9 of 44

I've just been looking at the Ricoh website and there are 44 K mount lenses listed. Nine of them are definitely full frame.

At the peak of the 1980s there were only about 40 lenses in the range, so I guess things have come along a fair bit in the past few years and we're back up to strength.

What gaps are left?

---

Best regards, John

[quote:What gaps are left?[/quote]

I think the extra-long telephotos for wildlife etc. The 560 mm is the longest now available but this is rather cumbersome; I would like to see at least 600 mm in as practically compact form as possible, at least f4 so that a teleconverter would be fully compatible. I recognize that the market is relatively small for these as the cost will be high, but the main competition has them and the big Sigma lenses are not available. Also a 2x teleconverter.

Which raises a question - is the teleconverter compatible with full frame lenses on a full frame body?

I reckon a sub 12mm star rectilinear prime for both APSC and 35mm size sensor would be interesting. The 12 to 24mm DA must be ready for a motorised upgrade too to suit both formats.

At the telephoto end all too heavy and expensive for this amateur.

I just hope fresh APSC and trade mark compact lenses aren't forgotten in all this.

I'm not sure there's a realistic gap for wildlife Rob, the 150-450mm fits the bill, plus of course the 560mm, which is quite compact for its length.

Could we really afford a 600mm f/4 or 400mm f/2.8? The existing lenses are pushing it, but just about affordable. It depends on our circumstances i know, but I'd find a £10,000 lens to be totally out of reach, even a £5000 one.

---

Best regards, John

My wish is for a top spec 17-70 constant f2.8. Yes it would be expensive and fairly heavy but it would be a very versatile lens.

---

Regards, Philip

I would not mind having that Pentax label on one as well. But... I got a verbal statement from one of many Pentax people not all that long ago on their existing and planned future releases... Rephrasing briefly from what was stated...

That Pentax owners were interested in compact lenses, and WR. They almost ran with the idea of many variations of what you also referred to as constant aperture lens, particularly in that range. They compared their label with that of the existing Sigma 24-70 (constant aperture) f2.8 and others... They quite clearly stated that "they" couldn't do it for anywhere near that price, size, and weight - emphasis on price.

Pentax probably need a 16 or 17mm 'FF' Fisheye (the DA10-17 may cover FF @17mm), 24/28-70 f/2.8, 28-80 variable aperture zoom, 24-105/4 and the 'wide-zoom' currently on the road map for a minimum. As I still shoot manual film cameras I'd prefer aperture rings (otherwise I'll consider old FA lenses). I'd like to see an FF 20/22/24mm Ltd (with aperture ring).

---

PPG Flickr

I still have my 17mm f/4 FE and 17-28mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom FE lenses, so I'm looking forward to see how they perform.

Best regards

---

When something goes wrong in the circus, they send clowns into the arena to distract the audience.

i think it would be nice to have a 150 macro at 2.8 as i like doing macro
and seeing that sigma wont release it in a pentax fit we are stuffed

A couple of points here, John. Pentax used to make a 600 mm lens which is now as rare as hen's teeth and at least one lucky contributor here takes some cracking images with one. I recently opened a book on nature photography and on it's first page said that you need to buy Nikon, Canon or possibly Sony as no other manufacturer has suitable lenses available. I bought my Pentax before I became interested in this field but had I read that first it would have put me right off, so even if you and I don't wish to lay out thousands it is the perception of the system which is important. Also, make a visit to any popular birdwatching site such as Slimbridge and you will see a large number carrying around massive and expensive lenses so the market is there and growing.

The likes of Sigma and Tamron see that market and I guess that almost all their sales go to the aformentioned systems and by not making their large lenses available with K mount that puts more pressure on Pentax to respond; Pentax has positioned itself for outdoor photography with its WR so that only makes sense if the lenses are there as well.

What seems to be lacking mostly is wide options. As far as I can see, FA31Ltd is currently the widest FF option.

Although I only once or twice had a need for 24mm when I was shooting with film (my widest lens was 28mm), I think something in the range from 20mm to 24mm would be a great addition for a number of us.

With regards to specialist lenses, fisheye and tilt-shift will be great additions. But being specialist lenses (and hence will be sold in small volumes), I wonder if they are currently financially feasible for Pentax and Pentax users.

---

Pentax K10D + Vivitar 55/2.8 macro + Super Takumar 55/1.8 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 85/1.8 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 135/3.5 + SuperMultiCoated Takumar 200/4 + Super Takumar 300/4
Pentax K100D + DA18-55ALII + DA55-300
Pentax K5 + FA31Ltd + M50/1.7 + DFA100WR + M120/2.8 (+ DA18-55WR at occasion)

Doesn't the 560mm meet the 600mm requirement? It's so close, and some 600mm lenses might not even be exactly 600mm.

We now have long zooms and primes - 60-250mm, 300mm, 150-450mm, 560mm. In one sense, lenses can never be long enough for wildlife, so being in the right place is just as important, if not more so. The best kingfisher shots I've ever seen were taken with a 100mm macro lens, from a hide at the side of a river. The photographer was stood in water, wearing waders hopefully.

To be fair, all books on nature will be way behind the curve as to what is available in the Pentax range.

---

Best regards, John

I doubt that a crop in of 40mm would make much difference to IQ on a FF sensor. Surely on FF most of these very long telephoto images would be cropped a bit anyway, and without any significant loss of resolution ..... ?

I'm not looking for that sort of focal length, but I would have thought the real issue was maximum aperture ... It's those constant aperture F4 zooms, or F2.8 that make the difference for our wildlife shooters isn't it? But then again, with SR and current ISO performance, is F5.6 in fact perfectly ok?

---

My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver

We need some depth of field, so f/5.6 has probably always been OK. Typically, f/5.6 primes have always been a rather nice, lighter and smaller option than huge f/2.8 lenses. A 400mm f/2.8 is a very seriously big beast of a lens. I wouldn't like to have to use it, and I certainly wouldn't like the cost. If you need that sort of lens, then a large company is buying it I suspect, for someone with a very specific need.

---

Best regards, John

Just tried the Pentax hd1.4 converter with the DA200, on my MZs. No problem, full frame coverage.

---

Bob