My gosh our glass is cheap

Laurentiu Cristofor · 01-07-2012, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Aegon

But You can't buy a Tokina 50-135mm new, nor a Pentax 85/1.4.

So? I am afraid I am missing the point you are trying to make here.

borno · 01-07-2012, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by SteveM

While I agree that Pentax has some work to do on the AF front, I don't agree with your statement. Camera bodies have seen a vast improvement, and even the K5 itself has narrowed the gap. Since it's the bodies that are responsible for AF, you'll see surprising good AF with the FA*600.

The FA*300 f2.8 I had was pretty fast to focus with the k20d and I'm sure the k5 is better, but a lens with a ring focus motor is a whole other thing (almost instant by comparison). I found the sdm pretty slow in the da300mm f4. (loved the IQ though)

DanielT74 · 01-07-2012, 08:49 PM

Being older doesn't make those Pentax classics inferior to their Canon or Nikon counterparts.

Leica APO-Telyt-R 280mm f4 was introduced in 1984 and is still bests the recent offerings.

wlachan · 01-08-2012, 08:12 AM

I am afraid Pentax is no Leica, although some might like to fantasize. Throughout the Pentax K mount history, there were a handful of gems (like A*85 & 200 macro) but the majority are rather average, not necessarily poor but not awesome either. Also, the OP's list comprise some of the most expensive long teles where AF performance is a whole lot different from average lenses we are using. Pentax covers medium wide to short tele well, but anything beyond aren't really Pentax's domain.

zapp · 01-08-2012, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Clinton

Keh sold one a couple months ago for $2800 I believe.

check out KEH more often, check out KEH more often, chec out KEH more often, check out KEH more often ...

**Clinton** · 01-08-2012, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by wlachan

Also, the OP's list comprise some of the most expensive long teles where AF performance is a whole lot different from average lenses we are using.

It's easier to see the major price differences.

Originally posted by wlachan

Pentax covers medium wide to short tele well, but anything beyond aren't really Pentax's domain.

Well, right now anyway.

**Clinton** · 01-08-2012, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by wlachan

I am afraid Pentax is no Leica

Lecia is no Lecia I'm afraid.

dgaies · 01-08-2012, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Clinton

Lecia is no Lecia I'm afraid.

Probably true as well

cali92rs · 01-08-2012, 10:49 AM

I would expect a 2012 Corvette to be more expensive than a 1995 camry....or even a 1995 Corvette if you want to compare apples to apples.

8540tomg · 01-08-2012, 12:28 PM

I think Clinton has a point. For the most part Pentax lenses are relatively less expensive than the rest of the competition. There will be some exceptions of course but for the most part the premise seems valid to me. I wonder how the prices will stand up if (when) Pentax goes full frame. Is suspect prices will increase dramatically for all those FA lenses as well as all older Pentax series (Takumar, K, M, A etc.) to some degree. This assumes Pentax maintains its commitment to backward compatibility.

Tom G

Laurentiu Cristofor · 01-08-2012, 12:36 PM

Those long lenses were discontinued because they couldn't sell enough of them when they were available new. Low demand = lower used prices.

rvannatta · 01-08-2012, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by zapp

check out KEH more often, check out KEH more often, chec out KEH more often, check out KEH more often ...

It was $2800 and I have it. a KEH bargain buy because the paint is worse than average, but what matters is perfect.

kenyee · 01-08-2012, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Clinton

Is this an unsubstantiated statistic, or have you been comparing sharpness charts?

You can't compare sharpness charts across systems.
I was looking at his RAW files that he sent me...it was very weird seeing edges of wide open shots look as sharp as the center (I'm an old film user and the older lenses just never did that)...

If we had a FF body, it might be a more useful comparison, but even on APS-C, it looked sharper on the edges than our lenses wide open. We could probably compare the RAW files from a D7000 and K-5 since they use the same sensor.

Adam · 01-08-2012, 01:08 PM

Now if only all these lenses could once again return to the assembly line...

rvannatta · 01-08-2012, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

Those long lenses were discontinued because they couldn't sell enough of them when they were available new. Low demand = lower used prices.

Perhaps. Not sure how many they needed to sell. It isn't like they had inventory costs.--- they were special order---made to order

How many of them that are floating around is a big dark secret.

01-08-2012, 01:08 PM	#44
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	Now if only all these lenses could once again return to the assembly line... Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Great glass on the cheap	pdxbmw	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	07-15-2009 09:42 PM
Cheap Wine Glass - With Wine	Sailor	Post Your Photos!	15	01-18-2009 07:19 AM
=Gosh, is it me, or=	jgredline	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	67	10-28-2008 09:43 PM
Cheap manual lens on cheap extension tube with cheap flash! Also cats.	pasipasi	Post Your Photos!	12	08-28-2008 04:43 PM
K10 shots with cheap glass shots	vievetrick	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	12-05-2006 05:23 PM

01-07-2012, 08:30 PM	#31
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by Aegon But You can't buy a Tokina 50-135mm new, nor a Pentax 85/1.4. So? I am afraid I am missing the point you are trying to make here.

01-07-2012, 08:48 PM	#32
borno Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: md-usa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,580	Originally posted by SteveM While I agree that Pentax has some work to do on the AF front, I don't agree with your statement. Camera bodies have seen a vast improvement, and even the K5 itself has narrowed the gap. Since it's the bodies that are responsible for AF, you'll see surprising good AF with the FA600. The FA300 f2.8 I had was pretty fast to focus with the k20d and I'm sure the k5 is better, but a lens with a ring focus motor is a whole other thing (almost instant by comparison). I found the sdm pretty slow in the da300mm f4. (loved the IQ though)

01-07-2012, 08:49 PM	#33
DanielT74 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,377	Being older doesn't make those Pentax classics inferior to their Canon or Nikon counterparts. Leica APO-Telyt-R 280mm f4 was introduced in 1984 and is still bests the recent offerings.

01-08-2012, 08:12 AM	#34
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	I am afraid Pentax is no Leica, although some might like to fantasize. Throughout the Pentax K mount history, there were a handful of gems (like A*85 & 200 macro) but the majority are rather average, not necessarily poor but not awesome either. Also, the OP's list comprise some of the most expensive long teles where AF performance is a whole lot different from average lenses we are using. Pentax covers medium wide to short tele well, but anything beyond aren't really Pentax's domain.

01-08-2012, 08:52 AM	#35
zapp Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,385	Originally posted by Clinton Keh sold one a couple months ago for $2800 I believe. check out KEH more often, check out KEH more often, chec out KEH more often, check out KEH more often ...

01-08-2012, 08:57 AM	#36
Clinton Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,910 Original Poster	Originally posted by wlachan Also, the OP's list comprise some of the most expensive long teles where AF performance is a whole lot different from average lenses we are using. It's easier to see the major price differences. Originally posted by wlachan Pentax covers medium wide to short tele well, but anything beyond aren't really Pentax's domain. Well, right now anyway.

01-08-2012, 08:58 AM	#37
Clinton Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,910 Original Poster	Originally posted by wlachan I am afraid Pentax is no Leica Lecia is no Lecia I'm afraid.

01-08-2012, 09:07 AM	#38
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by Clinton Lecia is no Lecia I'm afraid. Probably true as well

01-08-2012, 10:49 AM	#39
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	I would expect a 2012 Corvette to be more expensive than a 1995 camry....or even a 1995 Corvette if you want to compare apples to apples.

01-08-2012, 12:28 PM	#40
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	I think Clinton has a point. For the most part Pentax lenses are relatively less expensive than the rest of the competition. There will be some exceptions of course but for the most part the premise seems valid to me. I wonder how the prices will stand up if (when) Pentax goes full frame. Is suspect prices will increase dramatically for all those FA lenses as well as all older Pentax series (Takumar, K, M, A etc.) to some degree. This assumes Pentax maintains its commitment to backward compatibility. Tom G

01-08-2012, 12:36 PM	#41
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Those long lenses were discontinued because they couldn't sell enough of them when they were available new. Low demand = lower used prices.

01-08-2012, 01:04 PM	#42
rvannatta Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Apiary, Oregon Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,181	Originally posted by zapp check out KEH more often, check out KEH more often, chec out KEH more often, check out KEH more often ... It was $2800 and I have it. a KEH bargain buy because the paint is worse than average, but what matters is perfect.

01-08-2012, 01:05 PM	#43
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	Originally posted by Clinton Is this an unsubstantiated statistic, or have you been comparing sharpness charts? You can't compare sharpness charts across systems. I was looking at his RAW files that he sent me...it was very weird seeing edges of wide open shots look as sharp as the center (I'm an old film user and the older lenses just never did that)... If we had a FF body, it might be a more useful comparison, but even on APS-C, it looked sharper on the edges than our lenses wide open. We could probably compare the RAW files from a D7000 and K-5 since they use the same sensor.

01-08-2012, 01:09 PM	#45
rvannatta Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Apiary, Oregon Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,181	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Those long lenses were discontinued because they couldn't sell enough of them when they were available new. Low demand = lower used prices. Perhaps. Not sure how many they needed to sell. It isn't like they had inventory costs.--- they were special order---made to order How many of them that are floating around is a big dark secret.