Okay, I would like your thoughts (especially John as he has had real use out of the lenses)

I currently have the DA*50-135mm lens, which is used a lot, especially for portrait work.
I am looking for a dedicated Portrait/short tele prime for use. (I am loving the abilities of prime lenses )

So the question is, considering the relative speed of the 70mm Limited, what extra would it give me over the 50-135mm for portrait work? Obviously size will be a big answer, but in the studio, size does not matter, IQ does.

Secondly, as I already have the aformentioned 50-135, would it be better to consider the FA77mm Limited instead, and relish the faster aperture, yet get rid of the occasional CA post processing?

Thoughts.

There is a common concensus here, and I can only add to it. The K-5 is a massive leap over the K20D in just about every aspect. Noise, low light, AF, build, viewfinder etc etc.
I now have my K20D as backup for theatre shots and event work, the K-5 is my primary body, as it has been for over 12 months.
In fact apart from jobs, the K20D hardly gets a look in now.

It is a wonderful wonderful camera.

A question regarding the above.

I am a glasses wearer, will the above help, in addition to assisting with manual focus?

Sorry if the question is so short, but I am wondering for MF and macro use.

I concur - The older and cheaper F4-5.6 model is still a great lens. I love mine.

I'm for the white look. Purely from reflecting heat point of view. John is right when it comes to big lenses being black, it has an effect on the lens itself when it comes to heat.
Up until recently even Nikon gave the option of white on their lenses, in fact I believe you can still order your Nikkor big lens in white (special order though)
Aesthetically, it may be a no-no to some, but would you rather have a big black lens that heats up and has an effect on performance, or a white one that works reliably? Personally I am in the latter camp.

Seriously though, it is good that Pentax are even going to offer a lens longer than 300mm. It shows that they mean business, and subconsiously puts in the mind to potential Pentax buyers that that could have a long lens should they wish to (even if they don't actually buy one)

Sony have always been a bit "steep" when it comes to lens prices - something Canon seem to be following (24-70mm F2.8L II at £2K - they are having a laugh)


So a £2K 560mm F5.6 Pentax monster will be a breath of fresh air.
Yes, steep in some ways, but cheap compared to the others.

I WANT ONE!
Actually, even if it was £2.5K, I STILL Want one!

Saving up as we speak.

Fair point, but it does indicate DA*. The 17-70 F4 already exists, for I doubt it would step on the toes of that, does'nt make sense. Maybe it might be a F2.8-F4.
It would not make any sense to bring out another F4 lens with a * on it, when there is already the 17-70 F4 in the range, just for an extra 15mm.

After the initial shock of it, I am beginning to warm to it. Forget the 40mm XS, it just looks ugly with it. with a proper prime it has a purposeful look to it. You could even say techno-industrial design.
Just looks wrong in Yellow, that makes it look like it has just come off the set of Space 1999 or UFO, or other such 60's/70's sci-fi show.
The white? No thanks. The Black? Yes and I have seen a silver one (or was it white under-exposed) But if there is a silver one, that is the best looker.

Would I have one? Well, I already have a K-5 so, probably not as it is barely smaller than the K-5. But...... If it was the right price, and I could get used to using just a screen, then possibly, as for Theatre work it might be a good backup, and might be better for landscape work.

In the meantime, the bonus (when I get it) will probably go on more pressing kit, such as a fast standard zoom to replace my 16-45 and a decent high performing pocketable compact (toss up between the Fuji X10, Pano LX-5, Olympus XZ-1 or - if I can get my mind over the sensor size - the Q)

It has been awhile since the last new lens (the 35mm F2.4), so it is good to see that finally Pentax are announcing a new lens roadmap, especially at the long end.

A DA* 16-85 F2.8? or F4? hopefully F2.8 as it could supercede both my 16-45 and Siggy 24-70 F2.8.

I expect the DA long zoom will have a aperture of F4-6.3 ala Sigma, and the 550mm? will be a nice fast monster of at least F4.5 or slightly faster, but probably F5.6 - but thats fine by me, at least it is a long tele instead of a Sigma.

Here's hoping.

Well, the drama on BBC4 inspired me.
How? Well the M42 screw Super Takumars, considered possibly the finest range of Pentax glass ever.

So here is the poser. I have my Digital Pentax bodies, a couple of Film Pentax bodies and my 16th birthday present - a Praktica MTL-5B which still works, built like a tank but lacklustre M42 lenses.

I also have an old lovely K-55mm F1.8 which produces excellent results, as well as an FA-50mm F1.4. Again lovely.

Questions then:-

Are the various SMC and Super Takumar 55mm F1.8 lenses better than the already fine K-55mm F1.8 or not?

Or, would it be a who cares, and if I find one at a good price, just get it and feed LBA......

Seriously though, I am intrigued with answers to the first question, as the legend goes that they are considered the finest range of lenses - Period! (forget Leica M's and Pentax Limiteds)

I will be intrigued by your responses.