[Andi Lo]

Okay, but so is the A 50 f/2 (at f/4).

Yeah but it's just okay at F/2 (read: I'll never use it). I'm sure my FA50/1.4 is much better than my M50/2 at f/2

SMC Tak I'll use from f/1.4 no problem though. Contrary to other findings, my tak renders very differently from the FA 50.

[Just1MoreDave]

I've yet to see one good reason why a DA L 50 1.7 would have to be so much more expensive. It could sit comfortably at the 180-200 range.

I assume that they could do what they did to create the DA-L 35/2.4, so it makes sense that they could end up with the same retail price.

There should ideally be about 3 DAL primes for cheapos who want some short DOF stuff. It would be a good way to get people into the limiteds in the long term, who are not happy with the manual focus options.

An interesting idea. The DA-L 35/2.4 can be seen as the start of a series of these lenses, as a normal prime. They might be all less than $300 or so. Possibly an 18mm f2.4 for wide angle. Not too exciting specs, I agree - it has to be better than the kit lens without being too expensive. I figure it's a 28/2.8 equivalent for APS-C. Then a 90mm f3.2 for telephoto, a 135mm equivalent for APS-C. A macro and a long telephoto prime would be great too.

But it is easy to design a set of lenses on paper that someone would buy. Harder to make and make money on.

[paperbag846]

But it is easy to design a set of lenses on paper that someone would buy. Harder to make and make money on.

Interesting, and true.

My 1st thought was something like this:

35 2.4 - 50 1.7 - 85 2.8.

The wide angle prime is more of a specialist thing. If they were to do a wide angle, I would actually love a 24mm lens, but it would not really be truly wide.

[Andi Lo]

Interesting, and true.

My 1st thought was something like this:

35 2.4 - 50 1.7 - 85 2.8.

The wide angle prime is more of a specialist thing. If they were to do a wide angle, I would actually love a 24mm lens, but it would not really be truly wide.

I'd actually argue that portrait is more of a specialist thing vs wide angle... There are way more copies of Pentax 28mm lenses compared to 85mm. I'm more inclined to just1moredave's suggestion that it will need to be a 17/2.8 (cheap DA 15), 35/2.4 (cheap DA 35/ FA 31), and 90/3.2 (cheap FA 100) if pentax really want to make an APS-C equivalent to the old days. Unless the 50/1.7 can be made to MRSP of $150, I don't see why we need to have it.

I do agree that a cheap FA 77 would be nice as well to keep up with the joneses. Although it should be more like 85/2, rather than 2.8, but then it would compete with DA 70....

The 17mm should probably be a bit slower so that it doesnt compete with DA 15 imo. I think a 17/4 is actually ok as long as it's better than other Pentax zooms at that range.

---

Last edited by Andi Lo; 01-18-2011 at 04:44 PM.

[paperbag846]

I'd actually argue that portrait is more of a specialist thing vs wide angle... There are way more copies of Pentax 28mm lenses compared to 85mm. I'm more inclined to just1moredave's suggestion that it will need to be a 17/2.8 (cheap DA 15), 35/2.4 (cheap DA 35/ FA 31), and 90/3.2 (cheap FA 100) if pentax really want to make an APS-C equivalent to the old days. Unless the 50/1.7 can be made to MRSP of $150, I don't see why we need to have it.

I do agree that a cheap FA 77 would be nice as well to keep up with the joneses. Although it should be more like 85/2, rather than 2.8, but then it would compete with DA 70....

The 17mm should probably be a bit slower so that it doesnt compete with DA 15 imo. I think a 17/4 is actually ok as long as it's better than other Pentax zooms at that range.

The speeds of these lenses is only half of the battle... more important is rendering.

This is why the 50 1.7 is not really similar to the 50 1.4... you might use them mostly at the same aperture, but they render completely different.

It would not be hard at all to produce a lens that is not as sharp, colourful, etc. as the DA 15.

I still think a wide angle prime is too specialty for this line, though. For the most part one of the consumer zooms would do a very good job. I think these primes should be focused on speed at a good price (even if they aren't ultra-fast).

I actually picked 85mm because it was an old lens design, therefore cutting down on R&D. Another option would be a cheap 135mm f2 - a cheap tele prime.

However the 3 standards - 35, 50, and 85, are pretty useful, which is why I went with them. 85mm on digital isn't really a strict portrait length either, it's also great for general telephoto / action with more speed than one of the zooms. it could be 85, 90, 100, or 135 in my books... as long as it is a telephoto. I made the 85 f2.8 so that it would look inferior on paper to the DA 70... even though I know that it would be easy to make an 85mm lens that preforms worse than the 70 no matter the aperture .

The FA ltds. are untouchable, and the DA ltds are incredibly unique offerings on digital cameras. The DA L prime set could be cheap, plastic, no hood included offerings that would serve as a step into the LTDs.

I also think that the 50mm 1.7 needs to exist. I think it's just a great lens.

[pb_red]

i think the point that got lost in this thread is that if you go with CaNikon you have options:

want an expensive fast lens - here you go!
want a cheap fast lens - no problem!
want MF - you got it!
want AF - yup!
want macro - sure!
want FF or crop sensor only - got that too!
etc...

i just checked out B&H and Nikon has 10 50mm's while Canon has 8. This does not include 3rd party lenses. meanwhile pentax gives you all of 2 options.

so if all photographers could be split into 2 categories that would work great. however, the other guys know that there are all kinds of people out there with all kinds of needs and they are happy to satisfy those needs and make money doing so.

[eddie1960]

I have the feeling that Pentax will come with a cheapish line of primes as they have to compete with the cheap offerings of the competition. I think the DA-L35/2.4 is an indication for this.

lets hope you are right, but it still doesn't address the fast option
i would love a good inexpensive fast af lens, they don't exist even used though ($200 isn't cheap for a used older lens IMHO, - a price that wouldn't exist if there was a new option)
for now i'll live with MF but sooner or later My eyes will make the AF decision for me