Why no more fast primes?

I'm aware of the fact that Pentax are trying to be different and that they are all about creating system as light and compact as possible.

I'm also aware of the fact that Pentax are making a lot of different primes and that they are industry leader in this, at least for the APS-C lenses. Also, often they duplicate focal lengths offering several products.

But still I see a gap in the primes line up. On the tele side, I understand the offer: DA* 55, DA* 200, DA* 300 and future DA? 560. Since these products are not used by professionals size, weight and especially price are very important elements. Therefore these lenses hit the sweet spot (being f1.4, 2.8, 4.0 and 5.6) when mixing those elements, at least for non-professionals.

But I don't understand normal and wide angle offer. Yes, DA Limited 15 is a nice, light and compact lens but it is really slow for a prime. I can already hear some of the people screaming but wide angle lenses and fast aperture is not all about DOF, especially when we are not talking about ultra wide lenses. This lens is all about size and than relatively good optics and not vice versa. DA 14 on the other hand is faster but it definitely isn't a DA* lens.

Also, in the 35mm range (that should be the base for APS-C) there are several alternatives. But non of them meet the criteria I would like to see.

So, I believe that Pentax need to offer more DA* primes - the best optics, fast, ultrasonic focus (that doesn't malfunction) and excellent build quality. Only that lineup could be considered as a cheaper and lighter alternative to Canikon's primes (24, 35, 50, 85 all f1.4).

I'm posting this post because I can't remember seeing it posted in this or on "the other" forum. Am I the only one who thinks like this?

It has been beaten to death here, many, many threads about this topic.

One simple explanation - good fast short focal length lenses are expensive to make and buy.

--
Steve

http://www.pbase.com/steephill

Vorda said:

I'm aware of the fact that Pentax are trying to be different and that they are all about creating system as light and compact as possible.

I'm also aware of the fact that Pentax are making a lot of different primes and that they are industry leader in this, at least for the APS-C lenses. Also, often they duplicate focal lengths offering several products.
But still I see a gap in the primes line up.

Click to expand...

That's inherent to a primes line up. There will always be gaps. ;-)

Vorda said:

On the tele side, I understand the offer: DA* 55, DA* 200, DA* 300 and future DA? 560. Since these products are not used by professionals size, weight and especially price are very important elements. Therefore these lenses hit the sweet spot (being f1.4, 2.8, 4.0 and 5.6) when mixing those elements, at least for non-professionals.

Click to expand...

Actually you forget the DA70/2.4 limited, FA77/1.8 and DFA100/2.8 macro.

Vorda said:

But I don't understand normal and wide angle offer. Yes, DA Limited 15 is a nice, light and compact lens but it is really slow for a prime. I can already hear some of the people screaming but wide angle lenses and fast aperture is not all about DOF, especially when we are not talking about ultra wide lenses. This lens is all about size and than relatively good optics and not vice versa. DA 14 on the other hand is faster but it definitely isn't a DA* lens.

Click to expand...

When fast isn't about DOF (which rightly isn't as much of an issue in (U)WA lenses), then the argument is much less powerful. If you look at the high ISO capacities of modern cameras compared to just two or three generations ago, the need for fast lenses in low light is much less. High ISO capacities will continue to improve, so it will become less and less interesting to invest in fast glass for low light only. Lenses have longer product cycles than bodies to recover R&D costs, so if a lens risks sales dropping in the near future because evolving high ISO capacities, I can understand that the chance of such a new lens being introduced will become smaller and smaller.

In low light, I would rather pump up the ISO a bit with smaller aperture and larger DOF. Esp since that would minimize (both human and camera) focus errors.

Vorda said:

Also, in the 35mm range (that should be the base for APS-C) there are several alternatives. But non of them meet the criteria I would like to see.

Click to expand...

Won't the FA31/1.8?

Vorda said:

So, I believe that Pentax need to offer more DA* primes - the best optics, fast, ultrasonic focus (that doesn't malfunction) and excellent build quality. Only that lineup could be considered as a cheaper and lighter alternative to Canikon's primes (24, 35, 50, 85 all f1.4).

Click to expand...

Trouble is that these are tuned to "naturally" practical fields of view for 135format. APS-C would require a slightly different set of focal lengths. Not everyone will agree to this I know.

Vorda said:

I'm posting this post because I can't remember seeing it posted in this or on "the other" forum. Am I the only one who thinks like this?

Click to expand...

It's certainly not a new discussion and has been recurring many times over the years, though I cannot remember when it appeared last.

Personally I am more than content with my limited lenses setup as far as primes are concerned. I have the DA15, DA21, FA31, FA43 and FA77. The FA limiteds provide the fast apertures for short DOF, and if I want more FOV, then I can stitch images taken with these lenses to get much more DOF play than any 15mm or 21mm lens would give, even if it were one or two stops brighter than the current offering.

Wim

--
Belgium, GMT+1

Vorda said:

So, I believe that Pentax need to offer more DA* primes - the best optics, fast, ultrasonic focus (that doesn't malfunction) and excellent build quality. Only that lineup could be considered as a cheaper and lighter alternative to Canikon's primes (24, 35, 50, 85 all f1.4).

Click to expand...

Canon enjoy the advantage of high volume sales which Pentax don't. How will Pentax be able to produce the same fast lenses at lower cost be beyond my imagination. Also, the day Pentax made all their high quality lenses SDM (which isn't ultrasonic btw) will be the day I am leaving Pentax behind. Personally I feel f2 would be a nice compromise between speed, cost, size and optical designs. Having all f1.4 lenses are cool for teenagers but as I have grown older, I much prefer smaller and lighter lenses.
--
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan

Vorda said:

So, I believe that Pentax need to offer more DA* primes - the best optics, fast, ultrasonic focus (that doesn't malfunction) and excellent build quality. Only that lineup could be considered as a cheaper and lighter alternative to Canikon's primes (24, 35, 50, 85 all f1.4).

Click to expand...

Canikon have various offerings in that range including f1.8 versions depending on maker. The f1.4 variations are not cheap though
Good luck wishing for that though

Vorda said:

I'm posting this post because I can't remember seeing it posted in this or on "the other" forum. Am I the only one who thinks like this?

Click to expand...

Nope but you'll face the angry mob who will defend the Pentax line up to the death ;-)

Your points are valid

Hi,

The Pentax primes and perceived 'gaps' are thread topics that weave their way in and out of this forum on a regular basis. Pentax to their credit have recently announced that they're going to fill the much lamented lack of a long tele in 2012, and we're also going to get a modestly priced 50mm f1.8 lens this year. If you've been doing your reading you'll also have read a variety of views/requests for other FLs - with the most common being a high grade 24mm to give us a fast 35mm equivalent FOV, possibly a digitally upgraded version of the old FA 24mm f2.

The lenses you refer to (the Canikon primes of 24, 35, 50, 85 all f1.4) are all typically FF FLs. Given that Pentax has thus far remained committed only to APSC (and smaller) sensors, the equivalent APSC FLs would be faster versions of the lenses in the FLs they already have - the 15mm, to give roughly your 24mm equivalent, the 21mm (or the option of a new 24mm) to give a 32-35mm equivalent, and still another 35mm to give aound a 50mm equivalent. I don't know that 15mm and 21mm lenses are feasible with a maximum aperture of f1.4. No-one has made either. The FA31mm 1.8 and FA 43/1.9 are current and second to none. The recent FA 35mm f2 can still be easily found and is also an excellent lens. The FA 50mm f1.4 is still current, and offers a 75mm equivalent FOV, and the 55mm f1.4 is so close to an 85mm FOV that the difference doesn't matter. The FA 77mm f1.8 is also still current. I think they've got the FL range covered in a way that suits their market niche.

Pentax is a much smaller company than the big two. They will probably never make a competing model of lens in every FL. It's interesting that you occasionally see posters lamenting in their own forums the fact that Canikon don't also have a system of small high grade primes (that would indeed have slower maximum apertures) to supplement their very fast wide primes. Some of their users baulk at very large primes that cost a fortune and take 77mm filters. That's their 'gap'. One chooses one's system and it's benefits and limitations........

Cheers, Rod

Vorda said:

...

So, I believe that Pentax need to offer more DA* primes - the best optics, fast, ultrasonic focus (that doesn't malfunction) and excellent build quality. Only that lineup could be considered as a cheaper and lighter alternative to Canikon's primes (24, 35, 50, 85 all f1.4).

Click to expand...

.

24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, and 85 f/1.4 are all going to be very expensive primes, much more expensive than the Limiteds. The Canon/Nikon shooters who generally buy these primes are full-frame shooters - Pentax has chosen (up until now) to forego that market, and probably feels that the market for these lenses among their current demographic is rather low. They'd probably be right.

If/when Pentax offers a FF camera, they may revisit these focal lengths, but for now, wouldn't be able to sell enough, probably.

.
--
Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

moving_comfort said:

Vorda said:

...

So, I believe that Pentax need to offer more DA* primes - the best optics, fast, ultrasonic focus (that doesn't malfunction) and excellent build quality. Only that lineup could be considered as a cheaper and lighter alternative to Canikon's primes (24, 35, 50, 85 all f1.4).

Click to expand...

.

24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, and 85 f/1.4 are all going to be very expensive primes, much more expensive than the Limiteds. The Canon/Nikon shooters who generally buy these primes are full-frame shooters - Pentax has chosen (up until now) to forego that market, and probably feels that the market for these lenses among their current demographic is rather low. They'd probably be right.

If/when Pentax offers a FF camera, they may revisit these focal lengths, but for now, wouldn't be able to sell enough, probably.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that must be right. Pentax have only ever held a single-digit percentage market share in the digital age, and such lenses, at the price they would have to be, would probably attract only a fraction of Pentaxians.

Another factor (at least for wide-angle lenses, where shallow DOF is not always so vital to achieve) is that sensor (high ISO performance) and shake-reduction technology have improved to such a degree that fast lenses are not required in as many situations as they were a few years ago. That is why my 15/4 and 21/3.2 primes never really feel slow nowadays.

--
Cheers,
sfa

A very limited photographer ...

WA lenses are really hard to make all that fast. You do not need a very fast WA either. The hand holdability rises so it is less critical.

Also, with today's higher resolution one needs to stop down in order to get everything into the more noticeable DOF.

Decades ago, the pentax 28mm lenses were 3.5 and 2.8. The 50's were 2.0. 1.7, 1.4 and 1.2. I have an old M135 that is an F2.5. It really is not all that big.

If you look at the Sony E lenses, the poor quality 16 is a 2.8. That needs to be stopped way down so the 2.8 means little. The 35 is a 3.5 and is huge.

I have a very nice Zenitar 16. It is a 2.8 but the front element is over three inches across. However, it needs to be stopped down to at least an F4. Then it is great.

I hope you see the pattern and stop comparing really WA lenses to short teles. 50mm is about the smallest lens one can make, so it is really easy to make them quite fast.
--
Variance is Evil!

BTW - when I was looking for a kit lens replacement, I was surprised at some of the comparisons I looked at. The Sigma 17-70 zoom was compared to some of the wider primes you were mentioning and beating them. So, I would not flog the Pentax primes for being slow. Even my older K, M, F, FA primes are much better than my Sigma zoom and pretty much all the other lenses I have.

I have been replacing my non pentax lenses with Pentax and seeing a noticeable increase in quality in not just resolution.

--
Variance is Evil!

I don't really see the need for every camera company to be the same. I think all the major players (Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Sony, and Pentax) make great cameras and have some great lenses. It's just a matter of what suits your own needs.

Personally, I am happy to give up a stop of speed in order to get a much smaller lens. And APS-C is the perfect size for me. So I really like Pentax. But I also know that some folks need (or at least really want) faster lenses and FF sensors, so I get why they prefer other brands. What I don't get is why people expect every brand to be the same.

I recently compared the set of Pentax lenses that I have and/or want to a comparable Nikon set. For those six lenses, the total difference in weight came out to be 891 grams. And that didn't even include the DA15, because I couldn't find a Nikon equivalent. I did include the Nikon 85mm as the rough equivalent for my favorite lens, the DA70; and the difference in weight between those two is 250 grams, making the Nikon's weight 292% of the Pentax's weight. The trade-off, of course, is speed (f/1.8 vs f/2.4 -- about 0.83 stops). And the difference in total price for the kit was pretty much nothing ($6 in favor of the Pentax kit.) I much prefer the lighter kit compared to the faster one, so I am happy with Pentax.

But I don't expect everyone to be happy with Pentax. Each brand has its strengths and weaknesses. The trick is to find the one whose strengths (for the most part) match your own preferences.

I like options.

--
-- Joe S.

"We make a living by what we get; we make a life by what we give." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/josephschmitt

Vorda said:

I'm aware of the fact that Pentax are trying to be different and that they are all about creating system as light and compact as possible.

Click to expand...

Incorrect; compact makes some light and compact lenses - not all of their primes are compact and light at the expense of speed.

Vorda said:

I'm also aware of the fact that Pentax are making a lot of different primes and that they are industry leader in this, at least for the APS-C lenses. Also, often they duplicate focal lengths offering several products.

Click to expand...

Yup ... and most of their primes work on 35mm.

Vorda said:

But still I see a gap in the primes line up. On the tele side, I understand the offer: DA* 55, DA* 200, DA* 300 and future DA? 560.

Click to expand...

A 55mm lens isn't a tele on APS-C or 35mm; it's a portrait prime or 'normal'.

Vorda said:

Since these products are not used by professionals size, weight and especially price are very important elements.

Click to expand...

Did you just make that up or are you trying to troll? All three of the lenses you mentioned are perfectly suited for 'pro' photography.

Vorda said:

Therefore these lenses hit the sweet spot (being f1.4, 2.8, 4.0 and 5.6) when mixing those elements, at least for non-professionals.

Click to expand...

Again, no bearing on reality.

Vorda said:

But I don't understand normal and wide angle offer. Yes, DA Limited 15 is a nice, light and compact lens but it is really slow for a prime.

Click to expand...

You just gave yourself away; you don't know much about wide-angle shooting.

Vorda said:

This lens is all about size and than relatively good optics and not vice versa. DA 14 on the other hand is faster but it definitely isn't a DA* lens.

Click to expand...

How much have you used the DA15? It sounds like you haven't.

Vorda said:

Also, in the 35mm range (that should be the base for APS-C) there are several alternatives. But non of them meet the criteria I would like to see.

Click to expand...

Which is .... ?

Vorda said:

So, I believe that Pentax need to offer more DA* primes - the best optics, fast, ultrasonic focus (that doesn't malfunction) and excellent build quality. Only that lineup could be considered as a cheaper and lighter alternative to Canikon's primes (24, 35, 50, 85 all f1.4).

Click to expand...

You've never used a Pentax prime lens.

--
My Website
http://www.andrewallenphoto.com

My Pentax Street Gallery - Arranged By Lens Used
http://photobucket.com/andy_allen

sfa1966 said:

moving_comfort said:

Vorda said:

...

So, I believe that Pentax need to offer more DA* primes - the best optics, fast, ultrasonic focus (that doesn't malfunction) and excellent build quality. Only that lineup could be considered as a cheaper and lighter alternative to Canikon's primes (24, 35, 50, 85 all f1.4).

Click to expand...

.

24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, and 85 f/1.4 are all going to be very expensive primes, much more expensive than the Limiteds. The Canon/Nikon shooters who generally buy these primes are full-frame shooters - Pentax has chosen (up until now) to forego that market, and probably feels that the market for these lenses among their current demographic is rather low. They'd probably be right.

If/when Pentax offers a FF camera, they may revisit these focal lengths, but for now, wouldn't be able to sell enough, probably.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that must be right. Pentax have only ever held a single-digit percentage market share in the digital age, and such lenses, at the price they would have to be, would probably attract only a fraction of Pentaxians.

Click to expand...

Pentax could make the lenses for other markets as well as themselves. That would increase their market presence like no camera body could ever do, no matter how good it is. It would pay for the development of the lenses and pave the way for a 135 format Pentax. They could still have their meat and potatoes APS-C lens line up only on Pentax, since most people on other brands view screw driven lenses as second rate anyway.

Thank you
Russell

I'm aware of the fact that Pentax are trying to be different and that they are all about creating system as light and compact as possible.

Incorrect; compact makes some light and compact lenses - not all of their primes are compact and light at the expense of speed.

Neither have I said so, but most of them are, or simply said, Pentax doesn't offer a speedy alternative.

I'm also aware of the fact that Pentax are making a lot of different primes and that they are industry leader in this, at least for the APS-C lenses. Also, often they duplicate focal lengths offering several products.

Yup ... and most of their primes work on 35mm.

But still I see a gap in the primes line up. On the tele side, I understand the offer: DA* 55, DA* 200, DA* 300 and future DA? 560.

A 55mm lens isn't a tele on APS-C or 35mm; it's a portrait prime or 'normal'.

Actually 55 on APS-C and/or 85 on FF is portrait prime or mid-tele. It's the metter of a definition and it's not important for the point I was trying to make.

Since these products are not used by professionals size, weight and especially price are very important elements.

Did you just make that up or are you trying to troll? All three of the lenses you mentioned are perfectly suited for 'pro' photography.

Why are you insulting me by calling me a troll? Because I don't think the way you or do you honestly think that professionals are using previously mentioned Pentax telelenses for sports/action/wild life photography? Do we really need to go into that? Yes there might be a couple of pros who have been/are using these lenses but come on... Just because you are (and btw I am as well) a Pentax fan that doesn't mean I should convince myself that Pentax is a pros' choice brand. I'm completely happy knowing that it's my choice as well as choice of others enjojing photography rarely making money out of it (especially in action/sports/wiledlife area).
And again that was not the point I was trying to make.

Therefore these lenses hit the sweet spot (being f1.4, 2.8, 4.0 and 5.6) when mixing those elements, at least for non-professionals.

Again, no bearing on reality.

What reality? You don't believe that these lenses are optimal combination of speed, size and price? I certainly do. Of course if I was a pro who wouldn't mind paying 7000$ for a 300mm 2.8 lens I would think differently. This is why I said that I understand Pentax tele line up - it's compact, light and affordable.

But I don't understand normal and wide angle offer. Yes, DA Limited 15 is a nice, light and compact lens but it is really slow for a prime.

You just gave yourself away; you don't know much about wide-angle shooting.

Again with the insults. What do you know about my wide-angle shooting? Just because you might be a person who doesn't care much about speed with wides that doesn't mean everybody else is like you. And I'm not going to insult you by suggesting that you don't know that there are many ways fast wide-angle lens could be used.

This lens is all about size and than relatively good optics and not vice versa. DA 14 on the other hand is faster but it definitely isn't a DA* lens.

How much have you used the DA15? It sounds like you haven't.

You are referring to 14 or 15? I've never used the 14, still both of them are not a DA* lens. What am I missing here?

Also, in the 35mm range (that should be the base for APS-C) there are several alternatives. But non of them meet the criteria I would like to see.

Which is .... ?

OK, maybe I wasn't clear enough so I'll give you an example: I would like a DA* 35 lense with the same characheristics as DA* 55. There isn't such a lens. The closest to it is FA 31.

So, I believe that Pentax need to offer more DA* primes - the best optics, fast, ultrasonic focus (that doesn't malfunction) and excellent build quality. Only that lineup could be considered as a cheaper and lighter alternative to Canikon's primes (24, 35, 50, 85 all f1.4).

You've never used a Pentax prime lens.

Again, you like your insults.

One thing I don't understand. There is a certain brand. It offers certain product line up. Like in every line up there are gaps. Also there is a competition that always offers something similar but different. Why some people can not accept that "their" brand is not always the best in everything, that there are some users who have different needs/desires, that there are other people who think differently but are not stupid or ignorant.

There was a lot of discussion about new lenses lately (due to the new roadmap) and I was curious to see how many people think the way I do: I would like DA* 35 and DA* 16 lens. I'm not aware that there were others asking for similar products (at least not lately) so I would just like to know am I such a minority or...

He starts with one 'assertion' "Nobody uses any Pentax lenses or cameras for professional applications".

Vorda said:

Since these products are not used by professionals size, weight and especially price are very important elements.

Click to expand...

He gets called out for obvious trolling - and avoidance of reality:

"Did you just make that up or are you trying to troll? All three of the lenses you mentioned are perfectly suited for 'pro' photography."

Vorda said:

do you honestly think that professionals are using previously mentioned Pentax telelenses for sports/action/wild life photography? that doesn't mean I should convince myself that Pentax is a pros' choice brand >

Click to expand...

And finally - he attempts to switch arguments: Now, it's just 'telelenses' his talking about ... and he's claiming someone was convincing themselves that "Pentax is a pros' choice brand".

Why some people can not accept that "their" brand is not always the best in everything, that there are some users who have different needs/desires, that there are other people who think differently. They tend to make posts in brand forums they don't like, looking for an argument. They "perceive" needs in brand lineups they don't own, and spout their opinion like something of a final 'word' on the subject.

If you can't afford lenses - don't hate on them - just accept it. Ignored.

Looking at his posting history, he has clearly been shooting with Pentax for a long time and doesn't seem to have any long-running beef with Pentax (like Barry does). I think he just had an honest question in this case. Granted, it is a question which has been asked many times on this forum, many times by trolls. But that doesn't mean that every person who asks the question is a troll.

--
-- Joe S.

"We make a living by what we get; we make a life by what we give." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/josephschmitt

I've seen claims that fast lenses don't deliver an advantage on digital sensors because the angle of light hitting the sensor increases beyond the sensor's ability to handle it. I wish I had some references for you but I don't.

Rather than making their lenses super fast, Pentax has concentrated on making sure they're usable at their fastest setting. You don't have to stop down to get good results. What's the point of having a F/1.4 lens if you won't use it below F/2.8?

Pentax has always concentrated on delivering useful results for real photographic needs, rather than trying to follow the crowd. I think it's a good strategy.

math guy said:

Looking at his posting history, he has clearly been shooting with Pentax for a long time and doesn't seem to have any long-running beef with Pentax (like Barry does). I think he just had an honest question in this case. Granted, it is a question which has been asked many times on this forum, many times by trolls. But that doesn't mean that every person who asks the question is a troll.

Click to expand...

I resent that statement I have no "long running beef" with Pentax

I actually left a mostly positive user review for the K-x on this site. Granted I pulled no punches with the K-r but then can you blame me?

With the lens questions it's open to debate. Pentax obviously feel the limited lens range is the main prime range for them, and you get the pros and cons with that.

If you're looking for a normal prime, you'll have to dish it out for the 31. It's a great lens. Then the 43,55,77,200 and 300 are all fast. Sure they can be faster, but at what price? Pentax makes their top-quality glass 0.5 to 1 stop slower than Canikon. It makes them smaller and cheaper. I like that. I love the way they feel on the camera & the way they fit in a small bag.

I also have the 21mm f/3.2

Though i would have liked it to be f/2, the little limited is really good in practice.

--
-----------------------------------------------
Miles Green
Corfu

http://photorumors.com/2012/03/01/pentax-k-5-silver-special-edition-with-a-marc-newson-designed-da-40mm-f2-8-xs-ultra-thin-lens-announced/

Vorda said:

I'm aware of the fact that Pentax are trying to be different and that they are all about creating system as light and compact as possible.

I'm also aware of the fact that Pentax are making a lot of different primes and that they are industry leader in this, at least for the APS-C lenses. Also, often they duplicate focal lengths offering several products.

But still I see a gap in the primes line up. On the tele side, I understand the offer: DA* 55, DA* 200, DA* 300 and future DA? 560. Since these products are not used by professionals size, weight and especially price are very important elements. Therefore these lenses hit the sweet spot (being f1.4, 2.8, 4.0 and 5.6) when mixing those elements, at least for non-professionals.

But I don't understand normal and wide angle offer. Yes, DA Limited 15 is a nice, light and compact lens but it is really slow for a prime. I can already hear some of the people screaming but wide angle lenses and fast aperture is not all about DOF, especially when we are not talking about ultra wide lenses. This lens is all about size and than relatively good optics and not vice versa. DA 14 on the other hand is faster but it definitely isn't a DA* lens.

Also, in the 35mm range (that should be the base for APS-C) there are several alternatives. But non of them meet the criteria I would like to see.

So, I believe that Pentax need to offer more DA* primes - the best optics, fast, ultrasonic focus (that doesn't malfunction) and excellent build quality. Only that lineup could be considered as a cheaper and lighter alternative to Canikon's primes (24, 35, 50, 85 all f1.4).

I'm posting this post because I can't remember seeing it posted in this or on "the other" forum. Am I the only one who thinks like this?

Click to expand...

--
S100, S6500, S5, F300, F200, F70, F11, F31 (deceased), Z5, V10, D40, EX1