What's more frustrating?

L33tGreg · 04-13-2012, 02:06 PM

Not sure what is more frustrating regarding the Pentax lens line:

1) Lack of fast glass. 5 current lenses are f/2 or faster: FA50, DA*55, FA Lmtds
2) Lack of more quality WR glass. I wish there were another normal zoom DA* option (16-50 SDM failures bother me, plus it seems to have worst quality than the 17-50s from the other brands). Even more so wish there were more wide, normal, and short tele prime WR choices.

Any of you share these feelings?

SpecialK · 04-13-2012, 02:13 PM

Not really :-) I live in So California where it hardly ever rains - except it's pouring today. Don't really need faster glass as I'm mostly a daytime outdoor shooter. (I sold my fastest lens). For others, I suppose those things could be handy.

**Ash** · 04-13-2012, 02:22 PM

Not as passionately. I have the FA limiteds and I believe once you invest in them you'll not ask for anything faster or better. I gave up an FA 50/1.4 quite reluctantly when an FA 43 was on offer some years ago, and I very quickly got over the fact that I was trading in a faster lens for a slower one. I also have no interest in getting a DA* 55, FA* 85 or Sigma 30/1.4 because I've not been found wanting with the FA limiteds. I wouldn't mind seeing a DFA 135/1.8 though...

I had the DA* 16-50 and 50-135 at one stage and they too were more than enough for most applications as weather sealed lenses. My 16-50 had been through sea spray, rain and a dust storm without a hitch and gave me many a brilliant image. It does have barrel distortion at the wide end but the DA* f/2.8 images are very useable and the build quality was unrivalled. I do have reservations about the SDM and do hope that the next SDM development does improve on the current DA* lineup. As I feel that lenses should be forever, I did not get the sense that those DA* lenses would have that kind of longevity electromechanically. The kit WR lenses rather are quite decent but I wouldn't consider going back to them, so I also find myself looking for a WR setup but am limited by the current options. I think there may be more on offer later this year or next in this regard.

Docrwm · 04-13-2012, 03:03 PM

Yes. Although I took two steps recently toward addressing the fast(er) glass issue with an 85/1.4

and a 70/2.4. Still, the lack of WR lenses and the craziness with the prices is off-putting. Changing systems is a combination to too much money, too much change, and a good range of MF lenses that I already own.

Wheatfield · 04-13-2012, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Yes. Although I took two steps recently toward addressing the fast(er) glass issue with an 85/1.4

and a 70/2.4. Still, the lack of WR lenses and the craziness with the prices is off-putting. Changing systems is a combination to too much money, too much change, and a good range of MF lenses that I already own.

I always get a laugh when some triviality comes along, and the hue and cry and people changing systems at rather great cost because of it.
Every time one company leap frogs another, people change systems, and then misuse the new equipment, operating it far below it's capacity more often than not.
Until the next lurch, and then the cycle starts all over again.

L33tGreg · 04-13-2012, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Yes. Although I took two steps recently toward addressing the fast(er) glass issue with an 85/1.4

Yes I regretfully sold it to you.

Docrwm · 04-13-2012, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by L33tGreg

Yes I regretfully sold it to you.

Don't regret it too much, it's a bear to focus

**Ex Finn.** · 04-13-2012, 06:41 PM - **1 Like**

K5 eliminated the need for most of the fast lenses, in turn it also reinforced the need for more wr lenses.

Docrwm · 04-13-2012, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Ex Finn.

K5 eliminated the need for most of the fast lenses, in turn it also created the need for more wr lenses.

I wouldn't say it eliminated the need for fast lenses. I still find situations where I still need <f3 given the situation. That's why I am finding the 35/2.4 a VERY useful lens and why I thought that the 70/2.4 would also be incredibly useful.

JinDesu · 04-13-2012, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Ex Finn.

K5 eliminated the need for most of the fast lenses, in turn it also reinforced the need for more wr lenses.

Or rather, slow cheap WR lenses work perfectly fine on the k-5.

**Ex Finn.** · 04-13-2012, 06:58 PM

I need to rephrase. It made most of the f4 lenses very usable. As far as WR, it still stands.

Docrwm · 04-13-2012, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Ex Finn.

I need to rephrase. It made most of the f4 lenses very usable. As far as WR, it still stands.

Agreed on both points.

sterretje · 04-13-2012, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by L33tGreg

1) Lack of fast glass. 5 current lenses are f/2 or faster: FA50, DA*55, FA Lmtds

I'm more than happy with the shallow DOF that any of my lenses can give me, so no need for fast there. And the high ISO performance of the K5 (and I assume K-r and K-x) have taken away the need for fast glass (for me).

Originally posted by L33tGreg

2) Lack of more quality WR glass. I wish there were another normal zoom DA* option (16-50 SDM failures bother me, plus it seems to have worst quality than the 17-50s from the other brands). Even more so wish there were more wide, normal, and short tele prime WR choices

As I'm stupid enough to use the FA31Ltd in the rain, I don't quite share that sentiment

Having said that, if the DA(-L)35/2.4 would have been a WR lens (at let's say US$300), I would buy it and rather use that in those situations (for the extra peace of mind).

TOUGEFC · 04-13-2012, 09:21 PM

Lack of FF is more frustrating

Marc Sabatella · 04-14-2012, 02:00 PM - **5 Likes**

What's most frustrating to me is having cameras that can take technically better images than anything possible over the first century of photographic history, and hundreds of lenses to choose to in a variety of focal lengths, speeds, sizes, and prices, and then have people constantly complain that some particular piece of equipment they want isn't available. If you can't manage to take pictures with what *is* available, just what exactly does that say?

04-13-2012, 02:06 PM	#1
L33tGreg Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Charleston, SC Photos: Gallery Posts: 369	What's more frustrating? Not sure what is more frustrating regarding the Pentax lens line: 1) Lack of fast glass. 5 current lenses are f/2 or faster: FA50, DA55, FA Lmtds 2) Lack of more quality WR glass. I wish there were another normal zoom DA option (16-50 SDM failures bother me, plus it seems to have worst quality than the 17-50s from the other brands). Even more so wish there were more wide, normal, and short tele prime WR choices. Any of you share these feelings?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax USA - VERY frustrating	Docrwm	Pentax DSLR Discussion	14	06-17-2011 12:02 PM
Frustrating KX battery meter, what to do?	jlaubza	Pentax DSLR Discussion	25	06-23-2010 05:50 PM
Very frustrating results from shooting today...need help	kklabunde	Photographic Technique	29	10-18-2009 10:12 AM
frustrating shutter problems with MX, ME Super	h734790	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	5	08-02-2009 10:30 AM

04-13-2012, 02:13 PM	#2
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,481	Not really :-) I live in So California where it hardly ever rains - except it's pouring today. Don't really need faster glass as I'm mostly a daytime outdoor shooter. (I sold my fastest lens). For others, I suppose those things could be handy.

04-13-2012, 02:22 PM	#3
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Not as passionately. I have the FA limiteds and I believe once you invest in them you'll not ask for anything faster or better. I gave up an FA 50/1.4 quite reluctantly when an FA 43 was on offer some years ago, and I very quickly got over the fact that I was trading in a faster lens for a slower one. I also have no interest in getting a DA* 55, FA* 85 or Sigma 30/1.4 because I've not been found wanting with the FA limiteds. I wouldn't mind seeing a DFA 135/1.8 though... I had the DA* 16-50 and 50-135 at one stage and they too were more than enough for most applications as weather sealed lenses. My 16-50 had been through sea spray, rain and a dust storm without a hitch and gave me many a brilliant image. It does have barrel distortion at the wide end but the DA* f/2.8 images are very useable and the build quality was unrivalled. I do have reservations about the SDM and do hope that the next SDM development does improve on the current DA* lineup. As I feel that lenses should be forever, I did not get the sense that those DA* lenses would have that kind of longevity electromechanically. The kit WR lenses rather are quite decent but I wouldn't consider going back to them, so I also find myself looking for a WR setup but am limited by the current options. I think there may be more on offer later this year or next in this regard.

04-13-2012, 03:03 PM	#4
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Yes. Although I took two steps recently toward addressing the fast(er) glass issue with an 85/1.4 and a 70/2.4. Still, the lack of WR lenses and the craziness with the prices is off-putting. Changing systems is a combination to too much money, too much change, and a good range of MF lenses that I already own.

04-13-2012, 04:11 PM	#5
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,986	Originally posted by Docrwm Yes. Although I took two steps recently toward addressing the fast(er) glass issue with an 85/1.4 and a 70/2.4. Still, the lack of WR lenses and the craziness with the prices is off-putting. Changing systems is a combination to too much money, too much change, and a good range of MF lenses that I already own. I always get a laugh when some triviality comes along, and the hue and cry and people changing systems at rather great cost because of it. Every time one company leap frogs another, people change systems, and then misuse the new equipment, operating it far below it's capacity more often than not. Until the next lurch, and then the cycle starts all over again.

04-13-2012, 06:31 PM	#6
L33tGreg Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Charleston, SC Photos: Gallery Posts: 369 Original Poster	Originally posted by Docrwm Yes. Although I took two steps recently toward addressing the fast(er) glass issue with an 85/1.4 Yes I regretfully sold it to you.

04-13-2012, 06:34 PM	#7
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by L33tGreg Yes I regretfully sold it to you. Don't regret it too much, it's a bear to focus

04-13-2012, 06:41 PM - 1 Like	#8
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	K5 eliminated the need for most of the fast lenses, in turn it also reinforced the need for more wr lenses.

04-13-2012, 06:44 PM	#9
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by Ex Finn. K5 eliminated the need for most of the fast lenses, in turn it also created the need for more wr lenses. I wouldn't say it eliminated the need for fast lenses. I still find situations where I still need <f3 given the situation. That's why I am finding the 35/2.4 a VERY useful lens and why I thought that the 70/2.4 would also be incredibly useful.

04-13-2012, 06:45 PM	#10
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by Ex Finn. K5 eliminated the need for most of the fast lenses, in turn it also reinforced the need for more wr lenses. Or rather, slow cheap WR lenses work perfectly fine on the k-5.

04-13-2012, 06:58 PM	#11
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	I need to rephrase. It made most of the f4 lenses very usable. As far as WR, it still stands.

04-13-2012, 07:09 PM	#12
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Originally posted by Ex Finn. I need to rephrase. It made most of the f4 lenses very usable. As far as WR, it still stands. Agreed on both points.

04-13-2012, 09:04 PM	#13
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Originally posted by L33tGreg 1) Lack of fast glass. 5 current lenses are f/2 or faster: FA50, DA55, FA Lmtds I'm more than happy with the shallow DOF that any of my lenses can give me, so no need for fast there. And the high ISO performance of the K5 (and I assume K-r and K-x) have taken away the need for fast glass (for me). Originally posted by L33tGreg 2) Lack of more quality WR glass. I wish there were another normal zoom DA option (16-50 SDM failures bother me, plus it seems to have worst quality than the 17-50s from the other brands). Even more so wish there were more wide, normal, and short tele prime WR choices As I'm stupid enough to use the FA31Ltd in the rain, I don't quite share that sentiment Having said that, if the DA(-L)35/2.4 would have been a WR lens (at let's say US$300), I would buy it and rather use that in those situations (for the extra peace of mind).

04-13-2012, 09:21 PM	#14
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	Lack of FF is more frustrating

04-14-2012, 02:00 PM - 5 Likes	#15
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	What's most frustrating to me is having cameras that can take technically better images than anything possible over the first century of photographic history, and hundreds of lenses to choose to in a variety of focal lengths, speeds, sizes, and prices, and then have people constantly complain that some particular piece of equipment they want isn't available. If you can't manage to take pictures with what is available, just what exactly does that say?