I guess that the F 17-28 is out of production. A funs lens.
I don't understand why Pentax is giving priority in its new lens development to specialty lenses that will have low demand. While users are waiting and waiting for a DA 50-200 f4, Pentax brings out a gimmick lens -- the DA 40 f2.8. I'll bet they'd sell a lot more of a DA telezoom with the same optical quality as the DA 16-45.
Then there are the new D FA macros. Did anyone notice anything wrong with the FA macros? I have used my FA 100 f2.8 on the *ist D quite a bit, and the image quality is stunning, even at F22. I don't see how a "digital" lens could improve on what I already have. I haven't heard anyone complain about the FA 50 either (which Boz considers the best in its class). The new D FA macros will apparently be more expensive than the FAs they replace. I guess they are lighter, but that strikes me as a poor justification for allocating design and production resources in this way. They are claimed to be shorter too -- that is true, when the lenses are focused to infinity. In macro mode, their barrels extend quite a bit, probably to about the same length as the FA models. I don't like extending barrel designs.
We have been too complimentary here lately. It is time to return to lambasting Pentax.
Joe (grumpy this morning)
