Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-21-2011, 08:24 AM   #16
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
if this was a discussion about pricing, there was a time when the DA35 would cost around $400-$450. it seems that that time has past and we wake up to the reality that some of the Pentax lenses are no longer that dirt cheap or bargain as it once were.

fwiw, the LTD's nowadays command a premium for their build and size. they become much more expensive because they have to from a business point of view.

07-21-2011, 08:55 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southern California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,082
I think it's a valid question, considering the DA 35mm 2.4. Is Pentax going to create a line of good cheap primes with plastic build. I don't think this particular combo 40mm macro is likely.
07-21-2011, 09:21 AM   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bangalore
Photos: Albums
Posts: 174
Original Poster
I think only few people understood my question. It was not about a particular focal length macro lens or speculations about the mentioned Nikkor lens. It was only about the possibility that Pentax may come up with a cheap macro lens of whatever focal length.

BTW, thanks for your opinions.

Guna
07-21-2011, 10:05 AM   #19
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by gut1kor Quote
I think only few people understood my question. It was not about a particular focal length macro lens or speculations about the mentioned Nikkor lens. It was only about the possibility that Pentax may come up with a cheap macro lens of whatever focal length.

BTW, thanks for your opinions.

Guna

Pentax did try something like this a few years back (1998-2004). It was called the FA 100/3.5 macro. It wasn't particularly bad but it wasn't particularly good either. Of course it was only 1:2 (1:1 with adapter) and was basically a rebadged Cosina with SMC coatings and Pentax electronics. That lens was also sold under various other labels as well but presumably with other coatings. .

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FA-100mm-F3.5-Macro-Lens.html

Frankly, if I were running Nikon, I would opt for the Tokina 35/2.8 macro at $299 instead of a plastic wonder piston.

Edit: Furthermore, the DA 35/2.8 LTD is available and BH and Adorama for $539.95 which is a lot cheaper the $699.


Last edited by Blue; 07-21-2011 at 10:12 AM.
07-21-2011, 10:33 AM   #20
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
Now the 45mm/2.8 micro-Nikkor I could get into but don't look at the price. Its like the prime that can do everything.

PC-E Micro NIKKOR 45mm f/2.8D ED from Nikon
07-21-2011, 12:45 PM   #21
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by gut1kor Quote
I think only few people understood my question. It was not about a particular focal length macro lens or speculations about the mentioned Nikkor lens. It was only about the possibility that Pentax may come up with a cheap macro lens of whatever focal length.

BTW, thanks for your opinions.

Guna
well your opening statement was vague to begin with, especially if you cited one particular focal length lens as an example, nothing that would hint macros with varying focal lengths. having said that, your point is still sketchy considering what other macro lenses of varying focal lengths does Nikon have to offer for $279? again reverting back to your question "Can we expect something like this from Pentax soon?" so which "like this" were you referring at? it somehow defeats the purpose or argument of comparing something similarly cheap at other focal lengths? thus, created confusing statement in the process.

as far as answering what the real intention of your question is, I suppose Pentax could do it, but that would depend on the market demand for such cheap macro at which focal length is in dire need. also, consider at what cost such cheap price would such lens had to suffer and will those be acceptable compromises.
07-21-2011, 07:52 PM   #22
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bangalore
Photos: Albums
Posts: 174
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
well your opening statement was vague to begin with, especially if you...
Yes, understood, the question should have been more clearer.
07-21-2011, 08:27 PM   #23
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,862
Nikon is adding to their inexpensive prime lineup, while Pentax is (possibly) just starting with the 35/2.4. So maybe Pentax should have a few lenses ahead of a cheap macro.

But, look at what they did with the FA 35/2: discontinued it, then updated the design, cut some corners and voila, their first cheap prime. So why not do the same with the two DFA macros. They already have created a premium version of the 100mm, with a Limited-like build, rounded blades and WR. They could discontinue either old design and follow the same pattern that launched the 35/2.4. Then, the cheap lenses won't cannibalize sales from expensive lenses.

07-21-2011, 09:53 PM   #24
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
Will Pentax make cheaper AF macro lenses? We don't know. Why not ask Pentax?

Are cheaper 'macro' lenses available? Sure, with certain limitations. Many are AF.

Does a macro lens need AF? Only if it will be used for non-macro shooting a lot.

See, the original question can be parsed in several ways. Unless/until Ricoh-Pentax comes up with a lens roadmap, we can have no idea of their corporate intentions; we can just speculate (Wild-Ass Guesses). Viewed thus, the question is futile. The same goes for questions of corporate competition. How Pentax or any third-party lensmakers may react to Nikon offerings, we don't/can't know. A Nikon short macro doesn't really compete with Pentax lenses, not like a Sigma lens in multiple mounts would.

Or we can consider this from the cheap-macro viewpoint. An AF 'macro' lens is really a sharp general-purpose lens that focuses close. There are various ways to make a non-'macro' AF lens focus close, like a closeup adapter, or extension. See my CHEAP MACRO article for details.

But consider that 1) AF is NOT your friend when shooting macro, since where the AF focuses may not be where YOU want to focus, and 2) macro lenses 40mm and shorter are more for studio than field work because of their very close working distance at 1:1 magnification. So if one desires to shoot close macro, there are MUCH cheaper ways to do so than buying even a low-end AF 'macro' lens.
07-21-2011, 10:10 PM   #25
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
If anything, Nikon is copying Pentax, but trying to do it at a cheaper price.
Definitely not.
Nikopn is just doing what Pentax has done before and that's replacing it's popular short macro with DX FOV equivalent. Yes, Nikon has 60/2.8 Micro Nikkor fopr Fx system and now they are providing this FOV to DX users. Same as Pentax did with 35 to provide same FOV short macro as 50mm used to be on film and same as Sigma did when the provided 70mm for APSC users to mimic 105 on FF....
07-21-2011, 10:12 PM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,107
Ricoh assumes control of Pentax in October. They must certainly have some general ideas of how they intend to rearrange the furniture. They will need at least 3 months minimum to sit down with Pentax's management to get the internal lay of the land - and a good idea of how large of investment they will need to inject. In the meantime, Ricoh needs to consider their investment plan and the potential return (and time frame). We can't expect a roadmap much before January - or more likely the end of the first quarter. That is 6 months away at best.

The next 12 months of products are baked in already - regardless of whether or not we like it. It is what it is.

All we can do is to relax and go take some pictures....

07-21-2011, 10:48 PM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,921
IMO, 40mm macro is not even better thought out than a 35mm in terms of FOV.
Why?

1. 40mm is too short a working distance for most macro work.
2. 40mm is tighter FOV than 35mm and won't function in as many scenarios as a general walkabout lens.

The general idea of a 35mm macro is that its versatile. A normal '50mm' equivalent FOV on APS-C that works rather well as a walkabout lens.
With the macro, this 'walkabout' focal length also allows the use to get in real close for macro and close-up shots when the need arises.

The DA35/2.8 macro is just such a versatile lens and with it comes better build and sharpness.

If you are looking for a cheaper short macro, then there is the DFA50/2.8 and the Sigma 50mm macro Tamron 60mm macro.

Any cheaper, then a 50mm or DA35/2.4 and a 25mm segment of extension tube will work as well (which I always have in my camera bag in fact)
07-21-2011, 11:20 PM   #28
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
IMO, 40mm macro is not even better thought out than a 35mm...
Short macro is old. I have an early-model 1:2 macro, a Kilfitt Makro Kilar-E 40/3.5 (on Exakta mount, easily and non-destructively adaptable to PK). I think it's a WW2-era design. It's usable for macros on FF, moreso on APS-C because of the slightly longer working distance, but in that 'tween-land of 35-50mm for general work. But does 40mm macro make sense now, compared to 35mm or shorter??

I'll admit to a favorite short walkabout (before I got the Viv-Komine 28/2 CFWD): a no-name PK-M lens, maybe by Tokina, the Access 28/2.8 'macro'. It uses a twist-out front element to reach 1:37 (semi-macro) magnification at about 4cm. 28mm is 'normal' on my K20D so it's good for general shooting. IMHO a 35mm macro is indeed great for folks with FF/50 vision, thinking that 47 degree AOV is better than the 57 degrees of a 28mm on APS-C. I just find 28mm to be a better focal length than 35mm for both general and macro shooting.

So what are the options (new and old) for macro lenses in the 28-40 region? And who shoots macro with them?
07-23-2011, 07:10 AM - 1 Like   #29
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Leesburg, GA
Posts: 6
My Take?

I guess I took from the question this; Is Pentax going to make a macro lens that someone like me can afford? I know that many of you spend a lot of money on lenses and such and see no issue in dumping a ton of money into your equipment, I'm here to say it's just not that easy for all of us. Sure when you scale back the price you scale back the quality and no one is doubting this would happen, but not all of us can afford $300-$1000 lenses just because they meet a certain feature criteria. I chose my Pentax because it was a comparable camera to the other big names but it was well within my financial reach being the most important factor. I just think that an economy consumer line of lenses would not be that much to ask....
07-23-2011, 07:56 AM   #30
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,795
the addition of the Nikkor AF-S 40mm f/2.8G is a bizarre addition to the Nikon lens line up which as things stand has no shortage of macro lenses, including the Nikkor AF-S 60mm f/2.8G ED micro the Nikkor 85mm f/3.5G VR DX Micro and we can't forget about the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G VR ED [IF] macro and the Nikkor AF 200mm f/4 D ED [IF]Micro*

I think someone in nikon's lens design dept. really likes designing macro lenses.

*A very decent lens for the price but it doesn't hold a candle to the pentax FA*200mm f/4 ED [IF] macro lens

Last edited by Digitalis; 07-23-2011 at 08:06 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, lens, macro, macro lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I wish pentax made a K-50 (cheaper k5) buttons Pentax DSLR Discussion 36 04-24-2011 07:23 PM
Are Pentax lenses cheaper in other countries? robdrobd Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 12-26-2010 11:57 PM
How much sharpness should I expect from the 100mm Macro WR? iocchelli Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 07-31-2010 09:01 PM
What problems can I expect using an M-class lens or older on a K100d? Grimlock Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 09-10-2007 09:31 PM
Lens prices in ASIA (is it cheaper ?) cruiserlan2000 Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 05-09-2007 02:05 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:43 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top