Thoughts on 50-135mm and K3iii

DougOB wrote:

Upgrade the motor - yes, definately. Updated coatings of course. Possible go for round aperture blades if they are not there already.

Bigger, heavier more expensive for better IQ? No. It is more than good enough as it is even the new 16-50 PLM beats it at 50mm. It is an APSC lens, keep it size appropriate.

Doug

It is the question.

As you said, 'It is an APSC lens' and needs to be size appropriate. On the other hand I look at what Pentax did with the 16-50 upgrade. For an additional 19mm in length and 150 g of weight and $350 (20%, 27% and 33% increase), it has markedly better IQ. A true "bag full of primes". Any more resolution and it would become too clinical to my eyes.

While I'm very happy with the current 50-135mm, when I see what the new 16-50mm can do, (in the 2x2 image, compare the upper right face/eye with the lower right at original size). I'm willing to pay the extra $300 - $400 for improved IQ if it is still size appropriate. That would be a 7.5mm increase in diameter and say another 185 g of weight. Total of 84mm and 870 g . Still below my upper limit of 1kg and both the 16-50 and 50-135mm lenses would use the same size filters.

I'd be more tempted to pay $1,400 for an improved 50-135mm that is size appropriate than $1,050 for the same lens with just a new motor and coatings. I would then have a two lens 26 MP system with no reservations/hesitations that would handle most general type situations.

I'm sure Pentax/Ricoh are running the numbers to determine what they are going to do.