Pentax FA & A Lens price rise - Page 3

deejjjaaaa · 01-02-2009, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by m8o

Well that could very well just be NOS [new old stock if you don't have tube amps ]. Is it still being made annually? Of that I'm quite skeptical.

At least "they" put some paper inside the box that refers to Hoya... may be it is just a gesture done by a dealer ?

*m8o* · 01-02-2009, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by deejjjaaaa

At least "they" put some paper inside the box that refers to Hoya... may be it is just a gesture done by a dealer ?

My statement regarding NOS was referring to the A 50/1.2 not FA 50/1.4 (was there talk of the A 50/1.2 coming with Hoya papaers? I missed that if so). However, my point is moot. I seen now, the Pentax-A 50/1.2 is still a current item and not NOS!!!

Sorry, my bad!
Interchangeable Lenses (for 35mm SLR Cameras) : Film Cameras : PENTAX

And, if I'm not reading that whole page wrong, the "smc PENTAX-F AF Adapter 1.7X" is still a current item?!!! (after all, there's a link to discontinued items, and those are not on that page) WTF?! I spent all that money for used ones (plural)!

I gotta see a price list to see what a new one is going for.

*Ratmagiclady* · 01-02-2009, 11:21 AM

FYI, my new FA 50 1.4 is an Assembled in Vietnam version, and the bo said that, too. Can't help but connect that to the fact the first copy I got was defective. Glad I got in under any rise in price, though. (Not that I was prescient beyond the fact that holiday prices appear to be pretty good all around. Must set something aside for targets of opportunity on Ebay next year.

)

ogl · 01-03-2009, 03:11 AM

Can anybody put new price of FA/A lenses from PDF files in Japanese? I can't read it.

deejjjaaaa · 01-03-2009, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by m8o

My statement regarding NOS was referring to the A 50/1.2 not FA 50/1.4

yes, I was talking about exactly A50/1.2 which was my last purchase in 2008

*m8o* · 01-03-2009, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by deejjjaaaa

yes, I was talking about exactly A50/1.2 which was my last purchase in 2008

Ah, thanx for the FYI.

deejjjaaaa · 01-03-2009, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by ogl

Can anybody put new price of FA/A lenses from PDF files in Japanese? I can't read it.

*m8o* · 01-03-2009, 03:28 PM

Funny how the revision date is still a month away.
Wondering about that 1.7x AF TC? Is there an MSRP on that available? (it's killing me that's available new now)

ogl · 01-04-2009, 01:22 AM

We have officially 7 full frame fixed lenses and 5 zooms.

It's funny that Pentax makes A35-80/4-5.6. Anybody see this lens?

*m8o* · 01-04-2009, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by ogl

It's funny that Pentax makes A35-80/4-5.6. Anybody see this lens?

Indeed ... the F fetches a whopping $30 on eBay...

TiminyCricket · 11-02-2009, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Samsungian

Ouch, I use two brands, Pentax and Canon. Canon lenses prices have dropped 10% the past month and these Pentax prices are up roughly 20%. Am I reading this right? The FA 600mm f4 will now sell for $14,000 ?

I haven't been on this forum for a while since being laid-off and having my job sent to India, but I've noticed the price increases on the Pentax lenses on different websites and this now seriously has me considering switching brands or at least purchasing only 3rd party lenses when and if I do find a job again. When I got my 50mm f/1.4 it cost me $199. Now I take a gander and it costs $350+ and is now made in a country with lower quality-control conditions. That's over a 50% price increase for a lens which is probably inferior in quality to it's previous incarnation.

As it is I already consider Pentax's current lineup of lenses as being rather "limited" compared to the competition and to take what few current lenses they have and jack the prices up by 20% or more may be the nail in the coffin for me. As it is it seems the lenses with specs that I want aren't even made by Pentax anymore, they are instead made by companies like Sigma and Tamron, which explains why I have more Sigma glass on my wishlist then Pentax glass.

Not everyone feels like spending (or can afford to spend) $600 each for fast prime lenses and Pentax's lack of fast and non-fast zooms is troublesome. Not a single current lens over 300mm and the older ones that do break 300mm cost as much as my last car. And why on earth did they make the 300mm prime an f/4? Are you kidding me? To spend the dough on a lens like that I would expect it to be a 2.8 like the other DA* lenses.

AlbertSiegel · 11-02-2009, 05:33 PM

Why not buy the cheaper Sigma 300mm 2.8? It's only about $3,300... about $1,000 less than the Pentax version. Otherwise, the f4 will have to do. BTW, the Pentax 300mm f4 is the lowest priced 300mm f4 you can buy new... at least in the U.S. market.

Rondec · 11-02-2009, 06:25 PM

Long lenses and really wide lenses are by definition expensive. That's why full frame seems to make the most sense for photogs who shoot relatively wide, while APS-C seems to make more sense for those who shoot action/wildlife. I understand that a crop sensor doesn't really add length to a lens, but in a sense it does, unless you have a full frame with a super high pixel density.

The grass is only relatively greener on the other side of the fence. Canon and Nikon have been pretty consistently raising lens prices over the years and a high quality line up from either of them will cost some bucks as well.

As to why the 300 is only f4 -- have you actually seen the 300 f2.8? Look it up. It is not the sort of lens you can either hand hold or, carry on hikes. On the other hand, the 300 f4 is very portable. Mark Langille could tell you a little more about the FA 300 f2.8, but I think it would be wise to shoot with the f4 for awhile before venturing into the f2.8 range.

*Andi Lo* · 11-02-2009, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by TiminyCricket

Not everyone feels like spending (or can afford to spend) $600 each for fast prime lenses and Pentax's lack of fast and non-fast zooms is troublesome. Not a single current lens over 300mm and the older ones that do break 300mm cost as much as my last car. And why on earth did they make the 300mm prime an f/4? Are you kidding me? To spend the dough on a lens like that I would expect it to be a 2.8 like the other DA* lenses.

300/2.8 is huge. I think it's just different design philosophy.

With the K-x who needs f 2.8 anyway

*m8o* · 11-02-2009, 07:52 PM

I really don't mean to turn this into yet another 300/2.8 handholdable or not debate, but hearing this so often, and I don't know in this case but largely by folks who don't have the experience w/it, bugs me so I feel compelled to just make this statement, and correct the dis-information.

I have experience w/the Sigma, but the Pentax is of similar dimensions & heft. A 300/2.8 is in no way too unruly, at least for me but I've read the same from many many others, to handhold and/or hike with it for hours -- I should know as I do it all the time [!] -- assuming you use the right handhold [over the left elbow with left hand grasping the right fore-arm or triceps], and you have a shoulder strap connected to the lens bracket if you're not carrying it in a bag. Of course if the camera + lens needed to to be held-up to my eye for an extended period of time, or I needed to manually focus, that would be a different story and I would opt to put it on a monopod if I could (I never travel w/a tripod).

But if I take a walk to shoot around point at the beach behind my house around the bird sanctuary, it's not like you're walking for miles with the camera + lens held-up to your eye, looking thru the viewfinder with every step! You walk (or jog), you stop, and lift the assembly to your eyes for moments at a stretch, then back down ... then back-up again... rinse & repeat dozens if not hundreds of times. I for one have no trouble doing that for hours with 10-ish lbs of lens, body & grip [+12lbs w/the 2X TC].

Back on topic ... has anyone been monitoring whether the price premiums Pentax Corporate promised us years back and delivered-on with these price increases has actually helped Pentax's bottom line, or has it bit them in the arse by reducing sales to a point where they're netting even less than before?
?