[Blue]

That's not a problem, I'm letting you know how your comments came across to me because you mentioned my age as the factor in me not understanding. I am not angry in any way but felt like you were judging me (I apologize for using the word degrading, it was to harsh of a word) because you thought I was immature because of my age and my "shame" comment was said with a smile (ala Three's company, Felipe said it a lot).

What I want from Pentax would not hurt anybody (more L version lenses) where as others saying Pentax should not make anymore L lenses would hurt those on a budget so how am I being self centered? I am not angry, I was trying to point out some of my observations. I have no problem with you thinking Pentax should or should not keep certain lenses in their lineup, it was just the "you will unnderstand in 15-20 years" comment that rubbed me the wrong way. Again I apologize if they came across as snide or if you think I was attacking you personally.

My comment had to do with the fact if you get a piece that you really like, it will be still in service for decades to come. The Pentax gear I bought in the 80s is still in service. No where did a call you immature. There is a big difference in inexperience and immature.

[Designosophy]

It was $199 exactly 3 years ago.

Wow. That's what I get for being late to supper. It's been less than a year since I got my first Pentax DSLR.

[paperbag846]

Wow. That's what I get for being late to supper. It's been less than a year since I got my first Pentax DSLR.

If you buy used, you can find them for only slightly more than that MSRP.

Besides, those people had to pay taxes, so the price difference becomes something like 20 dollars.

Well worth 250.

[RonHendriks1966]

Wow. That's what I get for being late to supper. It's been less than a year since I got my first Pentax DSLR.

But not to forget that it was the time that Pentax was a company loosing money while now it is a profitable brand.

[KxBlaze]

hmmmmm...... a 70mm f2 macro looks to be an interesting and promising concept. although I'm highly doubtful that Pentax would make such a lens a DAL just to make it more affordable for most consumers. for me, a move like that wouldn't make sense, especially for a lens with such potential and could offer a high premium by making it another LTD quality macro in the short telephoto end rather than cripple it. besides, it would cannibalize the sales of both existing DA70 LTD and FA77 LTD if they were to price the hypothetical 70/2 macro around $300 which isn't really a good move. doing such will only seal the fate of the two other lenses. such a lens would be price around the Tamron 60 macro and it's fortunate for Pentax that the Tamron 60/2 is not available for the K-mount, otherwise it could be trouble for Pentax lenses. the Tammy lens for example is not exactly the best in terms of cosmetic build, yet it already commands a significant premium just by the optics alone. so I can't envision a Pentax 70 macro to be any cheaper at all. pricing this lens is rather tricky since it's aperture is nearly identical to the FA77 and the focal length is the same with the cheaper 70mm LTD. it can't go cheaper than the DA70 and can't be priced along FA77 unless they purposely discontinue the FA77 and the priced the 70/2 around $900 if it performs better than the FA77. the DA70 will remain as the budget lens while the 100 WR would be more for rugged all-weather telephoto macro use. the 70/2 would then serve as a classic short-tele portrait/macro lens.

Completely agreed but I meant 1:2 macro and was not referencing the aperture. I didn't even think about what aperture it should be at. It cannot be too fast because 1) there is no way Pentax could make a "cheap" 70mm at F2 with macro 2) if they some how did, like you said it would literally kill the sales of the FA and DA.

So like Ron said below how about a F4 lens? I would still be very interested in a lens with those specs.

Try this story over again with a different lens:
DA-L 70mm/f4 1:2 macro
So it is a moderate fast lens (f4) with a moderate macro function, not 1:1 but 1:2 enlargement. Wich is still an enormous step forward since kitlenses get to 1:3 for 18-55 and 1:4 for the 50-200.

[KxBlaze]

My comment had to do with the fact if you get a piece that you really like, it will be still in service for decades to come. The Pentax gear I bought in the 80s is still in service. No where did a call you immature. There is a big difference in inexperience and immature.

Yes there is a big difference and again I thought it was my maturity you were questioning because the way you stated your comment that's how it sounded, that is all I was trying to say.

[Pentaxor]

Completely agreed but I meant 1:2 macro and was not referencing the aperture. I didn't even think about what aperture it should be at. It cannot be too fast because 1) there is no way Pentax could make a "cheap" 70mm at F2 with macro 2) if they some how did, like you said it would literally kill the sales of the FA and DA.

So like Ron said below how about a F4 lens? I would still be very interested in a lens with those specs.

it would be nice to have a poll to see the demand for a 70/4 1:2 lens. it might entice those who are on a budget for a short tele/macro lens. on the otherhand, I personally would want something faster of a macro at this range. but that seems to be highly unlikely to happen.

[Blue]

If you buy used, you can find them for only slightly more than that MSRP.

Besides, those people had to pay taxes, so the price difference becomes something like 20 dollars.

Well worth 250.

Actually, BH and Adorama was selling them for $199 shipped and for people outside NY, no taxes.

[Blue]

But not to forget that it was the time that Pentax was a company loosing money while now it is a profitable brand.

They aren't losing money of the FA 50/1.4 since they have been selling them for 20 years. That R & D has long been paid off, especially since it was done back in the 80s for the F 50/1.4. What killed Asahi Optical was lawsuits in the 80s and early 90s along with the full frame debacle which led to the release of the *istD which was initially supposed to be ff.

[paperbag846]

lawsuits in the 80s and early 90s

From who?

[Blue]

From who?

Honeywell over AF etc.

HONEYWELL SETTLES AUTOFOCUS PATENT ISSUES WITH THREE MORE CAMERA MAKERS Firm to Receive Nearly $52 Million in Payments MINNEAPOLIS, Sept. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Honeywell (NYSE: HON) said today it will be paid $51.5 million and future royalties by Olympus, Asahi and Ansco Optical to settle issues relating to their use of Honeywell's patented automatic-focus technology for lens-shutter and single-lens-reflex cameras. "Payments from the settlements, which were negotiated separately, will be reported in the company's third-quarter financial results," said Christopher J. Steffen, Honeywell executive vice president and chief financial and administrative officer. Under terms of the settlements, Olympus, Asahi, which makes Pentax cameras, and Ansco will be dropped from lawsuits alleging infringement of Honeywell's autofocus patents. Only four companies -- Fuji Photo Film, Ricoh, Chinon and Vivitar -- remain the subject of Honeywell lawsuits filed earlier this year in U.S. District Court in Newark, N.J. All other companies originally named in the suits have reached negotiated settlements with Honeywell. "We hope to reach settlements with the remaining four companies in an amicable, businesslike manner, just as we have done with the others," Steffen said. Honeywell previously announced autofocus settlements of $251.6 million from eight other camera manufacturers. Honeywell is a global controls company that provides products, systems and services for homes and buildings, industry, and aviation and space. The company employs 58,000 people worldwide and had 1991 sales of $6.2 billion. -0- 9/25/92 /CONTACT: Jill Schmidt of Honeywell, 612-870-2544/ (HON) CO: Honeywell ST: Minnesota IN: SU:

[paperbag846]

Honeywell over AF etc.

Amazing how legacies can be destroyed over such silly things.

It kind of reminds me of the 'lawsuits' that monsanto brings against farmers.

[Blue]

Amazing how legacies can be destroyed over such silly things.

It kind of reminds me of the 'lawsuits' that monsanto brings against farmers.

Yeah that is true. Pentax got clipped even worse in the 80s by a lawsuit with Honeywell over the system used in the ME F and Canon also got clipped over the AL. Minolta really took it on the chin in the lawsuits in the 90s. Honeywell probably profited more from the Maxuum than Minolta did. Honeywell was really good back in the 70s at getting a bunch of conceptual stuff patented.

[wedge]

Back to the topic, I haven't yet purchased the DA 35/2.4 (well, I did, but it "got lost in shipping" according to Amazon - they refunded), but from what I've heard, it's exactly what I'm looking for since I do a lot of lower-light, indoor shooting. I'd love it if they took the same formula and put out a couple more lenses with longer FLs, say 70 and 100, maybe even a 135 and kept the price point in the $2-250 range.

[RonHendriks1966]

Back to the topic, I haven't yet purchased the DA 35/2.4 (well, I did, but it "got lost in shipping" according to Amazon - they refunded), but from what I've heard, it's exactly what I'm looking for since I do a lot of lower-light, indoor shooting. I'd love it if they took the same formula and put out a couple more lenses with longer FLs, say 70 and 100, maybe even a 135 and kept the price point in the $2-250 range.

wow you are the first wanting a complete lensline of DA-L!

There is something to say for such a lensline and when Pentax brings out one new lens with every new entry level dslr then this lensline does exsist in 5 years from now.