[magomago]

No offense, but closing it early because of a good response is a inane thing to do bereft of any clear logic. You lose nothing due to an overwhelming response, and it would have made sense to keep it open for the original duration so as long as there was a trickle of people continuing to submit responses.

[Ishpuini]

It would be very interesting to do some clustering of the results. I.e. relate camera owners to lens owners and try to identify categories. You may find people with a lens preference (more expensive lenses but entry level bodies) or people with camera preference (advanced camera with entry level lenses), or even subcategories (entry level camera with limited primes vs. advanced camera with single ultrazoom). There may be size determined categories and price determined categories. Perhaps even some categories that one may not even imagine?

The way how people respond to cameras/lenses in their category vs cameras/lenses outside this category may reveal interesting information.

This may sound like a lot of work, but any statistics tool should be able to provide this info in a fairly easy manner. I don't have access to any such tool, but I used such a tool 15 years ago at university and even back then it was fairly easy... But... perhaps even the statistical tools in Excel may be able to do this (though I don't know the possibilities myself)?

Wim

[kevinschoenmakers]

No offense, but closing it early because of a good response is a inane thing to do bereft of any clear logic. You lose nothing due to an overwhelming response, and it would have made sense to keep it open for the original duration so as long as there was a trickle of people continuing to submit responses.

When we closed the survey the responses were coming in at such a slow pace we would have probably only gotten 100 more participants in the remaining two weeks. I didn't think it would change the statistics in any way, and thought it was more important to get the results out when people still cared for them.

[Scotto]

What surprises me most is the result that the 16-50 was NOT a lens causing much dissatisfaction at all, but was top of the list for needing an upgrade. I did not think many would agree with me on this one, but now I know I'm not crazy in thinking so!

Great work Kevin and thanks to all involved in compiling, analysing and arranging the results so comprehensively. A thread worth being a sticky.

I own the 16-50 and I would like an upgraded version. I would be curious to see who of those who own this lens also own the 50-135. I do.

For what it's worth, here's my list of suggestions, but consider that it is often only in comparison to the 50-135.

1. I would prefer an internal zoom. -I'm not sure this is possible, but the double extending action makes me wonder if it's less weather resistant than the 50-135.
2. A larger zoom ring versus the focus ring. I don't think many people manually focus this lens, but most people do use the zoom.
3. Improve the focus throw. I rarely manually focus this lens because the short focus throw makes it so difficult.
4. Make it shorter. It's as long as the 50-135 when it's fully zoomed.
5. There's some barrel distortion on the wide end, but it really cleans up at 18mm. This doesn't bother me as much as it probably should.

I've already dropped the cash on this and there's really nothing better to replace it with other than a set of primes. I would imagine that it's really essential for wedding photography, but I don't do that. There's been more than one occasion that I've thought about downgrading to the 18-55 WR but I think I would miss the speed and constant aperture when indoors and the pictures I get from this lens are so sharp.

Let me know if I'm the only one that feels like this.

[kevinschoenmakers]

It would be very interesting to do some clustering of the results. I.e. relate camera owners to lens owners and try to identify categories. You may find people with a lens preference (more expensive lenses but entry level bodies) or people with camera preference (advanced camera with entry level lenses), or even subcategories (entry level camera with limited primes vs. advanced camera with single ultrazoom). There may be size determined categories and price determined categories. Perhaps even some categories that one may not even imagine?

The way how people respond to cameras/lenses in their category vs cameras/lenses outside this category may reveal interesting information.

This may sound like a lot of work, but any statistics tool should be able to provide this info in a fairly easy manner. I don't have access to any such tool, but I used such a tool 15 years ago at university and even back then it was fairly easy... But... perhaps even the statistical tools in Excel may be able to do this (though I don't know the possibilities myself)?

Wim

In general, if anyone wants to try and get some more interesting statistics out of the replies than we did, they're welcome to the files. Just let me know and I'll e-mail them.

[reeftool]

Congrats on a great survey

One thing that caught my eye was that 5% thought the DA*60-250 needed an upgrade but only 4% owned it!! Upgrade to what I wonder.
As for interest in the DA85, I for one always preferred the 135 focal length for portraits. So perhaps I'm not alone

My crazy work schedule has me jumping in late on this thread but I do want comment that the survey was well done. A lot of work gathering all that data. I might add that people who checked on one of the newer lenses that they would consider a purchase if it was upgraded is most likely referring to the SDM issues. That was my reason.

[MrCynical]

One of the problems with this survey is that some lenses were missed out: for example the DFA 100mm f2.8 Macro (non-WR) which is still a current lens and has not been replaced in the lineup by the 100 WR. I think that, as much as the Tamron, is the reason why not many people said they own the DFA-WR.

I have to say I'm disappointed by the negativity towards the DFA 50 macro - it really is a lovely lens. But I think its problems come not from the DA35 (which is a stellar lens, but close to useless for 1:1 macro given the miniscule distance from the subject required) but from two competing options:
*As a 50mm prime, it has to compete with the numerous faster and (in some cases - such as the Sigma 50) cheaper competitors. While it is very sharp at f2.8, I suspect many people would want their 50 to be a fast one.
*As a macro lens, it often isn't as useful as a 100mm-ish prime. Added to the fact that a macro lens is something most people only want one of.

As for the 17-70, it has two fairly obvious problems. The first is that, although many people who have it seem to love it, it received some truly horrific reviews with regard to its performance at the longer end. The second is that it has SDM - there is now a substantial part of Pentax's customer base which simply will not buy SDM lenses until Pentax fixes the problems (e.g. by offering an extended warranty specifically on SDM failure as Microsoft did with X360 RROD). Incidentally I think the effect of this on desire for the DA*55 should not be underestimated - though the price probably does put people off long before they even remember that it has SDM :P

[Canada_Rockies]

I think there is a flaw in the way you interpret the impact of old lenses: you are assuming they impact negatively the sales of modern lenses.

I beg to disagree: old lenses may decrease sales of new ones in the hands of experts or fans who can use them proficiently. In most cases they are bought by new aficionados who got their DSLR and want the taste of a prime or a better lens without the price penalty. In a few cases they will discover the advantages in the results they get over the kit lens do not justify a buy, in another few they may decide to go all the route to learn to use them (out of romanticism or economy), but in a large number of cases they will see they get better pictures and will hate the inconvenience of not having automatic or AF modes, or WR or some other feature and will move on to a better lens.

So, actually, older lenses are helping sell newer lenses (and bodies lowering the entry cost), as people who would not try those optics due to high prices can get an enticing taste off older lenses and be motivated to save for the newer lens. Granted, they may delay buying the newer lens, but it is arguable that were it not for the old version they might never make the expense only to try if a new lens suits them.

I think you are correct here. Using myself as an example, I was quite pleased with the optical results of the FA 24-90 and A 70-210 on my MZ-S and SF-1 film cameras. I have been finding the wide end of the FA 24-90 not wide enough for quite some time. So, here is how I ended up with the three DA series lenses that I own:

DA* 16-50 - the closest field of view coverage to the FA 24-90. The DA 16-45 is too short on the long end. The 16-50 is as well, but not as much. The extra stop of light at f/2.8 was not of any particular benefit.

DA* 50-135 - same coverage of field of view as the 70-210, and one stop faster. Faster is handy for sports and such like things.

DA 12-24 - this is the lens with the wider view that I was looking for.

I have taken advantage of the weather resistance of the DA* lenses, using them where I would have hesitated to use non-resistant lenses, such as under Moul Falls* where large volumes of falling water had exactly no effect on my K10D + DA*16-50.

* Wells Grey Provincial Park, British Columbia Canada. 110 feet high (33m +). There is a path beneath it. To quote:

Just south of Wells Gray Prov. Park, Grouse Creek tumbles into the Clearwater River canyon to form Moul Falls. This is a fun waterfall and easy to reach. The great thing about this falls is you can walk behind it. We got soaked, but it was a hot day, so it was very refreshing.

[Scotto]

That's because the 35mm option was split in two. When you add both of them up it actually scored among the top.

Interesting indeed- thanks for doing this. I'm only surprised that the DA 35/2 did not score higher as a wanted lens.

I want to throw my hat in for this, but I would like a wide and fast lens that could be used with a film camera. The DA 21 and 35 are both a bit too slow. For indoor shots, that extra stop is the difference between 1/30 and 1/60 - a huge difference in sharpness when I'm shooting anything that's alive (mostly people in bars).

The FA 31 Ltd is perfect (if a little large) on a film or full frame camera, but it's no-longer wide if you mount it to a digital.

In short, an FA 21/f2 would do nicely. Looking at the DA 21 reviews, others also seem to agree with all of these points. Even among the lenses Pentax stopped making, there's really nothing wide and fast. The Ziess stuff is nice, but I think Pentax could do it just as well, at least as cheaply.

(and since I'm making a wish-list, might I ask for a 9-blade aperture diaphragm .........and maybe even f1.7?)

[BEENS]

I'm just wondering why no survey was done on aftermarket lenses. This question may come a bit too late but could probably be done in a future survey.

[kevinschoenmakers]

I want to throw my hat in for this, but I would like a wide and fast lens that could be used with a film camera. The DA 21 and 35 are both a bit too slow. For indoor shots, that extra stop is the difference between 1/30 and 1/60 - a huge difference in sharpness when I'm shooting anything that's alive (mostly people in bars).

The FA 31 Ltd is perfect (if a little large) on a film or full frame camera, but it's no-longer wide if you mount it to a digital.

In short, an FA 21/f2 would do nicely. Looking at the DA 21 reviews, others also seem to agree with all of these points. Even among the lenses Pentax stopped making, there's really nothing wide and fast. The Ziess stuff is nice, but I think Pentax could do it just as well, at least as cheaply.

(and since I'm making a wish-list, might I ask for a 9-blade aperture diaphragm .........and maybe even f1.7?)

How about Pentax Lens Review Database - SMC Pentax-FA* 24mm F2 AL [IF] Lens Reviews ?

[Marc Sabatella]

Regarding the list of "Dissatisfied (former) owners" I don't think the answer "I would buy this lens again if it were updated" fits in well with the answers "I plan to sell this lens" and "I used to own this lens". The latter two can be interpreted as implying dissatisfaction whereas the former actually contains a considerable amount of endorsement. If you wish for a very good lens to become excellent, you are not really dissatisfied with it.

I agree - if someone likes a lens enough to buy an updated version (a WR version, say), that's much more of a positive than a negative for the lens. And I would go further. "I plan to sell this lens" and "I used to own this lens" don't necessarily indicate dissatisfaction either. Could imply mean the person realized that this particular focal length isn't for them, or that they'd prefer zoom over a prime or vice versa, or that they think the lens is an incredibly good deal for what it is, but they've decided to go the next step and upgrade to a much more expensive replacement. Really, *none* of those three answers can be assumed to indicate dissatisfaction.

I realize you acknowledge this in the notes, but as it is, the heading for that table is needlessly misleading, and harmfully so. If you want to have a heading in results that says "dissatisfied", you should have *asked* people if they dissatisfied, not ask completely unrelated questions and then try to guess that maybe dissatisfaction led to their answers.

I appreciate the work that went into this, but would *STRONGLY URGE" you to change the heading on that category in the table, or better yet, don't try to combine the answers from such completely unrelated questions into one table at all. As you may have seen, you've already set off a bit of panic over on dpr as people are wondering why so many people are dissatisfied with certain Pentax lenses.

This is a major, major error that needs to be rectified IMHO.

[kevinschoenmakers]

I agree - if someone likes a lens enough to buy an updated version (a WR version, say), that's much more of a positive than a negative for the lens. And I would go further. "I plan to sell this lens" and "I used to own this lens" don't necessarily indicate dissatisfaction either. Could imply mean the person realized that this particular focal length isn't for them, or that they'd prefer zoom over a prime or vice versa, or that they think the lens is an incredibly good deal for what it is, but they've decided to go the next step and upgrade to a much more expensive replacement. Really, *none* of those three answers can be assumed to indicate dissatisfaction.

I realize you acknowledge this in the notes, but as it is, the heading for that table is needlessly misleading, and harmfully so. If you want to have a heading in results that says "dissatisfied", you should have *asked* people if they dissatisfied, not ask completely unrelated questions and then try to guess that maybe dissatisfaction led to their answers.

I appreciate the work that went into this, but would *STRONGLY URGE" you to change the heading on that category in the table, or better yet, don't try to combine the answers from such completely unrelated questions into one table at all. As you may have seen, you've already set off a bit of panic over on dpr as people are wondering why so many people are dissatisfied with certain Pentax lenses.

This is a major, major error that needs to be rectified IMHO.

I still stand by my reasoning that this list is still a rough indication. Frankly, if you sell your prime for a zoom, then the prime didn't satisfy in one way or another. Now this might not be the prime's fault. Sadly, people are interpreting it this way, and I should have known better. I will re-do this section.

[scatron]

I resent being lumped with "...soccer moms and Japanese schoolgirls..."!!

There's a dirty joke in there somewhere.

[Marc Sabatella]

I still stand by my reasoning that this list is still a rough indication. Frankly, if you sell your prime for a zoom, then the prime didn't satisfy in one way or another. Now this might not be the prime's fault.
Sadly, people are interpreting it this way, and I should have known better. I will re-do this section.

Thanks for doing that. And again, thanks for the doing the survey in the first place - lots of great information there, and hopefully worth the considerable effort you must have put into it.