Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-25-2011, 05:09 PM   #61
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
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?
It depends. If they still made the FA35 and sold it for around $499 new, then yes I think they'd continue to sell on the used market for around $375-400.

07-25-2011, 05:12 PM   #62
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
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.
$50 ain't enough to buy you a dream lens. unless you buying something really special for $50, then sell it. otherwise, just sell a lens that you don't really use that will able you to afford and buy that dream lens. and Yes, I find it hard to even consider selling my copy even for the better built FA43. I guess the FA43 just never grew on me despite the numerous times I even tried and shoot with it. could be the focal length. could be the rendering as well.
07-25-2011, 05:17 PM   #63
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
$50 ain't enough to buy you a dream lens. unless you buying something really special for $50, then sell it. otherwise, just sell a lens that you don't really use that will able you to afford and buy that dream lens. and Yes, I find it hard to even consider selling my copy even for the better built FA43. I guess the FA43 just never grew on me despite the numerous times I even tried and shoot with it. could be the focal length. could be the rendering as well.
I think you might have misunderstood what I meant before. I just meant I had an extra copy of the F50/1.7 and since I already have a copy of the FA50/1.7, I sold the F50/1.7. I agree, $50 isn't enough to buy much in the way of dream lenses
07-25-2011, 05:24 PM   #64
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
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?
the FA50/1.4 was selling for $200 3 years ago and now cost at $350. you can use that as reference. most Pentax lenses have increased in value in the last 3 years.

QuoteQuote:
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.
that would depend on Pentax. as I said, the current price trend for Pentax lenses as of the moment is up. if they decide to downgrade the 50/1.7, the consumer should accept the compromises that comes along with it.

07-25-2011, 05:31 PM   #65
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
I think you might have misunderstood what I meant before. I just meant I had an extra copy of the F50/1.7 and since I already have a copy of the FA50/1.7, I sold the F50/1.7. I agree, $50 isn't enough to buy much in the way of dream lenses
oh, sorry about that. silly me.

but anyway, I just express the same sentiment that you do concerning the price.

I also understand what paperbag is going thru for the cheapskate that he is, . but anyways, who doesn't want cheap and affordable lenses? the point is, let's be realistic. I don't see cheap lenses happening without any sort of compromise, and I hate compromise for the sake of cheapness.

as the saying goes >>>
07-25-2011, 06:30 PM   #66
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
I also understand what paperbag is going thru for the cheapskate that he is, .
And proud of it!

But honestly, my 50 1.4 is a lens I really love, and I value what it offers above the 1.7s. I'm not really discussing this for my own benefit, but rather because I think it would be beneficial to the brand for newcommers. The 55 f1.8 was the first lens I bought after the kit, and it was quite the experience for me. It essentially taught me everything I now know about photography. I think that a 50 is a great place to start (yes, even on a crop body).

I bought a 50 on the suggestion of my friend, who does this for a living. I'm very happy I did, and unfortunately, it's not easy to find them around here for Pentax. Even on craigslist! Not the 1.7's, anyway.

I'm really trying to think through the eyes of someone who A) is not as computer savvy as I am, and B) is just starting and wants to build on the options afforded by the kit lens. The 50 is THE lens that gives you the most for your dollar. The kit is 5.6 at 50mm, even a cheap 50 is f2. The kit is soft at 50mm, even a cheap prime at 50mm is sharp. It would be smaller, etc.

It's also perfect for shooting people, which is the thing those who are new to DSLRs seem to have a common interest in. The 35 is a really great lens and a welcome addition, but a cheap 50mm would really be attractive to newcommers, if you ask me .
07-25-2011, 07:25 PM   #67
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,432
Others have said it, but the most commonly resold Pentax lenses today are 50mm lenses. E bay is awash in them. Most don't have auto focus, but many do and for Pentax to release a new lens, it would have to compete with them in some way. Better optics? Probably not. Better pricing? Well, hard to say. I really think 180 is the bottom of the barrel for pricing right now, assuming a DA L version without quick shift and with all plastic build. I don't know that that competes so well with older lenses (with better builds) that are everywhere. Particularly for a focal length that just isn't that useful on APS-C.
07-25-2011, 07:38 PM   #68
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,903
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Particularly for a focal length that just isn't that useful on APS-C.
Exactly, on APS-C the 50mm focal length is too long for indoor and not wide enough for outdoor; plus a m42 50/1.4 lens is so easy to use especially in TAv mode and SR on.

07-25-2011, 09:55 PM   #69
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by aleonx3 Quote
Exactly, on APS-C the 50mm focal length is too long for indoor and not wide enough for outdoor; plus a m42 50/1.4 lens is so easy to use especially in TAv mode and SR on.
You can use TAv with non-A-types on your K7? I can't on my K20D. Oh bother.

As for the focal length: 50-55mm was a short tele even on 135/FF cams, and I didn't and don't really care for it there. Fifty was the 'kit' FL apparently because of mirror box thickness more than anything else. For me, 35-45mm feels better on FF for me.

On crop sensors, Fiftys have a different role: subject isolation. Use them indoors to pick out faces and details; use them outdoors to concentrate your view; use them anywhere for dimness or action. I like 50-55mm much more on crop than full frame.

And Pentax keeps churning out FA50/1.4's, and people pay higher prices, so the demand seems to continue. Consider Pentax's current lineup of longer-than-long-normal (40-60mm) lenses for crop dSLRs now: DA40/2.8 Ltd, FA43/1.9 Ltd, FA50/1.4, DFA50/2.8 Macro, DA*55/1.4. All in the "too long for indoor and not wide enough for outdoor" category, eh? Yet people buy them anyway! Go figure...
07-26-2011, 03:51 AM   #70
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,432
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
You can use TAv with non-A-types on your K7? I can't on my K20D. Oh bother.

As for the focal length: 50-55mm was a short tele even on 135/FF cams, and I didn't and don't really care for it there. Fifty was the 'kit' FL apparently because of mirror box thickness more than anything else. For me, 35-45mm feels better on FF for me.

On crop sensors, Fiftys have a different role: subject isolation. Use them indoors to pick out faces and details; use them outdoors to concentrate your view; use them anywhere for dimness or action. I like 50-55mm much more on crop than full frame.

And Pentax keeps churning out FA50/1.4's, and people pay higher prices, so the demand seems to continue. Consider Pentax's current lineup of longer-than-long-normal (40-60mm) lenses for crop dSLRs now: DA40/2.8 Ltd, FA43/1.9 Ltd, FA50/1.4, DFA50/2.8 Macro, DA*55/1.4. All in the "too long for indoor and not wide enough for outdoor" category, eh? Yet people buy them anyway! Go figure...
I own a 55 and use it a lot for portrait type shooting. I just find that when I am shooting indoors, that it is way too long to capture what is "going on" around me, say at family events, etc. It would be like shooting with an 85 mm lens on a 35mm camera. Sure, you could do it, but it would be frustrating, at least for me.

When I am taking pictures in doors, I tend to use either my DA 35 limited or DA *16-50.
07-26-2011, 05:42 AM   #71
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
Yes, and at the risk of repeating, I just don't see how it is a moneymaker for Pentax to make a new lens with a lower profit margin to compete in a focal length where there are already several million copies out there floating around and frequently for sale to a customer base that probably contains many more film-era users than with other brands.

Last edited by GeneV; 07-26-2011 at 06:19 AM.
07-26-2011, 06:26 AM   #72
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,213
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I own a 55 and use it a lot for portrait type shooting. I just find that when I am shooting indoors, that it is way too long to capture what is "going on" around me, say at family events, etc. It would be like shooting with an 85 mm lens on a 35mm camera. Sure, you could do it, but it would be frustrating, at least for me.

When I am taking pictures in doors, I tend to use either my DA 35 limited or DA *16-50.
It really depends on the indoors situation.
07-26-2011, 06:58 AM   #73
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
It really depends on the indoors situation.
Indeed. Some call for my Zenitar 16/2.8, or Kiron 24/2, or F35-70, or FA50/1.4, or MacTak 50/4, depending on the room and its light and contents. Each of these has proved its worth for me. That's why I carry them. What, the MacroTakumar 50? Yeah, at an in-laws' McMansion when XMas treats and gingerbread houses were being assembled, to shoot hands doing the assembling.
07-26-2011, 08:39 AM   #74
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,924
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
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.
Two flaws here:

1) You do it because the other guy does and uses it to spur both main body sales and other after market sales. Canikon did it with the 35 FL and now the 50's regardless of one's appreciation of the FL in APS-land (it's a short portrait or whatever...it's something to buy).

If you do NOT do it, you're burned because it makes the whole brand worth less compared to the competition. The profit margin factors in only if you have unit sales to begin with. If I am a dealer and I have a brand that sells a kit with 2 zooms and 2 budget primes, this is better than the brand with only 1 budget prime. Which one gets more push?

It has always been thus.

2) There is far too much emphasis on the availability of manual focus lenses as market alternatives. The reality is these make no $$$ for Pentax and a tiny, tiny fraction of purchasers out there care about manual focus at all. All the new money is made on AF.

Pentax has been all over the map with lens production at market price points. There is zero consistency in development and placement. The DA 35/2.4 was likely deliberately kept slower than the competition to not impact sales of the DA 35/2.8 Macro. Pentax looked to be releasing a high-end range, but the market turned and now low-cost lenses are the rage and Pentax is behind the competition, and that an only affect unit sales. It's a rock and hard place problem because a cheaper, slightly slower 50 will cannibalize sales of both the FA 50 and the DA*55.

It has always been thus.
07-26-2011, 08:42 AM   #75
Forum Member
kanzlr's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Vienna
Posts: 92
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
I like 50-55mm much more on crop than full frame.
d'accord.

50 on FX is blah, on DX it is a nice short tele.
On FX/135 Cameras I prefer 35 or 40 by a mile...
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!
50mm, answer, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: RARE PENTAX LENS k 28MM F2, k 50MM F1.2 FA 35MM F2, FA 50MM Macro, Pouc (Worl rajubhai55 Sold Items 11 06-21-2011 03:27 PM
For Sale - Sold: PZ-1 SE; Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7 lens and 50mm f/2; K1000 SE (Worldwide) Nick Siebers Sold Items 8 11-20-2010 08:51 PM
Pentax SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 Lens or Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM? NicK10D Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 06-23-2010 06:21 AM
Misc Everything is Going To Be Alright Hali Post Your Photos! 3 02-18-2010 07:53 AM
Lightroom: Alright, I See the Light Mike Cash Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 15 06-23-2008 11:00 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:51 AM. | 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