Why do so few people have that old fashioned think called patience any more?

It would have to be:

1. Less than £1200.

2. Not too much larger/heavier than the K7 and not as large & heavy as the Canon 5D mk2.

3. There would have to be a decent range of full frame lenses available from Pentax to match it (the biggest stumbling block).

Positive yes, but another pile of editorial rubbish from AP. Read it closely and you will find contradictions, statements that do not make sense and if you compare the pictures to the text, they do not match...more inconsistencies. I do not believe anything AP says in regard to gear.

"Yes ... It is a dangerous route , but:
1) The range of Pentax lenses is wider than Sony/Minolta simply because with Pentax you can use all the lenses since at least K mount.
2) Even Pentax and Nikon could use Zeiss Lenses ... here the list:
Planar T* 1,4/50 ZK
circa 500 euro (più Iva)

Distagon T* 2,8/25 ZK
670 euro (più Iva)

Distagon T* 2/35 ZK
670 euro (più Iva)

Planar T* 1,4/85 ZK
880 euro (più Iva)

Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZK
880 euro (più Iva)

Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZK
1.300 euro (più Iva)"

....I am afraid all of that is totally academic and of no interest at all to the accountants at Pentax; unfortunately all these are manual focus lenses and as such are only of interest to a minority of users, which will be nowhere near enough numbers to make a Pentax full frame a viable financial prospect.

Pentax are a business, which many of this forum seem to forget and a business needs to make profits, not make very expensive products to satisfy a minority of users.

Hiya John,

Yep, I am very aware of the traditional views...

"85mm lenses are the right focal length for portraiture"

....IMO this should say A focal length for portraiture, not the RIGHT focal length.

IMO there is no RIGHT lens for portraits.

In my world, this is very traditionalist and blinkered thinking and I do firmly believe that this restricts and blinkers photographers into one so-called 'right' way of shooting.

I saw a superb set of portraits once, which were all taken on a 17mm lens. If people thought 'out of the box' and ignored old fashioned photo 'rules' they may find their photos improve....just my opinion.

Sigma 8-16mm currently £449 at warehouse Express...which seems a fantastic price for such a lens.

Why is an 85mm lens automatically a 'portrait' lens? Where on the lens does it say: Must be used for portraits only?

To pigeon hole lenses in this way is IMO pointless and misleading, especially for newcomers to photography.

An 85mm lens is just as suitable for landscape or anything else, just as ANY lens is usfeful for portraits.

Yet another ebay Londoner who is a moron. Sorry to those minority of lovely and nice Londoners.

Sony, who have MUCH more cash to splash (and also waste) than Pentax, tried the FF route with a terrific camera (the A900 - AND at a good price)together with the support of a legendary lens maker (Zeiss) and with far more FF lenses than Pentax have available and by all reports, Sony have had their fingers badly burned...so why does anyone really expect Pentax to go down the same VERY dangerous route?

"The classic combo would have been 28/50/135"


I have always found this combination to be pretty bizarre, particularly the 135mm, I think this only came about a long time back due to amateurs with tight budgets buying the three cheapest and easily available lenses from makers lens ranges.

The obvious and far more useful would be 28/50/85....or 24/35/85...in full frame terms.