[creampuff]

Because sometimes serious glass can produce amazing images not easily obtained otherwise. I know this guy who has a Canon 200mm f1.8 lens. Some of the shots have a magical feel to them. Not to say that I could personally afford something like that...

True, there will be some exotic glass that will undoubtably produce images that are not reproducible with Pentax simply because there are no such lenses available. This is where the growing user base will hopefully provide the stimulus for more exotic lens designs to be considered for profitable production. However until the current user base is prepared to spend more, this is not gonna happen. As it stands, if there are still people who baulk at the current reasonable price of the K-5, how can we expect these same people to even consider paying a lot more for exotic glass.

You have a vaild point Creampuff. That said, many companies, including Pentax, have produced exotic designs that serve little or no purpose aside from bragging rights. I suspect they will continue to do so as the engineers like to push the envelope from time to time.

Tom G

I suspect that the people at Pentax are more pragmatic in trying to meet existing lens production shortfalls rather than go off and produce one-off lens designs that may not be commercially viable. As it stands, there are obvious gaps in the lens line-up that remain unfilled, like a fast short telephoto or a tilt & shift lens. Having said that, Pentax has come up with unique lens designs like the superb DA 10-17mm fisheye.

Exactly! If Pentax were to produce such a very fast lens, then it would probably be more affordable then the version of the competitors. (In other words, if any brand is capable of building a affordable superfast lens, then it would be Pentax.) Think of the FA 50 f1.4. It's the cheapest 50 1.4 of all the brands, and the quality isn't all that bad. It's a empty space in the market, waiting for Pentax to fill.

Your inference is questionable here. The FA 50mm f/1.4 is relatively cheap because it hasn't been altered or changed at all over the years and it's a carry over from the days of 35mm film cameras. Pentax has merely continued production because there is steady demand for it and it would be unthinkable for any Japanese camera maker not to have a moderately fast 50mm in their line-up. Nikon and Canon in contrast have churned out far cheaper 50mm f/1.8 lenses than Pentax will ever be able to do plus they have made several iterations of their 50mm lenses over the years. The only new lens in the range from Pentax is the DA* 55mm f/1.4 which is quite a bit more expensive than the long in the tooth FA 50mm f/1.4.

To retool the production line to come out with a new fast lenses is never gonna be cheap because sustained production volumes simply hasn't been achieved. Simply put, Pentax will face constraints in delivering any new lens at a low price point as long as the production volumes remain low. Historically speaking, Pentax has never produced many fast lenses in volume and with the exception of the DA* 55mm f/1.4, nothing very much that's fast in terms of maximum aperture since the discontinued FA* series.

[paperbag846]

Pentax looked at who buys Pentax. These people aren't stupid. Turns out we would rather a cheap, slower lens with nice cosmetics and IQ than a hulking lens with speed. We *are* a pragmatic brand.

If you want superspeed and have the money, the cost of switching to Leica, Nikon, or Canon should be peanuts to you.

[Ash]

Nikon and Canon in contrast have churned out far cheaper 50mm f/1.8 lenses than Pentax will ever be able to do

Ah, but now Pentax answers back with the APS-C equivalent in the DA 35/2.4, and it is both cheap and better in MTF numbers than Nikkor's alternative. In any case Denis, you're absolutely right. Pentax's user base has typically been enthusiast rather than serious sports or wildlife pro, so it is less amenable to spending their limited $ in developing and stocking up on fast telephoto lenses. Seems like a catch 22, but I can understand the current philosophy.

[Kim C]

To retool the production line to come out with a new fast lenses is never gonna be cheap because sustained production volumes simply hasn't been achieved. Simply put, Pentax will face constraints in delivering any new lens at a low price point as long as the production volumes remain low. Historically speaking, Pentax has never produced many fast lenses in volume and with the exception of the DA* 55mm f/1.4, nothing very much that's fast in terms of maximum aperture since the discontinued FA* series.

And several of those were re-iterations of the A Lenses

Kim

[les3547]

Should PENTAX make a prime lens of f/1.0 or faster?

I say no, at least until they have more needed lenses. Top of the list for me would be a compact 24-135 zoom (the focal lengths I use most often) that is Limited quality (ok, close to Limited quality), and which works well throughout all its focal lengths. Since it needs to be lightweight, leave a focusing motor out, and don't be afraid of mixing the best glass with plastic to keep the weight down. A lens like that would give me confidence I could capture quality images while traveling with one lens alone.

[RioRico]

Should PENTAX make a prime lens of f/1.0 or faster?

Sure, why not? As long as it's affordable by we Pentax peons. bdery could probably whip up the basic design in 1/2 hour. But production may need to wail till PenHoya has nanobots that build crystals of the necessary refractive indices. If it was easy, everybody would be doing it.

[Winder]

I say no, at least until they have more needed lenses. Top of the list for me would be a compact 24-135 zoom (the focal lengths I use most often) that is Limited quality (ok, close to Limited quality), and which works well throughout all its focal lengths. Since it needs to be lightweight, leave a focusing motor out, and don't be afraid of mixing the best glass with plastic to keep the weight down. A lens like that would give me confidence I could capture quality images while traveling with one lens alone.

High quality primes are what have kept Pentax in the game over the years. Pentax is good at making small production runs of Limited lenses. Bringing back the 50mm f/1.2 and the A* 135mm f/1.8. There are already enough super zooms on the market.

[les3547]

High quality primes are what have kept Pentax in the game over the years. Pentax is good at making small production runs of Limited lenses. Bringing back the 50mm f/1.2 and the A* 135mm f/1.8. There are already enough super zooms on the market.

I don't see your point for several reasons. A 24-135 zoom would not be a super zoom; Pentax has made lots of zooms and will continue to do so; and there is already a good choice of first class primes (of course, we can always use more). However, there are no superb, compact zooms that cover the 24-135 range. If they can make such a lens for the 12-24 range (at least the quality aspect), why not for the range at which most people shoot?

[Blue]

NO. f1.2 is more than enough. Pentax just needs to make it AF and everyone would be a happy camper. besides, the Pentax manual f1.2's are cheaper compared to what other systems and other brands are offering. Pentax lenses are usually sold from $250-$600 used on average, while others systems offer from $900 to way over a thousand.
an AF version of the old Pentax would probably cost at around $1,200-$1,500.

The batch of A 50/1.2 that Pentax turned out a year or so ago were fetching ~ $960, new.

[Blue]

I believe it is impossible to go faster than f1.2 on the K mount.

I used to think that, but then Voigtlander turned out the 25mm/0.95 for the micro 4/3 system. Of course I just make do with the A 50/1.2 on my e-p1. It may be possible to push it past 1.2 on the k system at least for aps-c . . . but that may be heresy.

[séamuis]

I used to think that, but then Voigtlander turned out the 25mm/0.95 for the micro 4/3 system. Of course I just make do with the A 50/1.2 on my e-p1. It may be possible to push it past 1.2 on the k system at least for aps-c . . . but that may be heresy.

I think there is indeed a physical limit to just how fast a lens you can make and have the exit pupil fit inside the mount. but I don’t think the exit pupil size in reference to the mount on the body is the issue. its the size of the exit pupil on the lens itself thats the issue. (which is where ken rockwells argument completely falls apart, and using the rangefinder lenses as examples is just stupid) can you squeeze an exit pupil piece of glass faster than 1.2 into the kmount without modifying it? didn’t we have a discussion on here about this before? I seem to remember one. when it comes to using smaller mounts such as ken rockwells case of using the nikon rangefinder mount or the case of the new 0.95 voigtlander for m4/3 as examples of it being possible to make faster lenses, i think is backwards thinking. because it would actually be easier if I understand it all, to make a faster lens for a smaller mount because both the front and rear elements would be much smaller. however its not the exit pupil that makes a lens viable to manufacture, its the front element, that matters. and the smaller the mount the smaller the front element you would need to achieve the same speed. so it would be easier to make a 1.0 or faster lens for m/43 than it would for K or F mount digital SLR’s. and as we all know, its not normally about whats physically possible to manufacture its about whats economically viable to manufacture. the voigtlander for m4/3 or really anything cosina manufactures doesn’t really count in this equation though because a lot like Leica, they manufacture specifically for a niche market. Pentax even though often described as doing so, is really just another player in the mainstream camera market.

[Blue]

Seamuis,

Note that "may" is italicized in my post and was in context of an aps-c only lens hence the heresy comment.

[Pentaxor]

The batch of A 50/1.2 that Pentax turned out a year or so ago were fetching ~ $960, new.

true. although I'm not sure if those are really manufactured new or old stock new. same with the FA35. if these were manufactured new, there should be atleast a way to identify them such as being made in Vietnam. price however would reflect on the new demand for the lens, as well as how Pentax seems to play out the pricing nowadays. if it's the latter, then it would be basically Pentax wanting to maximize it's profits. I believe it is still cheaper than the Voigtlander offering, and the Leica's super-fast version. there was suppose to be a cheaper 3rd party ultrafast Noktor 50mm for the m4/3, but the company who's selling it seems to have some issues concerning it's reputation.

it's good that the m4/3 system are finally starting to build some really special lenses that would somehow resolve the sensor size issue. I think the only thing that is left for the system is to improve the camera IQ rendering to the capabilities of that of a bigger sensor system. as of the moment, the m4/3 are still lagging behind next to the APS-C. also the concern for a faster AF would also be a nice thing to fix or improve on.

[Porga]

Well for fast glass I would prefer DA*135mm/f2.0 since that is real new future in Pentax glass-line-up.

Me too, but without SDM, or redesigned one.

[sjwaldron]

I'd like to see some f1.2 DA* lenses...

An 85mm for example.