The Missing Primes

[moving_comfort]

Don't forget a 90mm F1.2 for the 135mm F1.8 equivalent

.

Or if you just want to stick to 135mm FL, AF 135 f/1.8 with modern coatings, little CA and impressive sharpness wide open ... DA* 200 f/2.8 on K-1.

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

 

[sfa1966]

135 format > APS-C > Current Pentax primes that are close
12 > 8
14 > 9
18 > 12
24 > 16 > DA 15 f4
35 > 23
42 > 28
50 > 33 > DA 35mm f28 macro, DAL 35mm f2.4, FA 31mm f1.8
70 > 47 > FA 50mm f1.4, FA 43mm f1.9
85 > 57 > DA 55mm f1.4
90 > 60
105 > 70 > DA 70mm f2.4, FA 77mm f1.8
135 > 90
200 > 133
300 > 200 > DA * 200mm f2.8
500 > 333 > DA * 300mm f4
600 > 400

This is a nice list, thanks, but I think historically there were so many primes to serve the film format because zooms (to the extent they existed) were so relatively poor in terms of IQ during the film age. But it is not the same story today. Not even mentioning Pentax's low market share in the digital age, the numbers of good to very good zooms (both Pentax and 3rd party) covering the range from 16mm to 300mm makes it very difficult for a full suite of primes to be economically viable.

Future Pentax primes? I reckon we might see a fast prime in the 25mm - 28mm range; also, we might see a longer-than-100mm macro. But even if these arrive (I have my doubts) I would be very surprised if we see much else in the APSC realm.

--
Cheers,
sfa

A very limited photographer ...

 

[Russell Evans]

This is a nice list, thanks, but I think historically there were so many primes to serve the film format because zooms (to the extent they existed) were so relatively poor in terms of IQ during the film age. But it is not the same story today.

So a prime shooter today needs to buy a zoom?

Not even mentioning Pentax's low market share in the digital age, the numbers of good to very good zooms (both Pentax and 3rd party) covering the range from 16mm to 300mm makes it very difficult for a full suite of primes to be economically viable.

So a prime shooter should ditch Pentax and go to another manufacturer? I would think with today's manufacturing, that it would be possible to make boutique lenses for a market. Actual limited Limiteds.

Future Pentax primes? I reckon we might see a fast prime in the 25mm - 28mm range; also, we might see a longer-than-100mm macro. But even if these arrive (I have my doubts) I would be very surprised if we see much else in the APSC realm.

New owners bring new ideas and new strategic plans, so who knows what we will see happening.

Thank you
Russell

 

[Prognathous]

Many people want an 400/4.0 lens, but very few would actually pay $6000 for one. A $1200 400/5.6 is a lens people would buy. In fact, it's a lens that would make some people consider Pentax as a valid option. Currently, the longest Pentax lens ends at 300mm, and there's no third party K-mount lens that can optically match the 400mm lenses (both zoom and prime) available from Canon, Nikon and Sony. And no, the Bigma is not a serious contender. For many wildlife hobbyists, Pentax is simply not an option without a reasonably priced good quality 400mm lens.

The above prices are based on Canon's offerings. Pentax primes are typically more expensive, so it very well may be $7000 and $1500. The sales potential is pretty much the same.

Prog.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oren_b

 

[sfa1966]

This is a nice list, thanks, but I think historically there were so many primes to serve the film format because zooms (to the extent they existed) were so relatively poor in terms of IQ during the film age. But it is not the same story today.

So a prime shooter today needs to buy a zoom?

No, but there is less reason to become a prime shooter in the first instance. I still know of several people who are perfectly happy with their kit zooms, and the thought of buying a prime has apparently never arisen for them.

Not even mentioning Pentax's low market share in the digital age, the numbers of good to very good zooms (both Pentax and 3rd party) covering the range from 16mm to 300mm makes it very difficult for a full suite of primes to be economically viable.

So a prime shooter should ditch Pentax and go to another manufacturer? I would think with today's manufacturing, that it would be possible to make boutique lenses for a market. Actual limited Limiteds.

No. They should stay with Pentax. But I don't see Pentax (or others) investing too much more in too many new APSC primes.

I still think that lenses need a lot of up-front R&D and given Pentax's rather small standing in the market, it would act as a brake to exotic or expensive prime manufacture.

Future Pentax primes? I reckon we might see a fast prime in the 25mm - 28mm range; also, we might see a longer-than-100mm macro. But even if these arrive (I have my doubts) I would be very surprised if we see much else in the APSC realm.

New owners bring new ideas and new strategic plans, so who knows what we will see happening.

Well if speculation is to be frowned upon, why bother having a forum at all, or at least answering a thread like this one? But anyway, I would think that Ricoh will have the figures of who have bought (and are buying) APSC primes and I doubt they'll plough masses of money into something they perceive as a big risk.

Thank you
Russell

--
Cheers,
sfa

A very limited photographer ...

 

[Franka T.L.]

In short, any real long tele, and any real ultra wide. well sure I agree. At those extreme, zoom can be a curse and a blessi.ng, but fix focal is almost always a safe bet, pretty much because the lens designer had no need to tailor to compromise in coverage 9 especially the Ultra wide ). The long end is perhaps somewhat served by the 60-250/4.0. But something like a true 400mm/4.0 ( 600mm equivalent ) would be welcomed. Simply put, after the 100 Macro, there is really no decent tele ( fix focal ) from Pentax anymore. Ditto with the wide end.

• Franka -

 

[HozicEmir]

--
http://www.500px.com/Barbarosa

 

[Jim King]

I think that we need the most is a light bright 40mm equivalent so like a 26mm with a 2 or 2.5 aperture in the compact format

Nope, a 28mm f2 is what really would serve us best in the FL, IMO. But getting this in a lightweight design is a problem...
--
Jim King - Retired Colormonger - Suburban Detroit, Michigan, USA; GMT -4h (EDT)
Pentaxian for over 50 years.





* * * * *
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

• Sir Winston Churchill

* * * * *
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.

• Albert Einstein

 

[Jim King]

What I'd like to see:

13mm f/1.8 ... $450 new
16mm f/1.3 ... $650 new
24mm f/1.3 ... $350 new
35mm f/1.2 ... $199 new

Is that too much to ask?

At those prices, yes. Decent fast short FL lenses are expensive!

--
Jim King - Retired Colormonger - Suburban Detroit, Michigan, USA; GMT -4h (EDT)
Pentaxian for over 50 years.





* * * * *
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

• Sir Winston Churchill

* * * * *
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.

• Albert Einstein

 

[Jim King]

In short, any real long tele, and any real ultra wide. well sure I agree. At those extreme, zoom can be a curse and a blessi.ng, but fix focal is almost always a safe bet, pretty much because the lens designer had no need to tailor to compromise in coverage 9 especially the Ultra wide ). The long end is perhaps somewhat served by the 60-250/4.0. But something like a true 400mm/4.0 ( 600mm equivalent ) would be welcomed. Simply put, after the 100 Macro, there is really no decent tele ( fix focal ) from Pentax anymore. Ditto with the wide end.

So the DA* 200 and DA 300* are chopped liver? I don't think so...
--
Jim King - Retired Colormonger - Suburban Detroit, Michigan, USA; GMT -4h (EDT)
Pentaxian for over 50 years.





* * * * *
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

• Sir Winston Churchill

* * * * *
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.

• Albert Einstein

 

[moving_comfort]

What I'd like to see:

13mm f/1.8 ... $450 new
16mm f/1.3 ... $650 new
24mm f/1.3 ... $350 new
35mm f/1.2 ... $199 new

Is that too much to ask?

At those prices, yes. Decent fast short FL lenses are expensive!

I think you may have skipped over the punch line in my post there, Jim Those are (were) about the prices of the FA 20 f2.8, FA* 24 f2, FA 35 f2, and FA 50 f1.7. Basically I'm saying; release the FF K-1, and these easily-affordable lens designs become something more esoteric and desirable when compared to the equivalent lenses that would be required to achieve the same FOV/DOF combos on aps-c.

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

 

[Rod McD]

Hi,

Why do so many posters keep on referring to a need for a 400mm as the most desired FL for a longer Pentax telephoto lens?

The existing 100, 200, & 300mm lenses all increase in increments of 100mm. The 200mm has twice the reach (half the FOV) of the 100mm. The 300mm has a 50% increase over the 200mm. A 400mm would have a 33% increase over the 300mm. This strikes me as a relatively modest increase in reach and not a lot more than a reasonable crop of the 300mm image. If it were me, and Pentax were only going to produce one longer tele (if they produce anything longer at all), I'd be looking for a bit more - perhaps a 450mm or a 500mm.

I'd be happy with f4.5 or f5.6 as long as it was sharp wide open. The K5 sensor is so good above base ISO that I could happily live with it. I can't see a lens of this order being available at around the $1200 that someone suggested. That would be cheaper than the DA300 is now (at least here in Australia).

Cheers, Rod

 

[miles green]

What I'd like to see:

13mm f/1.8 ... $450 new
16mm f/1.3 ... $650 new
24mm f/1.3 ... $350 new
35mm f/1.2 ... $199 new

Is that too much to ask?

At those prices, yes. Decent fast short FL lenses are expensive!

I think you may have skipped over the punch line in my post there, Jim Those are (were) about the prices of the FA 20 f2.8, FA* 24 f2, FA 35 f2, and FA 50 f1.7. Basically I'm saying; release the FF K-1, and these easily-affordable lens designs become something more esoteric and desirable when compared to the equivalent lenses that would be required to achieve the same FOV/DOF combos on aps-c.

Ah, yes!
Now that puts everything under new light!
We've been over this before: Sign me up for a K1 with a biiig viewfinder!

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

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

 

[DLBlack]

Hi,

Why do so many posters keep on referring to a need for a 400mm as the most desired FL for a longer Pentax telephoto lens?

Becasue it is longer than the 300 and at 400 it would be very good for small birds.

The existing 100, 200, & 300mm lenses all increase in increments of 100mm. The 200mm has twice the reach (half the FOV) of the 100mm. The 300mm has a 50% increase over the 200mm. A 400mm would have a 33% increase over the 300mm. This strikes me as a relatively modest increase in reach and not a lot more than a reasonable crop of the 300mm image. If it were me, and Pentax were only going to produce one longer tele (if they produce anything longer at all), I'd be looking for a bit more - perhaps a 450mm or a 500mm.

All very true. A 500 would be better amd would pair up with the 300 better. If Pentax did come out with a high-end 400 I would most likely not bring along my DA*300. If a high-end 450 or 500 was released I will take along the 300. This would make my bag really heavy with DA*200, DA*300 and DA*500, but I would be very happy.

I'd be happy with f4.5 or f5.6 as long as it was sharp wide open. The K5 sensor is so good above base ISO that I could happily live with it. I can't see a lens of this order being available at around the $1200 that someone suggested. That would be cheaper than the DA300 is now (at least here in Australia).

I wouldn't want anything slower than f5.6.

Anyhow, I am in the waiting mode right now to see what Ricoh is going to do with Pentax. If I like the direction I will get a super-telephoto. Hopefully it will be a Pentax if not I will get a Sigma 500/4.5.

Dave
--

 

[Franka T.L.]

Might be I am not making myself clear, when I say Long Tele, I mean something 500mm ( 35mm film equivalent ) or longer, the 200 and 300 of course are nice Tele, but not that long . It was kind of old school, might be, but I do not consider anything shorter than 100mm on an APS-C Tele, they might be long focal ( say the 55mm ). The Tele range ( in film days , the least I would go with is 135mm, but on an APS-C I would just say 100mm ) is useful but its different from using actual long tele. When one goes to something like say a 400mm on K-5, one start to really see a different perspective. This is what I am saying about the lack of such on Pentax's range.

• Franka

 

[Russell Evans]

No, but there is less reason to become a prime shooter in the first instance. I still know of several people who are perfectly happy with their kit zooms, and the thought of buying a prime has apparently never arisen for them.

I know several people that are perfectly happy with their P&S cameras. The thought of buying a DSLR has apparently never arisen for them. So by your logic, Pentax should just make P&S cameras.

No. They should stay with Pentax. But I don't see Pentax (or others) investing too much more in too many new APSC primes.

It's not like Nikon just released a DX 40mm macro, or a DX 35mm a couple of years ago. It's not like Samsung and Sony aren't making primes for their new APS-C systems either. No one is making APS-C primes afterall.

I still think that lenses need a lot of up-front R&D and given Pentax's rather small standing in the market, it would act as a brake to exotic or expensive prime manufacture.

I don't think Pentax makes any of the parts that go into their lenses or cameras. I think they outsource and assemble. R&D is probably mostly computer time now, 3D modeling for the mechanical and optical programs.

Well if speculation is to be frowned upon, why bother having a forum at all, or at least answering a thread like this one?

The only one frowning seems to be you.

But anyway, I would think that Ricoh will have the figures of who have bought (and are buying) APSC primes and I doubt they'll plough masses of money into something they perceive as a big risk.

You are assuming primes are a big risk when we know that primes are what bring a number of people to Pentax in the first place. The risk to DSLR manufacturers right now is the erosion of the low end DSLR market by mirrorless, that low end that only buys the kit lenses.

Once the majority of that crowd has left, what is left to differentiate the upper level DSLRs? Sensor size? OK, for price point. Features, they will be copied. The only thing left will be the lenses. Small lenses on small DSLRs for APS-C because that's the only way. I bet mostly APS-C primes with some zooms. What happens on 135 format? Mostly zooms with a few special primes.

Thank you
Russell