Data for the case for why Pentax/Sigma/Tamron need a 400mm f5.6

Doug, I completely agree. Pentax is missing the boat in a huge way on a number of lenses. A 400mm only being one of them. Not everyone can afford a DA*300 and a Tamron 1.4 x TC (if you can even find one). A combo like that would run $1500 + to get you a 420mm f5.6 lens. And you've lost the WS because the TC isn't and would be the weak link at both ends.

I got a Tokina 400mm f5.6 from Javier and am really enjoying the lens. In this case it's MF but the metering is fine and the lens is quite sharp (not FA* sharp but decent). I like to shoot long sometimes but not often enough to invest $1500-2000.00 in a lens I might use 5-10% of the time.

So lets consider the options Pentax really needs to look at. Canikon have a large number of affordable options in their prime lens lines. They offer cheap 35mm's, 50mm's annd so on. What do we have? a DA*55m f1.4 that is waaay out of the average shooter's price range. No 28mm, or 30mm. The next step is either the 35mm macro or the 31mm Limited. Both beautiful lenses but too expensive for the average shooter. Bring back the FA28mm and FA35mm. Both very good lenses at affordable prices. This could also be said for the FA20mm, FA50mm and a number of others.

To me the Pentax lineup doesn't make any sense to the average hobby shooter. There's a line of premium and very expensive primes that really are world class and IMO should be considered Pro Grade lenses. But they don't make a body that a Pro would buy. As nice as the K-7 is, it's no match for Canikon's serious pro offerings. I suspect whatever replaces the K-7 won't be either. It will be a camera to compete with something like a 7D or D300s and at best (like those bodies) be considered Semi Pro.

So if there's no pro body and probably none for the foreseeable future, why only have Pro Grade primes? DA* 200mm, DA*300mm, and all the Limiteds. Why not an affordable shooters lens line based on FA designs. There are a ton of lenses in the Pentax vault from the past that could be reimplemented including a 400mm f5.6. The argument will be they don't have the DSLR coatings or some other foolishness. Well then either use the coatings from today's DA lenses or use the SMC coatings from the FA series. I used an FA50mm, FA35mm an FA*300mm and a few others for several years without a single 'ghosted' image from any of them. I really think this stuff about reflections between the sensor and rear element are hogwash. Sure it might happen 0.2% of the time, but for most people, they wouldn't care at all.

Then Pentax could have 3 distinct lines of prime lenses. 1) The premium Limited series for the serious shooter. 2) The DA* series, again for the serious shooter. 3) The FA series (re-branded to maybe something like the DA series) of affordable, good quality consumer primes.

The zoom line up would follow 2 of the 3 above. There are no Limited series zooms, so you would have what we have now. DA*'s and DA's.

Bring back the 400mm f5.6 and also bring back all the good quality FA primes that there would be a huge demand for. Consider the new to Pentax shooter looking at a K-x or it's replacement. They want a nice prime or 2. Are they really going to spend $499 on a body and $1199 on a 31mm Ltd? Not a hope in He11! But would they buy the camera, a 50mm/1.4 @$199 and a 35mm/2.0 @249.00 Darn right they will.

Pentax wants to make money? Provide the lenses that make sense. If I was new and searching the internet for a brand to park my money, looking at just getting started with a DSLR and a couple of primes. The Limited's would turn me off big time. I'd be getting a D5000 or and XTi with the much more affordable options these 2 would offer me. Nikon gives me 3 50mm's to choose from at various prices and the most expensive (easily equal to the DA*55mm) is $250.00 less than the 55mm. I don't need SDM and SD is just fine if I have a $199-249.00 fast fifty to buy.

I sort of hijacked the OP but not really. The point you make is valid from 20mm to 400mm. Wake up Pentax. Money and profits are in the lenses, not the bodies. Offer the new shooter to semi pro a series of lenses that would make them want to park their money right here.

While the good readers of this forum may strongly believe that 400mm new glass is needed, I'm still somewhat doubtful whether a business case exists from the Pentax perspective. To do it right would require a prohibitive investment in manufacturing engineering, marketing, and support systems procurement. I believe at this point Pentax has drawn the line with APS-C camera lenses to the current product offerings.

Resources for more professional products are going towards the 645D. And it's obvious to me that any serious profit is being made from the K-X colorful cameras. For those buyers, the existing lens systems is plenty good.

Sigma is really the only third party supplier that has any products in this market space. The Bigma or similar lenses hits the functional range pretty well, even if some of the lenses are very imperfect. In the "new" market, that's about as good as we get. . .

ME

Sigma does offer a modern 120-400/4.5-5.6 for $900 in Pentax-mount. I'm not under the impression that it's all that popular, even though I'm not aware that there is really anything wrong with it. The Nikon and Canon lenses in this class are priced at $1600 and seem to be reasonably well-received among their customers. Pentax probably knows that a relatively small fraction of their customers are going to buy that. On the other hand it becomes a bit of 'if you build it they will come...maybe'. Because people aren't going to adopt a system that might someday have what they want...and in the Pentax case, there's not much reason to believe it right now.

It seems to me there's room for a prime between the Pentax DA*300mm f/4 ($1,120) & Sigma 500mm f4.5 ($4,700) but it would have to deliver better IQ than the Sigma zooms (which, I gather, is not all that shabby.) I think M.E.'s probably right that it's not a high priority for Pentax, though.