Announcements: K-r and inexpensive DA35/2.4

[rparmar]

<p>The fact that Pentax is the only company with the balls to release a new camera with a fixed lens as the kit says volumes to me. That it is a bargain price version of an esteemed lens -- trading half a stop of light for improved digital optimisation, lower weight and smaller size -- only adds to the value. Comparing this to Nikkor lenses that are NOT STABILISED is misleading. So too is expecting Pentax to run a loss leader like Nikon has obviously done.</p>

<p>Me, I would love a fast 24mm or 28mm lens. Do I need another 35mm? No, not at all. But I think this is a great way for Pentax to snag new customers and indoctrinate them into the <strong>one focal length way</strong> that photographers need to embrace to become any good at all.</p>

<p>This lens is faster than all the DA Limiteds, for goodness sake. If you are a photographer and can't deal with f/2.4 in a 35mm FOV then you are no photographer at all. Folks pine for the Leica X1 and it has a f/2.8 lens. Why don't we wait and see how good the optics are before condemning this one?</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Waiting to see how good the optics are is certainly a good idea. With that in mind, how can you call it an esteemed lens if it's an all-new design and hasn't been released yet? Do you know something we don't?</p>

[markus maurer]

<p>Where are all this photos taken at F1.2-F2.8 hidden in the POW or general Pentax forum?</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>This is apparently a return to the kit policy for entry level offering during the film era- as in ME Super with "M" 50mm f/2 prime lens.  It really is a good kit for introduction of serious photography. <br>

 <br>

The K-r is already listed on Pentax USA- pentaximaging website.  The K-x is still there, the K-7 is now gone.   <br>

 <br>

I do hope the K-r becomes available packaged as body only without a penalty as to price.  It is obviously an upgraded version  of the K-x.  They could have named it K-xr.  It does appear to be just a bit heavier in build, by 1/2 ounce, 1/10 " more width, and 2/10 inch more in height (darn it!)- about the same height as my K200D.  I believe the added height was necessary for the lighted focus points in the VF and the greater 3" LCD size. So it is an entirely new body.<br>

 <br>

With the slightly heavier but still very compact new body, and perhaps a better-damped shutter/mirror mechanism, the detail smearing from vibration  between 1/30 and 1/100 sec may be solved.    <br>

 <br>

The video is claimed to be somewhat improved at 25 fps, though still at a good 720p.  The new Nikon entry DSLR, however, offers 1080p video, and with a 14.2 MP sensor, wich may be needed to deliver the 1080p.  Nikon claims good high ISO performance, but theirs has been compromised by aggressive NR right along, and the 14MP sensor implies more of the same.  Hopefully, the K-r will continue the fine high ISO detail-preserving performance of the K-x.  Pentax is being wise to keep this potential by staying with the 12MP sensor.  It must be a body size issue that accounts  for a lack of HDMI output.  It makes little sense to have HD video when it cannot be output as HD.  The only option is to download the video to a computer via USB, then burn a DVD for HD viewing. <br>

 <br>

I look forward to test reports, and find the K-r to be of great interest as my ultra-compact, low-light, and action shooter!!  But for other needs, my built-like-a- tank, weather sealed, K200D will remain my most used compact DSLR!  The k-r may turn out to be worth the wait instead of getting the k-x.    </p>

[jgredline]

<blockquote>

<p>Mis wrote:<br>

It's you and it isn't you. We're complaining (some of us, anyway) about the new 35mm lens. Hardly anyone is complaining about the K-r; I might even consider buying one if the K-5 does come out at $1,600 like we've been hearing.<br>

We don't hate Pentax, and that's the problem. We love Pentax so much that when we see them do stupid things it makes us angry. Pentax introduced their first DSLR in 2003, with an APS-C sensor. Their very first lens released after that point should have been a DA Ltd 28mm f/1.9, the APS-C equivalent of the FA Ltd 43mm f/1.9. They've released over a dozen lenses in the 7 years since, and throughout all that time Pentaxians everywhere were requesting, with ever-increasing patience, a normal fastish prime for APS-C, and to make it affordable if possible. And what did we get after 7 years of waiting? A plastic lens that's 7mm too long and almost a stop too slow.<br>

Of course we're going to complain, Jacques.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> Well said. </p>

[jgredline]

<p>Speaking for myself. As a person whom many of you remember as a die hard zoom guy; over the course of the past year and a half, I have completely fallen in love with not only the pentax primes / ltds, but even the off brand ones. These small amazing lenses are the reason I will not completely dump Pentax. Nikon can't touch the Pentax primes as far as size goes. So for me, I would love a 24 or 28 F/2.0 prime that is optimized to be used wide open. A 25mm would also be really good. Well, I am off to take pictures with my cell phone, I mean K20D 8-) </p>

[audun_sjoeseth1]

<p>Javier, I agree with this:<br /> "So for me, I would love a 24 or 28 F/2.0 prime that is optimized to be used wide open. A 25mm would also be really good. "<br>

A DA 24 or 25mm could be f=2.4</p>

[trevor_peterson2]

<p>Ive been thinking about it, and if they came out with a 24mm 1.8-2 close focusing, weather sealed prime, I would get it the day it came out, and it would be the only lens I would carry under 70mm. I think this is the case for several of the people on here. Maybe we will get lucky and something close to that will be announced on the 20th. </p>

[ukhov]

<p>who you search for..?Give me Canon "white" and I color for you in thousands in L COLOR-give Pentax a break A FEW IN PINK AND GREEN -dont you get used to?</p>

[michael_kuhne]

First, there are very few, if any, fast primes that are at their sharpest wide open. Some are downright soft wide open. I have a Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX DG that is pretty decent wide open. And it is good for close focus- near macro! Build quality is excellent, and it is full-frame with an aperture ring for use on a film body. Its build, close focus, and IQ make its price a very good value. But a fast, and WA lens ain't gonna be a pancake!

[orly_andico]

<p>If you look at Ricehigh's blog, the new 35/2.4 looks exactly the same as the FA 35/2.<br>

Leading me to think it's just a stopped-down 35/2 in a cheapified body. Stopping down the 35/2 would actually clean up a lot of its aberrations...<br>

At $220 it's definitely on my "want to buy" list. Cheap enough.<br>

OTOH maybe I should just get a Sony NEX 3 with the 16mm f/2.8 pancake. Perfect small camera.</p>

[ivo_miesen]

<p>It would be a waste of time and opportunities to throw away a good lens design simply because it's the old one. So it sounds to me as a sound policy to reuse the old lens design. I wouldn't mind more lenses to be introduced in this way.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>These small amazing lenses are the reason I will not completely dump Pentax. Nikon can't touch the Pentax primes as far as size goes. So for me, I would love a 24 or 28 F/2.0 prime that is optimized to be used wide open. A 25mm would also be really good.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Precisely, I've been saying this for years.</p>

<p>FOr instance, my Sigma 10-20mm didn't get bigger, I loved it because it was relatively tiny for a 10-20mm wide angle. However, Pentax released a 15mm DA Limited that is positively tiny even compared to the Sigma 10-20. The result, my kit got even smaller while for the most part covering the same range (I found I was using the Sigma around 14mm where it was to my eye sharpest and least distorted, and also about ideal for most of my photography). So the 15mm + 21mm is a better combo in most cases, and also smaller.</p>

<p>People need not complain that Pentax isn't Nikon or Canon, but rather embrace the strong points.</p>

<p>If you continue to live in a fantasy world where Pentax will compete by producing the same lineup as Canon and Nikon for less money you will continue to be saddened.</p>

<p>On the other hand if you accept that Pentax has a great lineup in it's own right, and you determine that strengths of that lineup suit your photography than you will be happy as a Canikonite is perceived to be.</p>

<p>For me being able to fit a very competent landscape kit into a Storm Case 2075 is a a truly amazing feat. To be able to fit a wonderful travel kit into a Lowepro 65AW is also pretty amazing.To be able to fit a 645N and lenses + a K-7 and lenses into a single medium sized photo backpack is amazing. If these sorts of things don't appeal to you than it is time to jump ship and move on.</p>

<p>On the other hand it is perfectly normal and expected that people will have minor complaints and constructive critiques about the direction or misdirection of a company. For myself and many others we love our gear, but we don't understand why Pentax refuses to make certain "no brainer" decisions.</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<blockquote>

<p><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=592664">Ivo Miesen</a> , Sep 13, 2010; 05:43 a.m. </em></p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>It would be a waste of time and opportunities to throw away a good lens design simply because it's the old one. So it sounds to me as a sound policy to reuse the old lens design. I wouldn't mind more lenses to be introduced in this way.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. Which is precisely what many of us have been saying for years. Maybe they finally listened.</p>

<p><strong><em>If</em></strong> it's the same optical formula as the old 35/2 and they simply made the max aperture a little smaller, I may consider buying one, because the 35/2 was one heck of a sharp lens. Even wide open.</p>

<p>Now how about they take the optical formula of the excellent old 50/1.7, repackage it, and release it as an inexpensive DA 50/2! :D</p>

 

[jgredline]

<blockquote>

<p>Precisely, I've been saying this for years.<br>

FOr instance, my Sigma 10-20mm didn't get bigger, I loved it because it was relatively tiny for a 10-20mm wide angle. However, Pentax released a 15mm DA Limited that is positively tiny even compared to the Sigma 10-20. The result, my kit got even smaller while for the most part covering the same range (I found I was using the Sigma around 14mm where it was to my eye sharpest and least distorted, and also about ideal for most of my photography). So the 15mm + 21mm is a better combo in most cases, and also smaller.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Me too. I have found that I was suing the Sigma @14, 15 or 20mm, so I have started to use either the DA15, or 21 now instead of the Sigma. How I wish there was a small DA24 and DA28. I would be all set...I am far from alone in wanting these....To show you how starved us 24m lovers are, consider I paid $600.00 for a used FA*24F/2.0 from KEH? How ever, I rarely use it because it is a monster. Many folks buy them at that price though. So I along with many others enter into these bidding wars for 24's and end up paying more than what this new da 35f/2.4 cost.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

 

[johan_ingles_le_nobel]

<p>Well on the upsaide, flippin heck, that K-r at 3200 ISO doesn't look half bad to me. Is it the same sensor as the K-x?</p>

<p>But having just shelled out for a K-7 last year, I'm a bit peeved because this K-5 sounds like everything I was hoping the K-7 to be. And I have to say, reading Justin and Hin's tales of warranty woe, I hope I never need to get involved with repair.</p>

[thebs]

<p><em>"People need not complain that Pentax isn't Nikon or Canon, but rather embrace the strong points. If you continue to live in a fantasy world where Pentax will compete by producing the same lineup as Canon and Nikon for less money you will continue to be saddened."</em> -- Justin<br>

God if that isn't the quote of the year! If I want Canon or Nikon, I'd buy Canon or Nikon. I've always said if I was a Pro sports shooter, I'd have a Canon or Nikon body to gain access to their common lens rental. But I'm not, and I get into any sporting event with my barely 5" long DA* 200 f/2.8, and that's still long'n fast, especially for the size.<br>

As far as some being upset about the K-5 if it turns true, how does that change versus Canon or Nikon? They come up with better bodies and features on every rev (sans the often crippled, Nikon entry-level bodies). I just bought a K-x as a backup a few months ago and now the K-r is announced. I bought the K20D only 6 months before the K-7 was announced and its price plummeled to almost half of what I paid for it. Chill people.</p>

A826849D-9CF0-6C1F-CD7C-8D85ADCB8FD9

1.03.01