[Pentaxor]

You want cheap, stay with the DA18-55. You want more, you gotta spend more. Such is life.

you said it. no free lunch !

[aleonx3]

I'm with you Peter. Partly, it is because I already have some 50s from the film days, but this request would be near the bottom of my list. There are also loads of A lenses out there in this range for cheap if one really wants an inexpensive option that allows metering, albeit no AF.

The fast 28 or 18 or even a 12mm prime are higher on my list.

I am with you and also many others. I have the 43mm and the 77mm, I don't need a cheap 50mm, they are many fine legacy 50mm MF lenses available if I need it; Just because Canikon has the cheapo 50/1.8, it does not make a case for Pentax.

[paperbag846]

you said it. no free lunch !

But this lens would be much more expensive than the kit even if it was only 200 dollars. The old kit lenses are worth less than 50 dollars and the new ones (which are WR) only run just over 100...

DA L 35mm is more expensive than kit but it's still a worthy addition to the lineup IMHO.

I notice a lot of people here with 50 1.2s or FA ltds. claiming that there is no need. I can understand there is no need for YOU, but the MF option is least attractive to a newbie photographer (compared to many of you who have many years of experience under your belts), and the FA ltds are a hefty investment for a newcommer with a KX.

In fact, I would argue a new photographer would not even utilize something like the 43 properly until they had amassed many hours of experience... years even. These people could use a 50 1.7 (just like they might find use for a 35 2.4 ).

[GeneV]

But this lens would be much more expensive than the kit even if it was only 200 dollars. The old kit lenses are worth less than 50 dollars and the new ones (which are WR) only run just over 100...

DA L 35mm is more expensive than kit but it's still a worthy addition to the lineup IMHO.

I notice a lot of people here with 50 1.2s or FA ltds. claiming that there is no need. I can understand there is no need for YOU, but the MF option is least attractive to a newbie photographer (compared to many of you who have many years of experience under your belts), and the FA ltds are a hefty investment for a newcommer with a KX.

In fact, I would argue a new photographer would not even utilize something like the 43 properly until they had amassed many hours of experience... years even. These people could use a 50 1.7 (just like they might find use for a 35 2.4 ).

The FA 50 F1.4 can be had for ~$350. There is no need for Pentax to add a cheaper 50mm lens with an even smaller profit margin when that FL is not even a "normal" lens for the format. Historically, in the film days, the 50 was dirt cheap as a fast normal lens, but it would have been unusual for a camera maker to have a fast, cheap 75mm as well. There has never been a huge demand for a cheapie in this kind of short portrait FOV. Now, add to that the fact that the world is swimming in PK mount manual focus 50mm lenses and you have a sure loser for Pentax.

[Blue]

Someone should tell B&H, they actually have it listed as a "DA L" lens (link)

Because BH has a mistake in the listing doesn't mean it is a DA L. . Pentax Imaging has it as SMC PENTAX DA 35MM F2.4 AL.

Digital Cameras and Accessories - Official PENTAX Imaging Web Site

[sebberry]

I mean, the cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens is an essential for everyone who are not able to buy and expensive prime[/B][/I]".

There's a 50mm f/1.4, not sure why they should add a 1.8 into the mix too.

[LFLee]

My perspective.... I bought my k200 and use it for a whole full year without buying another lens. As an upgrade from a P&S camera, a dSLR is expensive! let alone buy additional lenses.

It is only after a year of venture with the Kit lens, I wonder why I couldn't get those wonderful shots (low lights, bokeh) that others are getting, and read many forum post, then I decided to get a prime lens. which make me developed LBA.

Anyway, looking back at my experience, I think many people didn't get pass the first year and learn enough of their dSLR to actually go ahead and upgrade their lenses. A lot of my friends who bought into dSLR before me end up using them as a P&S camera in Auto mode with just the kit lens. They never go beyond that.

So if Pentax market is small, the people who will actually go beyond the kit lens is even fewer. The DA35 f2.4 is cheap enough for people to venture in another lens other than the kit lens.... assuming they still keep track of what going on with their camera company through online forums. Else, lots of them never get pass the kit lens stage, and end up figuring --- dSLR is not for them.

[paperbag846]

Now, add to that the fact that the world is swimming in PK mount manual focus 50mm lenses and you have a sure loser for Pentax.

I don't think you are completely off of the mark. But suppose they could release a cheaper 1.7 with the SAME profit margin. It would be the only readily available 1.7 available with autofocus (the F / FA versions are pretty rare and somewhat overpriced for a used 50 of that quality).

People might think: I don't use a fast 50 enough to warrant a 400 dollar 50 1.4, but I hate manual focus. I'll just pick up this 250 dollar 1.7 instead.

Which would be much less expensive than the Canon 85mm f1.8, for example.

[dgaies]

I don't think you are completely off of the mark. But suppose they could release a cheaper 1.7 with the SAME profit margin. It would be the only readily available 1.7 available with autofocus (the F / FA versions are pretty rare and somewhat overpriced for a used 50 of that quality).

People might think: I don't use a fast 50 enough to warrant a 400 dollar 50 1.4, but I hate manual focus. I'll just pick up this 250 dollar 1.7 instead.

I'm slightly confused. In the first part of your post you said the FA/F50/1.7 is somewhat overpriced for a used 50 "of that quality", but then in the second part you go on to suggest people should be inclined to pick up a "DAL" type 50/1.7 instead for $250. Seeing as you can get an F50/1.7 pretty easily in the $200-225 range, I'm not sure I see the logic. Unless of course you assume that a $250 DA-L 50/1.7 would be of higher build/optical quality than the F50/1.7, but I'm not sure that's realistic.

[GeneV]

I'm slightly confused. In the first part of your post you said the FA/F50/1.7 is somewhat overpriced for a used 50 "of that quality", but then in the second part you go on to suggest people should be inclined to pick up a "DAL" type 50/1.7 instead for $250. Seeing as you can get an F50/1.7 pretty easily in the $200-225 range, I'm not sure I see the logic. Unless of course you assume that a $250 DA-L 50/1.7 would be of higher build/optical quality than the F50/1.7, but I'm not sure that's realistic.

The new one would be autofocus, and most of the 50/1.7 stock out there is manual. The F models often ask the same $300+ price as for the FA50 1.4, so why go there? However, they can be had in "A" version for high two-figure money.

Still, I don't see how Pentax can make a profit. At this point all the engineering is done. I suspect there is very little difference in manufacturing cost between a 1.7 and 1.4, so where is the profit? And who is the market? Most beginners don't really care about a 50, and many of those of us who do either have one already, can be happy with a mf lens or would prefer the 1.4.

[dgaies]

The new one would be autofocus, and most of the 50/1.7 stock out there is manual. The F models often ask the same $300+ price as for the FA50 1.4, so why go there? However, they can be had in "A" version for high two-figure money.

Still, I don't see how Pentax can make a profit. At this point all the engineering is done. I suspect there is very little difference in manufacturing cost between a 1.7 and 1.4, so where is the profit? And who is the market? Most beginners don't really care about a 50, and many of those of us who do either have one already, can be happy with a mf lens or would prefer the 1.4.

Well, the F50/1.4 sells for close to the FA50/1.4 because it is rare and there is a perception (true or not) that it is somehow optically superior to the FA50/1.4. Same story for the FA50/1.7. It sells for more than the F50/1.7 because it is more rare, but optically they are the same. The more common F50/1.7 sells pretty readily in the low $200 range.

But all that aside, I agree with you. I don't think much would be gained (for Pentax) to put out an AF 50/1.7. I also doubt that it would be substantially cheaper to produce than the FA50/1.4, so how much less could they sell it for and still make enough profit to justify having it in their product line? How, I could (potentially) see a scenario where the FA50/1.4 was replaced by a somewhat less expensive DAL 50/1.7 so that there were two choices in the lineup; the budget DAL50/1.7 and the more expensive DA*55/1.4.

[Pentaxor]

There's a 50mm f/1.4, not sure why they should add a 1.8 into the mix too.

not sure, but it has to be different. the 50/1.4 is already selling around $350 BN, and $200-$250 for a used one. so if people want something at that speed that costs the same as a corresponding Canon/Nikon equivalent, they should accept the IQ performance to be not as equally good as the f1.4. I'm not sure if Pentax would be willing to ask such price bracket if ever they resurrect the 50/1.7 optics. from what we learned so far, any resurrected Pentax lens, costs more. the DAL 35 is already $180 at best, and I don't see a downgraded 50/1.7 would cost less than that.

[Pentaxor]

I'm slightly confused. In the first part of your post you said the FA/F50/1.7 is somewhat overpriced for a used 50 "of that quality", but then in the second part you go on to suggest people should be inclined to pick up a "DAL" type 50/1.7 instead for $250. Seeing as you can get an F50/1.7 pretty easily in the $200-225 range, I'm not sure I see the logic. Unless of course you assume that a $250 DA-L 50/1.7 would be of higher build/optical quality than the F50/1.7, but I'm not sure that's realistic.

basically, the current price ( $150-$250) of a used AF 50/1.7 is pretty much used market value to market level price. remember the FA is rarer, so that has an impact on pricing as well. the only difference between it and the 50/1.4 is that the 50/1.7 are discontinued. if they still sell them today, they would most likely cost around $280-$300. so I don't believe it is overpriced. it has just increased in value like any other current Pentax lens.

[dgaies]

basically, the current price ( $150-$250) of a used AF 50/1.7 is pretty much used market value to market level price. remember the FA is rarer, so that has an impact on pricing as well. the only difference between it and the 50/1.4 is that the 50/1.7 are discontinued. if they still sell them today, they would most likely cost around $280-$300. so I don't believe it is overpriced. it has just increased in value like any other current Pentax lens.

I actually don't believe the F50/1.7 is overpriced for what you get. In the previous post I only mentioned the overpriced issue in reference to what another poster said. I completely understand why the FA50/1.7 is more expensive (compared to the F50/1.7) due to the fact that there are far fewer of them out there. I personally kept the FA50/1.7 over the F50/1.7 because I happen to like the look of the FA50/1.7 more, but I fully understand that I would have got about $50 more had I sold the FA version instead.

[paperbag846]

it has just increased in value like any other current Pentax lens.

This is due to it being discontinued in the first place! Value is tied to supply and demand. Supply has been cut, demand continues to grow. Do you think the FA 35 would sell for what it does today on the used market if they were still making them?

Anyways if I had to pick one, I'm glad they stuck with the 1.4 and not the 1.7. However, I still think they could make and sell a 50 1.7 for between 150-200 dollars. The 50 1.7 sold for less than the 35 2.0 did new, and they managed to bring the price of the 35 2.0 down with the DA L version.