Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-26-2010, 12:12 PM   #16
Veteran Member
yeatzee's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Temecula
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,675
QuoteOriginally posted by Urkeldaedalus Quote
At $250 the DA40 was a steal, now it's about the right price where it's at compared to other lenses. The DA Limiteds only seem expensive compared to what they used to cost.

as many have pointed out, Pentax doesn't have any affordable prime options at $250 or less any more
.
How do you figure? I would still have a problem paying over $300 for the lens whether it was less or more prior.

I agree with the bolded 100% that it needs to be fixed....

05-26-2010, 07:11 PM   #17
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by yeatzee Quote
Someone doesn't have to make something cheaper just so that we can call it expensive Marc....
Well, obviously you can call it whatever you like, but the question remains, how reasonable is that label? I mean, I might call the K-x "way too overpriced", and compared to a cardboard disposable camera it is, but I think most would agree you are actually getting something for the money with the K-x. And the fact that everyone else's comparable cameras cost at least as much makes any claim that the K-x is "way too overpriced" rather suspect.

So sure, one can claim the the DA40 (or any other DA Limited) is "way too overpriced", in the same way one can claim the K-x is. But if one wants to defend that claim against any sort of objective analysis, you'd need *something* to go on.

The current B&H price on the DA40 is $340, and FWIW, I think it's worth every penny of that.
05-26-2010, 07:17 PM   #18
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,947
QuoteOriginally posted by samski_1 Quote
Is there a good reason why the FA limiteds are more expensive than the DA limiteds?
FA limiteds are full-frame and faster, DA limiteds are not full-frame, and smaller and slower.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

05-26-2010, 07:51 PM   #19
Veteran Member
fractal's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,549
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Compared to what? Who else makes lenses even remotely close to these for cheaper?
Canon. The 24/2.8 is $330 and is suited for full frame. I think this price is very reasonable for such a lens.

05-26-2010, 08:06 PM   #20
JHD
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by fractal Quote
Canon. The 24/2.8 is $330 and is suited for full frame. I think this price is very reasonable for such a lens.
Yeah, but it's a Canon.
05-26-2010, 08:09 PM   #21
Voe
Veteran Member
Voe's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 708
I remember the times (2 years ago) when the DA 40mm was considered a lowly lens, just a tiny bit better than the optically mediocre M 40mm f2.8. This is when the price was around $240USD. The common talk on forums was that it's only worth buying if you need a small lens, no one cared for it's IQ. And if anyone wanted a 40's lens they payed more and bought the FA 43mm Limited due to it's IQ.
After the price hike, the lens started to get more appreciation, and now is considered a great lens, even better than the 43mm.

Last edited by Voe; 05-26-2010 at 08:14 PM.
05-26-2010, 08:33 PM   #22
Site Supporter
Biro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,159
QuoteOriginally posted by Voe Quote
I remember the times (2 years ago) when the DA 40mm was considered a lowly lens, just a tiny bit better than the optically mediocre M 40mm f2.8. This is when the price was around $240USD. The common talk on forums was that it's only worth buying if you need a small lens, no one cared for it's IQ. And if anyone wanted a 40's lens they payed more and bought the FA 43mm Limited due to it's IQ.
After the price hike, the lens started to get more appreciation, and now is considered a great lens, even better than the 43mm.
This is absolutely true. Another phenomenon I've noticed is that as soon as a lens goes out of production and becomes a bit harder to find... its reputation soars. The FA 35mm f/2.0 is an example of this. A great budget lens in its day and a fantastic bargain. Then as soon as it became somewhat rare (and its price soared to over $400), it became a "modern classic" that some compared with FA Limiteds.
05-26-2010, 10:17 PM   #23
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Voe Quote
I remember the times (2 years ago) when the DA 40mm was considered a lowly lens, just a tiny bit better than the optically mediocre M 40mm f2.8. This is when the price was around $240USD. The common talk on forums was that it's only worth buying if you need a small lens, no one cared for it's IQ. And if anyone wanted a 40's lens they payed more and bought the FA 43mm Limited due to it's IQ.
After the price hike, the lens started to get more appreciation, and now is considered a great lens, even better than the 43mm.
I'm glad that I'm not the only one that has noticed this phenomenon! Plus, some people act like the 43 ltd is a huge lens even though it is only 0.1 inch longer than the requirement to be consider a pancake lens!

05-26-2010, 11:11 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,753
QuoteOriginally posted by Biro Quote
This is absolutely true. Another phenomenon I've noticed is that as soon as a lens goes out of production and becomes a bit harder to find... its reputation soars. The FA 35mm f/2.0 is an example of this. A great budget lens in its day and a fantastic bargain. Then as soon as it became somewhat rare (and its price soared to over $400), it became a "modern classic" that some compared with FA Limiteds.
Indeed, you hit the nail on the head. The Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar is another classic example.
05-27-2010, 07:09 AM   #25
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fly-over, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,169
Economics 101..

QuoteOriginally posted by samski_1 Quote
Is there a good reason why the FA limiteds are more expensive than the DA limiteds?
Currently, enough buyers are willing to pay much more for an FA than DA. In determining the price of toys, the reasoning is not rational.

When buyers stop buying FA's (or DA's) at the current price point, their price will drop. If you buy an FA anytime soon, the price spread will remain for a little while longer.

It's easy to go over board with this stuff. Instead, just get a DA 40 Ltd and keep it busy. Or better yet, enjoy your 18-55 kit and don't look back.

Cheers...
05-27-2010, 11:17 AM   #26
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by fractal Quote
Canon. The 24/2.8 is $330 and is suited for full frame. I think this price is very reasonable for such a lens.
Which DA Limited do you think this is comparable to? It's sort a little close to the DA21 in focal length, although it's still pretty significantly different (especially considering the difference in crop factors between Pentax and Canon). And compared to the DA21, it's quite a bit larger & heavier, build quality laughable in comparison by all accounts I've seen, includes no hood at all (much less a well-matched and well-engineered one like the DA21), not designed or optimized for digital, etc. Maybe those things don't matter *to you*, but they do matter to some, and that's some of what might make the DA21 worth the difference.

But FWIW, the DA21 is probably the one DA Limited lens that does seem priced on the high side to me right now. One lens from one manufacturer that comes in cheaper - and pretty much a case of you get what you pay for - hardly justifies the sweeping statement made here.
05-31-2010, 02:30 AM   #27
Veteran Member
tokyoso's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Albums
Posts: 723
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Well, obviously you can call it whatever you like, but the question remains, how reasonable is that label? I mean, I might call the K-x "way too overpriced", and compared to a cardboard disposable camera it is, but I think most would agree you are actually getting something for the money with the K-x. And the fact that everyone else's comparable cameras cost at least as much makes any claim that the K-x is "way too overpriced" rather suspect.

So sure, one can claim the the DA40 (or any other DA Limited) is "way too overpriced", in the same way one can claim the K-x is. But if one wants to defend that claim against any sort of objective analysis, you'd need *something* to go on.

The current B&H price on the DA40 is $340, and FWIW, I think it's worth every penny of that.
I don't think anyone can pretend to know Pentax/Hoya's true bottom line, but all Pentax limiteds have awesome build quality, IMHO.

I may prefer something plasticly cheap, disposable with good optical quality so that I don't have to hold it in my hands everyday to appreciate it, but even that has gotten away with the FA (nonlimited) price hikes.

My favorite lens is still my M 50 / 1.4
05-31-2010, 02:18 PM   #28
Veteran Member
tokyoso's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Albums
Posts: 723
DA 40 was highway robbery at $260

QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Which DA Limited do you think this is comparable to? It's sort a little close to the DA21 in focal length, although it's still pretty significantly different (especially considering the difference in crop factors between Pentax and Canon). And compared to the DA21, it's quite a bit larger & heavier, build quality laughable in comparison by all accounts I've seen, includes no hood at all (much less a well-matched and well-engineered one like the DA21), not designed or optimized for digital, etc. Maybe those things don't matter *to you*, but they do matter to some, and that's some of what might make the DA21 worth the difference.

But FWIW, the DA21 is probably the one DA Limited lens that does seem priced on the high side to me right now. One lens from one manufacturer that comes in cheaper - and pretty much a case of you get what you pay for - hardly justifies the sweeping statement made here.

The current B&H price on the DA40 is $340, and FWIW, I think it's worth every penny of that.
FYI the original Pentax M 40 2.8 pancake still can easily fetch $200 around here.

At $260, the new AF-version with improved optics, excellent metal build quality, and included custom matching metal lens hood was highway robbery. No wonder Pentax was going out of business. $340 is still a steal, IMHO. The value of DA lenses are unilaterally depreciated by the faint hope of Pentax full frame exodus. However, I tend to like the slight vignette effect of DA 40 on a FF size.

Satisfied customers are always the best salesmen.
05-31-2010, 06:32 PM   #29
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
if you wanna know about highway robbery, just ask how much they are selling the DA40's here in Canada.
05-31-2010, 08:23 PM   #30
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by tokyoso Quote
FYI the original Pentax M 40 2.8 pancake still can easily fetch $200 around here.

At $260, the new AF-version with improved optics, excellent metal build quality, and included custom matching metal lens hood was highway robbery. No wonder Pentax was going out of business. $340 is still a steal, IMHO. The value of DA lenses are unilaterally depreciated by the faint hope of Pentax full frame exodus. However, I tend to like the slight vignette effect of DA 40 on a FF size.

Satisfied customers are always the best salesmen.
Thats' ironic. Most people in North America and Europe look at the M 40mm as if it were a paper weight promotion that Asahi Optical had going back in the 80s.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, limiteds, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WooWhoo -- Pentax Canada Price Drops :D :D and one price increase Jack Simpson Pentax News and Rumors 45 05-06-2009 10:10 PM
DA or FA limiteds? coloseu Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 02-24-2009 10:18 AM
FA* or FA limiteds Harmonica Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 10-09-2008 09:53 PM
Limiteds: 35/2.8 vs 43/1.9 paolojackson Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 09-30-2008 08:46 PM
DA Limiteds jzamora Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 07-02-2008 06:48 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:33 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top