You can safely assume that if Pentax thought more long lenses would be profitable, they would produce them.

G

Pentax already produce a 250-600. It's max aperture is 1:5.6, which isn't bad for a 600mm lens, and it only costs £1,069.00 (for a DA* lens).

But, I only recall one member of this forum actually buying one (no doubt there are more, my memory is increasingly fallible). So, it would seem to suggest that there really isn't much of a market for long lenses amongst Pentax owners.

Just as there appears to be some lack of knowledge of the lenses in the Pentax catalogue.

G

Er, "developed" by Nikon. Not made by. They drew up a spec. and went to a sensor maker.

G

"My 16-50 DA* and 50-135 DA* are duffers..."

This was the title of a post of yours a couple of years back.

You were offered advice on focussing, but never came back.

Are they duffers, or was it user error?

G

That's no excuse!

G

B&W doesn't show this lens at its best. It really shines with colour.

The last picture certainly has potential, but I would crop it ruthlessly.

G

As JR pointed out, there are a lot of these, and clearing out the dead wood is a good idea.

Bit of a storm in a teacup if you ask me.

G

These look good.
link

G

I think that Mark is right to recommend the 18-135, IF you confidently expect never to buy another lens.

But most of us do buy other lenses, and then the 18-135 will be redundant, except perhaps on holiday when you don't want the hassle of taking extra lenses.

If I am walking around a city, and only want to use one lens, then I take the 12-24. It's great for buildings, and you can take people from a couple of feet away, while appearing to be pointing the camera away from them. So an 18-135 would not interest me in that kind of situation.

If the 16-50 is outside your budget, then consider the 17-70 and the 16-45. Both are excellent. Then, if you find you need something longer, get the 50-135.

G

Whilst I think you chaps have done an excellent job, it's still not quite there. The eye is a sharpened eye, rather than an in-focus eye, and therefore lacks the crispness and detail that a good eye should have.

Very annoying, because it's so close to being a very good shot indeed.

I've been laid low with bronchitis. So a belated Happy New Year to all.

G