to work with, and it's so much lighter to carry.
Their Pentax Q have to use 1" sensor and full frame sensor on high end DSLR should be targeted for some one who can not afford digital MF . I personally checked on my friends who use full frame camera, it looks much better for low light shooting, although I realized that crop sensor also shows improvement.
RichRMA: I'd have avoided the red on the lens. Reminds me of Canon.
HD coating looks generic name. Many third party adapter lens from China use this abbreviation. Pentax should maintain this SMC name with with strong pronounce. May be better to use SMC-II or other unique statement.