Two more front ends

Resigned to the extra weight but I have to agree it'll be my "Go To" kit too with my Siggy 8-16 thrown in there as well. I'm hoping that the Pentax gods smile and in a departure to normal practice that an extra 80mm isn't that much, and it doesn't need to be built from unobtainium alloy just to stay within alignment...
Ah Well...

I'm just being argumentative today as, really, I'm an APSC supporter rather than full frame

but as for costs ...

Exactly the same for the lens on either FF or APSC of course, although the FF body it was mounted on would cost more.

The DC motor appears to be better than the SDM, but not a patch on the supersonic ring motor`s for AF speed.
So why do pentax keep using a second rate motor.
Cheers
Dave

Not very helpful at all I'm afraid John. In fact, the second quoted paragraph is simply double-dutch. I'm glad to see that DrOrloff and LennyBloke seem to feel the same. Perhaps that paragraph lost something in its translation from Japanese More to the point, who actually reads the lens instruction manual before buying a lens. A purchaser will be informed by manufacturer's sales literature/adverts, magazine articles or perhaps salesman's recommendation. In all cases it seems that WR is a vague catch-all term that is banded about with little acknowledgement of the degree of protection. MattMatic's post and others throughout this forum suggest that there is definitely confusion regarding just what WR means for different lenses.

Anyway, talk of WR is taking the thread off-subject - which I didn't mean to do. I'll gladly start a new thread about WR if there is interest.

Best regards

Jim

There are some recognised standards for waterproof cameras and there it gets very specific, but for DSLR lenses it's new territory.

I'd translate the two paragraphs as: DA* lenses are dust proof and water resistant, but not waterproof. So, we've seen what can be done in the desert on YouTube, but the norm would be no actual immersion in water but a high level of sealing against rain and water.

WR lenses have a simplified version of the same technology and are not dust proof, but will resist bad weather conditions such as rain.

It indicates to me clearly enough what I would and wouldn't do with these lenses, and so far no problems have ensued.

well I was hoping for it to go out to 400mm but at 135-380 pentax are finally providing an alternative to Sigma in this area. also, the WR will be a welcome feature after being at a few wet Duxford airshows in the last few years.

I have got covers etc, but the WR will be most welcome.

pair it with a new WR TC that will be a sweet piece of kit. Get the image quality right and they have my pennies already seeing as Tamron won't do their 150-600 in K Mount.

the only other alternative I was looking at was springing for a Sigma DA100-300 (if I could ever find one) and pair it with a sigma 1.5x or 2x TC but this might have just taken care of that proposition.

do we have any other specs on this yet? where is the source of this news? Also, what is the likelihood this would approach the Sigma 100-300 F4 EX DG or Pentax DA 60-250 in image quality?

Predictions on Price anyone?

so here's a thought: what will y'all say if the rumored DA* 135-380mm is for crop-sensor only? Would that finally squash any feelings that a full-frame Pentax were on the way?

Personally, I'm betting it is for crop sensor as Pentax's trend wrt lenses has been to offer lenses that are smaller/lighter/sharper/faster than the competition and they pull that off by NOT trying to cover full-frame image circle. This lens seems aimed squarely at Sigma's 120-400mm lens which is much bigger than it needs to be if were designed exclusively for crop sensor.

Michael

On film Pentax lenses were smaller/lighter/sharper/ faster than the competition. Oh, and they were 'full frame' too

frankly I couldn't care less if the lens caters to full frame or not. I don't need full frame and TBH the 1.5 crop the APS-C sensor gets me means I don't have to pay stupid amounts of money for FF lenses with the same reach.

I'm an airshow person and lugging the Bigma around is quite enough as it is. So a lean 135-400 has tons of appeal. (bearing in mind the Sigma 120-400 is nearly as heavy as the Bigma is!) I have had the DA L 55-300 and while it hunted sometimes it would produce some stunning shots on a good day.

so the near release of a 135-400 + a TC is welcome news

I'm not into the whys and wherefores when it comes to lens design, but how come 380mm? isn't that a bit of an odd size to be the top end? why not 400? isn't that the more usual thing, buyers tend to like round numbers

I don't think whether the 135-380 is ff or apsc will give any definitive answer. We will have a definitive answer though before the year is out.

looking at the price for the 55-300 HD WR I could see this 135-380 being about £850?

can't see it being more than that, otherwise it puts it up against the bigma

Think more likely £1200 the canon 100-400 is £1279 and I cant see Pentax being any difference. This lens will be a lot bigger than the 55-300mm.

No chance at that price £1600 more like it, 60-250 £1200 it will not be cheaper than that!!!!

And sigmas pricing will irrelevant to Pentax pricing.

You could have had it already. Sigma 135-400mm f4.5-5.6 DG SPO - only paid £325 for mine and it's very crisp from 135-350.


I already have a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.5 as well. Also a great performer. cost me £200.

I'm pleased see pentax catching up on it's lens line up after all these years though.

I wish they'd release a 30mm/1.2