[Pål Jensen]

There are no overpriced lenses. Just cheap people. The "overpriced" lenses all end up as classics and their owners can sell them for more than they gave for them the moment they are out of production.
I bought my first overpriced lens in 1978. It was the 18/3.5. I can sell it for more than I gave. My friend bought a Tokina 17mm. It is virtually worthless today. The FA* 200/4 Macro was considered overpriced among some of those who didn't buy it. I bought the first sample I could get my hands on. I believe I paid around $1000 - it has reached e-bay prices of $3800.
Not to mention the A* 135/1.8 wich I sold for about twice its new price. Look at the prices for the FA* 28-70/2.8; those owners who sells it have had a free lens.....and when the FA Limiteds goes out of production....

[paperbag846]

and when the FA Limiteds goes out of production....

I'm kind of interested to see how high those prices go. I would imagine quite a bit higher.

At the same time they already saw a pretty large price jump. If the FA 77 went over 1000, I don't think many people could justify it with the DA 70 sitting around, so maybe that one wont get too crazy.

I honestly think that most of the prices just have to do with rarity. The 31 is pretty hard to find an alternative for, therefore, the highest price.

Your 18/3.5 is nothing special by modern standards, unless you mounted it on a full frame camera (and look at the alternatives available from Canon, Nikon, etc.) It has more to do with the fact that not many people bough them in 1978, so the alue of yours is high.

Therefore, overpriced lenses *would* jump in price even more after 30 or so years, because their rarity would increase. However it's not exactly worth it unless you will use the lens and can afford it comfortably in the first place. Much better return on investments elsewhere ... especially when you adjust for inflation!

[Class A]

There are no overpriced lenses. Just cheap people. The "overpriced" lenses all end up as classics and their owners can sell them for more than they gave for them the moment they are out of production.

Nice story, but it doesn't always work out this way.

For instance, I have my doubts regarding the DA* 55/1.4 increasing in value. Going out of production is not enough of a virtue, the lens also has to be very desirable optically.

[bob13bob]

canon has 50mm 1.8 af (sucks at 1.8, but nice stopped down) for $100. Where can I find an equivalent pentax for this amount?

-disgruntled new pentax buyer which was told pentax had great lens choices.

---

Last edited by bob13bob; 07-16-2011 at 12:56 PM.

[luftfluss]

canon has 50mm 1.8 af (sucks at 1.8, but nice stopped down) for $100. Where can I find an equivalent pentax for this amount?

-disgruntled new pentax buyer which was told pentax had great lens choices.

Who told you that?

Pentax has a pretty good used lens market. Pentax has the best line of small, high quality primes among the conventional DSLR market.

[dgaies]

canon has 50mm 1.8 af (sucks at 1.8, but nice stopped down) for $100. Where can I find an equivalent pentax for this amount?

-disgruntled new pentax buyer which was told pentax had great lens choices.

The Canon 50/1.8 (AF) is a pretty decent and well priced lens. It was my first prime lens and you can get pretty decent results from it. You will not find an equivalent Pentax lens in terms of an AF prime for $100. The closest you're going to get is a used F50/1.7 for about $200. It's a better lens than the Canon 50/1.8 IMO, but also comes at twice the price.

[paperbag846]

canon has 50mm 1.8 af (sucks at 1.8, but nice stopped down) for $100. Where can I find an equivalent pentax for this amount?

By the same token, try finding a Canon 50 f1.4 for the kinds of prices you regularly see them sell for used in Pentax land (low 200s, mostly).

The 50 1.4 is one hell of a lens. The Canon 50 1.8 is simply a good deal.

[Marc Sabatella]

canon has 50mm 1.8 af (sucks at 1.8, but nice stopped down) for $100. Where can I find an equivalent pentax for this amount?

-disgruntled new pentax buyer which was told pentax had great lens choices.

They do, just not that particular choice. At lleast, not AF - plenty of MF options, though.

On the flip side, there are lenses Pentax offers that Canon doesn't.

[clover]

There are no overpriced lenses. Just cheap people. The "overpriced" lenses all end up as classics and their owners can sell them for more than they gave for them the moment they are out of production.
I bought my first overpriced lens in 1978. It was the 18/3.5. I can sell it for more than I gave. My friend bought a Tokina 17mm. It is virtually worthless today. The FA* 200/4 Macro was considered overpriced among some of those who didn't buy it. I bought the first sample I could get my hands on. I believe I paid around $1000 - it has reached e-bay prices of $3800.
Not to mention the A* 135/1.8 wich I sold for about twice its new price. Look at the prices for the FA* 28-70/2.8; those owners who sells it have had a free lens.....and when the FA Limiteds goes out of production....

I am not agree with your analysis.
Right now, Pentax lenses have a high second hand price because the second hand market of Pentax is very narrow.
And right now, Pentax do not build equivalent lenses.
So the price is high because it is rare, not because it is high price first.

Also, there is "crazy" prices, like the 35mm FA f/2 or the 20-35mm FA f/4. Such lenses are not discontinued but their prices reach an very high level in Europ.

I am often agree with your posts, but, it is not really the case right now

Personnal example : I bought in June, a brand new 28mm FA f/2.8 for 290€. It is not much expensive than when it was produced, it is just not a very rare and precious lens, and the 21mm is a quite good alternative

[Nick Siebers]

You can't sell a lens for more than someone will pay for it... in that light, no lens that sells is "overpriced". And yes, market prices are a function of supply and demand, more than indicators of absolute quality. I suspect the Canon 50/1.8 is intentionally underpriced as a loss-leader; in an open market I suspect it would sell for about $200. But to say that "Pentax lenses are overpriced" to me means very little.

[jboyde]

A lot of posts in this thread have either resorted to oversimplification or hyperbole to voice their disagreement about Pentax lenses being overpriced.
"In relation to...?", people have asked. In relation to the fact that a lens like the FA50 which was $199 brand new when I bought it in early 2008 is now $358 at B&H as of 2:57AM and that sure as hell isn't "vintage"!
Whether you want to factor in currency fluctuations, material shortage, etc, its still hard to rationalize such a jump in price. Then when you take into account all the subsequent lenses being marked up to that same degree it makes you wonder exactly what your lens is actually "worth" and I'm not talking about one's individual opinion of a lens' value.
It seems to me that people say the lenses are overpriced because before 2009 you had the same (or actually better at times) quality of lenses at a cheaper price. People expect kit lenses and consumer zooms to be inexpensive but even their "quality" products were reasonable, not inexpensive, but reasonable. Then in 6 months people saw a jump in prices on lenses that have been in stock for over a year and in addition to that seeing QC problems multiply in newer products. It gave the impression that Pentax/Hoya wanted to be like Canikon in price only, but not to expect the same in quality. Which I think was while people were threatening to switch brands so often during that time.
No one was expecting "free" lenses or what I call a "Mercedes engine in a Ford Escort" but to at least see something to justify such a hike.
Agree or disagree, I'm just a guy with my opinion.

[mbukal]

usporedba: pentax=volvo (nikako mercedes u ford escort)~dosta mijenja vlasnika/ne prate se zahtjevi tržišta/nije veliki izbor modela-ne super i mali izbor ne najkvalitetnijih ali skupih leča-ne na vrhu kao mercedes ni veliki izbor kao puno jeftiniji ford/čvrst-jak-trajno tijelo/nikakva reklama/od originala ostalo samo ime/samo za entuziaste-amatere nikako za profesionalce

[Rondec]

Nikon and Canon tend to have two tiers of lenses: consumer grade and really expensive. There is little in between. Pentax has a lot more lenses that are in the "middle zone." Priced significantly below Nikon's high end lenses, but a lot better quality than the low end glass that sells for cheap.

One has to remember that Pentax was losing an awful lot of money when they were selling FA 50s for $190 and DA 35 limiteds for $375. I too wish those times were back with us, but I understand as well that Pentax has to make money as a whole, not just aim to break even on an individual lens.

[RioRico]

One has to remember that Pentax was losing an awful lot of money when they were selling FA 50s for $190 and DA 35 limiteds for $375.

I got my FA50/1.4 for US$197 just a month before Hoya bought Pentax and started raising prices. Ricoh may decide they can't retail those for US$200 either. And Hoya changed Pentax's marketing (in USA anyway) to mostly Web-only. No inventories in stores except for the B&M locales of a few major online retailers. You can't touch the gear until after it's shipped to you.

I just had a nervous thought: Suppose Ricoh skips the retailers. Apple Stores are worldwide. Why not Ricoh Stores too? With a line of Ricoh-Store-only Pentax gear? You want Pentax gear, you go to the Ricoh Store, in person or online. Instead of Ricoh wholesaling FA50's for US$150 for retailers to flog for $350, Ricoh could "skip the middleman", price them at US$250, and keep the proceeds. Could this happen?

[Cambo]

There are no overpriced lenses. Just cheap people. The "overpriced" lenses all end up as classics and their owners can sell them for more than they gave for them the moment they are out of production.
I bought my first overpriced lens in 1978. It was the 18/3.5. I can sell it for more than I gave. My friend bought a Tokina 17mm. It is virtually worthless today. The FA* 200/4 Macro was considered overpriced among some of those who didn't buy it. I bought the first sample I could get my hands on. I believe I paid around $1000 - it has reached e-bay prices of $3800.
Not to mention the A* 135/1.8 wich I sold for about twice its new price. Look at the prices for the FA* 28-70/2.8; those owners who sells it have had a free lens.....and when the FA Limiteds goes out of production....

yet another reason to NOT buy Sigma and Tamron...and ALL of my FA* glass is worth considerably more than I paid for it now, some ridiculously so (FA* 85 $800.00 now $12-1600), and I have had EXTENSIVE professional use out of all of them - they have all paid for themselves several times over.

I'm having a hard time getting to selling them, much as I want a nice new DA* WP Zoom set...but I will sell them soon. Watch the classifieds...

For sale soon:

FA* 28-70
FA* 85
FA* 24
F* 300
DA 14
Metz 40 MZ2 & 3 flashes with Pentax modules, extension (off camera) cables, and digital slave modules
Pentax 500 TFZ flash

Cheers,
Cameron