[northcoastgreg]

Is Pentax going to make a macro lens that someone like me can afford?

Probably not. If the cheap macro was any good, it could cost them sales of their more expensive macros. If it wasn't that good, it might not sell at all, or at least not enough to make it worth producing.

If you want a cheap macro, there are plenty of used ones available that would be at least as good as any cheap ones that Pentax could produce. Many of them may only be manual focus, but AF isn't all that useful in macro work; and those old manual focus lenses would have considerably better quality than a cheap plastic lens.

[Pentaxor]

If you want a cheap macro, there are plenty of used ones available that would be at least as good as any cheap ones that Pentax could produce. Many of them may only be manual focus, but AF isn't all that useful in macro work; and those old manual focus lenses would have considerably better quality than a cheap plastic lens.

the average price for a used cheap Pentax AF macro ranges from $250-$350. so if a cheap new one would run in that price range, it wouldn't sell well unless it has something more to offer. I'm not sure if Pentax or any lens manufacturer would be able or willing to sell a brand new macro lens at $200 max, unless they plan to trim down such macro lens further. even if it is for APS-C, the cheapest one they offer is the Nikon 40mm. but still, there are used AF macros that sell for the same price.

[RioRico]

It boils down to this: Unless your cut-off for 'cheap' is pretty high, there are NO cheap macro AFLs. And there probably won't be, not of usable quality anyway. If such could be built, and sold for a profit, they likely would be already. But they aren't. (I will be happy to be proved wrong!)

[Pentaxor]

It boils down to this: Unless your cut-off for 'cheap' is pretty high, there are NO cheap macro AFLs. And there probably won't be, not of usable quality anyway. If such could be built, and sold for a profit, they likely would be already. But they aren't. (I will be happy to be proved wrong!)

I don't think this only limits macro lenses. for all we know, we want a cheap FA31 equivalent selling for $300. is it possible? probably if you are a new player in the market and you want your product to be known and accept marginal loss or gain. but once you get your name on, that's when the company would profit by up'ing up the price.

[interested_observer]

I don't think this only limits macro lenses. for all we know, we want a cheap FA31 equivalent selling for $300. is it possible? probably if you are a new player in the market and you want your product to be known and accept marginal loss or gain. but once you get your name on, that's when the company would profit by up'ing up the price.

You can "make" (convert mounts) your own - convert a old Contax Carl Zeiss 28mm f2.8 Distagon T* (from C/Y to K) and you will be close in lens speed, equal or better in sharpness and image quality along with contrast, however the color and character will be Zeiss and not Pentax. The downside is, it will be a fully manual lens.

[axl]

the addition of the Nikkor AF-S 40mm f/2.8G is a bizarre addition to the Nikon lens line up ....

Why would it be bizzare?!?
For APSC user (in other words probably 90% of Nikon consumer isers) this lens provides the same FOV as :

the Nikkor AF-S 60mm f/2.8G ED

If that lens is popular among FX/135 film users, it makes perfect sense to introduce it's APSC equivalent...
Just as Pentax, Sigma and Tamron did with their popular macros....

[Digitalis]

hy would it be bizzare?!? For APSC user (in other words probably 90% of Nikon consumer isers) this lens provides the same FOV as the Nikkor AF-S 60mm f/2.8G ED If that lens is popular among FX/135 film users, it makes perfect sense to introduce it's APSC equivalent... Just as Pentax, Sigma and Tamron did with their popular macros....

It's bizarre because nikon has enough macro lenses already.

[deejjjaaaa]

It's bizarre because nikon has enough macro lenses already.

that is why Nikon has XX% and Ricoh has y% of the market.

[pinholecam]

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....

Doesn't the Sigma and Tamron macros take care of that?
There are plenty of options if you want cheap.

1. Sigma/Tamron options
2. Cheap MF macro lenses
3. Zooms like the DA 50-200 and a Raynox add on.
4. Reversed 50mm f2 with a reverse ring.
5. Extension tubes

In fact the latter 3 can give larger than 1:1 magnification.
The latter 2 options are dirt cheap.

[RioRico]

In fact the latter 3 can give larger than 1:1 magnification.
The latter 2 options are dirt cheap.

I cover much of this in my article https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/152336-cheap-macro-b...lose-work.html -- and I didn't bring this up here before because the question wasn't about doing macro cheap, but whether Pentax is likely to enter the budget-macro-lens market. All lensmaking requires compromises. Alas, AF macro lenses require contradictions. Quality macro work can be done ultra-cheap. Quality AF 'macro' lenses CAN'T be built real cheap AFAIK. Or at least they aren't. If they were easy to make, everyone would be doing so.

[axl]

It's bizarre because nikon has enough macro lenses already.

So just because there are X macro lenses from one company. Folks that choose/prefer/can only afford APSC format shouldn't have the same options as the folks shooting DX format? Bollocks...well done Nikon for bringing this and 35/1.8 out...

[creampuff]

I cover much of this in my article pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/152336-cheap-macro-buying-exploiting-lens-ultraclose-work.html -- and I didn't bring this up here before because the question wasn't about doing macro cheap, but whether Pentax is likely to enter the budget-macro-lens market. All lensmaking requires compromises. Alas, AF macro lenses require contradictions. Quality macro work can be done ultra-cheap. Quality AF 'macro' lenses CAN'T be built real cheap AFAIK. Or at least they aren't. If they were easy to make, everyone would be doing so.

Enuff of the self advertisement please...
I have to say your latter statements are pretty sweeping and unsubstantiated.

What contradictions are you talking about with regards to AF macro lenses? Please highlight them for us.

FYI, the no-longer-made plastic fantastic Vivitar/Sears/Pentax FA 100mm f/3.5 Macro is a decent lens for the price. It offered 1:2 magnification on its own and 1:1 with the close-up diopter and this lens was made in both MF and AF versions. Yeah it only has a simple 4 element construction, looks like crap with the cheap plastic build but it does give decent images for the price and it had AF. Sure it is hopelessly outclassed by other better performing AF macro lenses but that's to be expected given it's cheap and cheerful price point. I certainly got good images from my copy.

Perhaps you should try using current modern AF macro lenses offered by Pentax/Sigma or Tamron before making up such claims.

[gut1kor]

I am pleased to see some of the thought provoking replies from you people.
There definitely is a good demand for cheaper AF macro lens at least from new entrants. This makes sense if we take out Pros from the picture, who knows what they exactly want and are free to chose the system at the demanded price. But most of the new people come to Pentax for good reasons such as - value for money, as some one pointed out in this chain. Our Pentax DSLRs proved to be on par, if not better, with the big competition at lower price - bang for the buck. User satisfaction levels are staggering. And coming up with cheaper, new lenses will make Pentax's growth even more promising.

Hope, ricoh will make this dream come true :-)

Thanks
Guna

[Digitalis]

So just because there are X macro lenses from one company. Folks that choose/prefer/can only afford APSC format shouldn't have the same options as the folks shooting DX format? Bollocks...well done Nikon for bringing this and 35/1.8 out...

I said nothing of the sort, I was suggesting that Nikon should produce macro lenses that have a longer focal length and thus greater working distance. I bought the Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/2.8G ED VR* for my D3 because of the longer working distance than the AF-S 60mm f/2.8G ED which was too short. Short macro lenses have their place but from my point of view they really aren't all that versatile because if you want to get into photographing insects or using advanced lighting techniques the short working distance can frighten away the subject and/or make lighting the subject much more difficult.

*I also have a voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO Lanthar for my Nikon cameras and it is now my go to macro lens. The Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G has VR which should never be underestimated - but optically nikkor is inferior to the voigtlander.

[RioRico]

What contradictions are you talking about with regards to AF macro lenses? Please highlight them for us.

The main contradiction involves focus throw. We want AF lenses to AF quickly; this requires a short focus throw. We want macro lenses to focus precisely over some range; this requires a long focus throw. These are contradictory. The very fact that we have AF in the macro realm (1:2 and greater) where AF is unusable, where precise manual focus is necessary, is a contradiction. So designers build those contradictions into the lenses and sell them and we become used to them. But AF is still useless when shooting 1:1.