Can't argue with your logic, and indeed wouldn't want to.

I'm just wondering how the choices have been affected by new approaches to photography.

At one time, let's say 1950s to mid 1960s, the choice was a fairly universal 35mm-50/55/58mm-135mm. It was Pentax at the forefront of new technology from 1964 that gradually stretched this to replace 35mm with 28mm, then 24mm, and for the "swinging sixties" crowd even the new fisheye that did not need mirror lock-up.

In the 1970s the 28mm-50mm-135mm-200mm set up would be fairly normal, with some preferring the shorter 100mm. There was plenty of choice from Pentax, with the "odd" lengths of 120mm and 150mm being included.

The 1980s saw the beginning of the zoom revolution, and this has now become the norm. Pentax continue to produce excellent and sometimes exceptional primes, and continue the precedent already established of not being afraid to use unconventional focal lengths.

I would not discourage any new lenses if they feel there's a demand for them.

Ultimately though it does very much depend on the individual - and a wide lens choice does mean that there is something to suit all requirements.

80-400mm or even 100-400mm would be very nice.

Still plastic construction, but yes, a metal mount.

The SRS price for the Nikon is £165, and we can expect that will be a plastic lens as well.

The Pentax we have no final street price, no tests and so we don't know what is special about it, if anything. Except that it fits our cameras and the Nikon doesn't....

Perhaps it would be a good idea to make a judgement when we know something?

To be fair, not being privy to what the task was that can be rather hard to answer. I would not be surprised if the shots were medium format, or even large format, but there's nothing to indicate that they were.

Nowadays for serious huge professional images, maybe even a DSLR. I've seen some images at Focus on Imaging even from the Sigma SD14 that have been as large as those in the video.

Ultimately it depends on the use, the size required and the viewing distance.

This is a very detached and distant form of street photography, but perfectly valid if that's what is wanted. At some point, as the lenses get longer still, maybe even intrusive in some eyes.

Certainly it's the very opposite of the "get into the crowd and interact" concept.

It all depends on the photographer's style.

Not in the slightest. I wouldn't buy a 200mm-equivalent lens as I don't have a need for one, regardless of the speed.

True, going back to the 1950s. By the 1960s photographers were already moving wider, even as far as 24mm in some cases. Tastes change and I'm not sure we can revisit Cartier-Bresson in the same way as once we might.

So basically it has nothing to do with the 645D - the idea is tenuous at best - professionals have been producing images like that from 35mm since the 1960s.

There's an 85mm f2.2 with 2 elements if that helps! In fact, someone in the back pages of AP has been trying to sell one for a while, for around £350 I think.

What has this got to do with the Pentax 645D? :