Pentax Interview

[renatoa]

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/18496/pentax-interview/

[mc2imaging]

It does answer one question: People are always wondering if anyone at Pentax reads these forums.

 

"I read a lot of forums..." and "If you read the fourms..." indicate they do.

[miserere_mei]

I got the feeling that Mr Carlson had little clue about what Pentax's plans are, that he knew about 10% more than the rest of us do. It seems like Pentax HQ in Japan are keeping their international offices in the dark.

 

So yes, they read the forums, but how much of that gets transmitted to Mother Pentax, and then how much of that actually gets through to the developers?

 

This interview did not leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling inside.

[ankit_mohan1]

I wonder how old this interview is. Re limited lenses he says "I haven't seen any plans on the roadmap", when the new roadmap shows the 15mm ltd. I agree with Miserere, he seems to know very little about what pentax is planning. Weird!

[14mm 2.8l]

Good read, thanks for the link Renato.

 

I thought the "point and shoot pentax line was discontinued", intersting to see that info on this board was incorrect. Odd thing is my local Costco carrys pentax point and shoot now. Which made sense to me as they, Costco, Sams Club, get rid of overstocks and factory remainders.

 

Samsung didn't fair well in the interview showing up as a electronics company and not a camera maker. A popular myth in my town is "samsung makes pentax logo'd dslrs". Everyone's saying it, and there, I just said it too. Fact of fiction, I am actually very curious:

 

Who is manufacturing pentax brand dslrs thesedays or last year?

 

Personally I compare Samsung to Sony, which means they both are far larger than either Canon or Nikon in total manufactured product sales. I guess when samsung offers k-mount lenses it has on its website which exist nowhere else in USA market and Samsung has "prosupport" they'll be a real camera company?

 

I picked up the new K20/K200 brochure and it actually shows the current lens line up. Well current meaning it has (almost) all the unissued roadmap glass included. No FA35mm of course, but the 35macro, the 60-250 f4, the 200 f2.8 and 300 f4 are all shown.

 

The K20D still specs quite well. Its hard to pass on it today with a pair of perfectly functioning non antishake pair of 6mp Samsung GX-1S inhand. I look foward to all the happy K20D owners posting their results and feedback. I'd like to get the wife a K20D for Christmas 08.

 

One thing I'd like to see in a K30D, yes K30D, you know, next years hot new thing:

 

An articulated viewscreen.

 

You know like Olympus did on their flagship dslr E3. Oh and Make live view function with autofocus function while allowing me to articulate the viewscreen please. Then I could add a K30D next Spring to the K20D I buy for Christmas.

 

Lindy

[14mm 2.8l]

Scratch the 60-250mm f4 in K20D brochure, I just doubled checked and actually the 55-300mm f4-5.8 non * is pictured.

 

Cool brochure for sure. No teleconverter(s) or 15mm limited or 17-70mm "replacement for 16-45 f4" per current roadmap.

 

Lindy

[andrewg_ny]

Lindy: <A HREF=http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/roadmap.pdf>Current roadmap</A> has 15mm ltd, DA 17-70 f/4 SDM, DA* 60-250 f/4 SDM, DA* 30 SDM, DA* 55 f/1.4 SDM, and SDM rear (tele?) converter. Or did you just mean that these aren't in a recent brochure yet?

[miserere_mei]

I'm very curious about the 17-70mm and the 60-250mm. I can see people buying the 17-70mm if it comes out at a similar price to the 16-45mm. However, I wonder who will buy the 60-250mm if it comes out at around $800 (and I can't imagine it will be much cheaper). For that price I would rather get the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, SDM and weather sealing be dammed; pair it up with a 1.4x TC and you get a much more versatile combination than the Pentax 60-250mm f/4. Time will tell!

[14mm 2.8l]

Exactly Andrew, the roadmap lenses you list are not in new brochure, yet other unreleased roadmapped lenses are discussed and product pictures of each are provided: Like 35mm Macro and 300mm f4 and 55-300mm f4-5.8. I'm not loving the "$599" launch price on the 35mm macro, though I'd assume it'll be a fine performer. Usually any dedicated macro lens is a better than average lens.

 

Miserere, I have no weathersealed dslr and no sdm capable dslr. So sdm glass isn't on my short list, where as the tamron 70-200 2.8 is. No one has it for sale yet, but I plan to be the first on my block with it. Awaiting the email to make it so.

 

As the 35mm FA is no longer included in this January 2008 brochure I'd say buy it while you can if its something you'd like to buy brand new. B&H seems to be the only usa dealer that sells them.

 

Lindy

[michael_kuhne]

I agree with your points, Mis, and think along those lines for myself. Also no mention the 60-250mm will be weather sealed, only the SDM advantage. The other deciding factor is that I still often shoot film. Since I already have a fast Tokina 28-70mm zoom, which has made the fast DA* 16-50mm an unnecessary luxury, the Tamron 70-200mm would be a good match up. No doubt the added range and speed will cost some, though, in size and weight.

 

Still not having a true wide to long zoom for digital, however, I am interested in the 17-70mm f/4, as I often do not need the f/2.8 speed anyway, and will still have my Tokina when I do. I was thinking of the Sigma 17-70mm, but now I'll wait and see. I will be pleasantly surprised if the new lens, with its longer zoom range, can hold up in quality at its longer end, comparable to the excellent 16-45mm.

 

I can see the logic for those shooting digital only in going for the 60-250mm. (comparable to 92-383mm with film) Film shooters often use a 1.4x TC with their 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom, which extends it to 280mm at f/4, so coupled with the DA* 16-50mm and 50-135mm the new lens would offer more range and speed, with no TC for potentially better quality as well, in a smaller, lighter handling lens. Or of not needing the f/2.8 tele speed, it can be also coupled with the 16-50mm f/2.8 or 17-70mm f/4 for a 2 lens combo, still above average in speed and quality. So there's lots of uses in this design.

[andrewg_ny]

Both 17-70 and 60-250 seem to be pretty attractive f/4 lenses. Whether they're worth trading for other decent lenses remains to be seen.

[miserere_mei]

Lindy, I hope you'll post your views on the Tamron when you finally get it. Sad news that the FA 35mm is finally out of the picture. It is a lens I would like to have, but I don't have $300 right now to throw at it. However, I feel that it may be too close in FoV to the FA 50mm (which I do have) to be a necessity for me, rather than lens gluttony. What I need for sure is a 24mm f/2; where does Pentax have one of these? Not even on the roadmap. I'll probably end up not buying the FA 35mm and getting Sigma's 24mm or 20mm f/1.8. Once again Pentax loses my money, even though I would much prefer a lens the size of the FA 24mm f/2, which is impossible to buy at a normal price on eBay even when they're beaten up.

 

People complain about the lack of long, fast glass by Pentax, but the short, fast glass is also missing. Pentax just released their fast 200mm and 300mm primes; so where is the fast 24mm prime? I'm happy for them to reissue an updated FA 24mm, just like they did with the 200mm. I just ask that they not make it DA*, so that people can afford to shoot wide and fast.

[miserere_mei]

Michael, while you are correct in what you say, you have to bear in mind that (in my opinion) none of the people who own the DA* 50-135mm will be buying the 60-250mm. I think it doesn't make business sense for a company such as Pentax to put out two mutually exclusive lenses at the high-price level. However, I can certainly see how the 17-70mm and the 60-250mm could be a great combo for someone with moderately deep pockets and no special need for speedy glass.

[andrew robertson]

I would disagree. While they overlap on the short end, they do not overlap at the long end.

Most companies make a 70-200 AND a 100-400 or so, and both seem to sell OK.

[miserere_mei]

Andrew, would you buy both the 50-135mm and the 60-250mm if you had limited resources (like most people do)? Notice that I said "for a company such as Pentax". Sigma can make all the overlapping lenses it wants, as it's their main business and they'll be sure to sell all of their models. However, seeing as Pentax is in a precarious situation right now, one would think they wouldn't go down the partially-redundant route.

 

Think about it, for less than $850 you can get the upcoming Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 and a matching 1.4x TC and have pretty much the same coverage (70-280mm) as the Pentax combo, but at about half the price and with only one lens. You miss out on weather sealing and SDM, but many Pentax users will happily forgo these if they can save $800. And that's why I think it doesn't make sense.

[michael_kuhne]

Actually, you'd have greater coverage, with a lack of only 10mm at the short end. But the Tamron lens will be heavier to handle, I think! I have not seen the spec of the 60-250mm yet. These considerations are why I posted the question a while back if the old traditional focal lengths are sometimes still better.

 

I do think some 50-135mm owners will be interested in the overlapping 60-250mm, because it affords more reach and convenience than using a 1.4x TC on their DA* 50-135mm.

[michael_kuhne]

Some of the Pentax positions in the interview are beyond reconning for me. What is an "extreme light sensitive" lens? Is that meant for a fast lens?

 

And why spend resource to develop an update, introducing the successful K100D Super just a few months ago , then discontinue it and abandon the entry level market?

[andrew robertson]

"Andrew, would you buy both the 50-135mm and the 60-250mm if you had limited

resources (like most people do)?"

 

I wouldn't buy either one, as I don't care for big clunky zoom lenses. But these lenses are

not even in the same class - the 60-250 f/4 is kind of a megazoom, and the 50-135 lets

in twice the light!

 

Most companies offer a 70-200 f/2.8 AND a 100-400 which is at least a stop slower.

Imagining that somebody will convince themselves that they can do with an f/4 lens when

they need an f/2.8 is difficult. But it is easy to imagine that people will go for the option

with 'more zoom' f/stops be damned.

 

And most Tamrons I have played with feel like they are crap. It is no wonder they are

cheaper! Now, Tokina makes nice lenses with really good build. Tamron makes good

optics in shitty barrels.

[renatoa]

> But these lenses are not even in the same class - <br>

> the 60-250 f/4 is kind of a megazoom, <br>

> and the 50-135 lets in twice the light! <br>

<br>

What is the source of this misleading statement? 60-250 is a decent sized lens, length close to the Tamron 70-300, filter thread 67mm or close, and less than one kg, 2 lbs or close. Look at Sigma 300-800 for a megazoom, or at least to a Bigma...