Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-25-2012, 12:51 PM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Niagara
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 791
QuoteOriginally posted by Sol Invictus Quote
What I really want to see is Pentax updating their existing lenses. For example the DA* 16-50 is due for an update to address its optical issues, not to mention SDM. This is something Canon does which I love. The 70-200 USM IS L wasn't quite up to the standard set by its predecessor so they addressed the issues and released the stellar II version. I don't see why Pentax can't do the same. They don't even have acknowledge any problems, just release a MK II version.

Canon did not update their 24-70 f2.8, a professionals workhorse, for years, and lagged Nikon costing them Wedding Photographers in the meanwhile. Canon hasn't updated their 85mm f1.2, and it's aged, slow focusing, along with many others. It's not business practical to chase the CaNikons, even they play catch up with each other.

07-25-2012, 01:04 PM   #17
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,165
QuoteOriginally posted by V'cuz Quote
Lowell Goudge,
I am not saying that tier 2 lenses have to have a larger aperture than tier 1 but they need to be faster than zooms. I know that flash and auto focus speed and accuracy need to be improved, but I was saying that this was a area I thought should also be improved, nothing more. As for the 135 mm lens at f/1.8 didn't Pentax already make that lens? It probably would require a motor to drive the lens but the point is that Pentax needs to bring back lens options that will make the Pentax brand more appealing to new dslr buyers. I am sorry to have upset you.
they did make that lens in manual focus days, not since af started. one sold to a member here recently for a really low price of $1600 and they regularly sell for 2000+ when they come up.
a 135f2 is more likely
the canon sells for $1100 give or take and weighs near 2 lbs and has a more manageable 72mm filter
the Nikon sells for $1350 or so
While there are people here who will paty that for a 135f2, they are still a small number. Canon and nikon manage to support that lens by having a large user base, it's still a small percentage who buy it.
Eventually yep it would be nice but there is a long list of things pentax needs to get out first, and the user base needs to grow to support it
not many people will base a system decision on a fast 135, whereas fast good 24-702.8 and 70-200 2.8 ae mandatory to even get considered
07-25-2012, 01:13 PM   #18
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,054
Pentax already have a multi tier lens line up. If anything I think a bit of consolidation is in order. Three 40mm ish lenses, and three 35kmish lenses?
07-25-2012, 01:42 PM   #19
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
I think Pentax have been killing themselves slowly since the SF by flooding the system with countless consumer zooms with few high quality lenses to choose from, and the consumer zoom quality got really bad with the FA series, and now the DA series. While Pentax have been able to design some nice optics, their lack of QC and built quality really made most of their zooms look crap. I mean, what sense there is to put a crap zoom on a 1k body for P&S sharpness? But I am sure they must be generating profit or they wouldn't have kept this practice for more than 2 decades. Also, plastic mount was proofed to be a failure during the MZ era, and they are using them again now? They have made some really poor choices due to their urge to cut corners and it shows on many products.

07-25-2012, 05:29 PM   #20
Veteran Member
Sol Invictus's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 392
QuoteOriginally posted by Franky2step Quote
Canon did not update their 24-70 f2.8, a professionals workhorse, for years, and lagged Nikon costing them Wedding Photographers in the meanwhile. Canon hasn't updated their 85mm f1.2, and it's aged, slow focusing, along with many others. It's not business practical to chase the CaNikons, even they play catch up with each other.
What's the alternative? Live with sub par lenses? Rely on an aging user base that's obsessed with old manual focus lenses?

Yes, some specific Canon lenses haven't been updated. I'm not talking about a lineup refresh every few years. Just a dedication to continuous improvement and innovation. Like you mentioned, the 24-70 wasn't close to its Nikon counterpoint so what did Canon do? They (hopefully) have come out with a better version. That sense of progress is so important to the more advanced and professional consumer. If I was a Canon shooter, I would have confidence that even if I was shooting with an inferior lens, somewhere Canon was working on an improvement.

I'm not even talking about FF glass here. Pentax needs to show a commitment to continual improvement of their lens lineup and the introduction of new products. Of course it can't and shouldn't be anywhere on the scale and timeline of Nikon and Canon but it has to be there.

Currently I shoot with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. If Pentax released a Mk II version of the 16-50 that addressed its optical issues (and SDM) I would jump on it like a dog on a three legged cat.
07-25-2012, 06:17 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 691
16-50 needs a revision on AF speed, centre Sharpness wide open, SDM, flare resistance.
07-26-2012, 12:14 PM   #22
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by wlachan Quote
I think Pentax have been killing themselves slowly since the SF by flooding the system with countless consumer zooms with few high quality lenses to choose from, and the consumer zoom quality got really bad with the FA series, and now the DA series. While Pentax have been able to design some nice optics, their lack of QC and built quality really made most of their zooms look crap. I mean, what sense there is to put a crap zoom on a 1k body for P&S sharpness? But I am sure they must be generating profit or they wouldn't have kept this practice for more than 2 decades. Also, plastic mount was proofed to be a failure during the MZ era, and they are using them again now? They have made some really poor choices due to their urge to cut corners and it shows on many products.
Unfortunately very true. Though, of course, there market share declined massively, which makes me wonder about the sustainability of that crap-route.

Ben
07-26-2012, 12:15 PM   #23
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by ihasa Quote
Pentax already have a multi tier lens line up. If anything I think a bit of consolidation is in order. Three 40mm ish lenses, and three 35kmish lenses?
Also very true. Pentax needs more choices spread over the whole possible lens spectrum.

Ben

07-26-2012, 08:08 PM   #24
Veteran Member
hcarvalhoalves's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 836
QuoteOriginally posted by wlachan Quote
I think Pentax have been killing themselves slowly since the SF by flooding the system with countless consumer zooms with few high quality lenses to choose from, and the consumer zoom quality got really bad with the FA series, and now the DA series. While Pentax have been able to design some nice optics, their lack of QC and built quality really made most of their zooms look crap. I mean, what sense there is to put a crap zoom on a 1k body for P&S sharpness? But I am sure they must be generating profit or they wouldn't have kept this practice for more than 2 decades. Also, plastic mount was proofed to be a failure during the MZ era, and they are using them again now? They have made some really poor choices due to their urge to cut corners and it shows on many products.
It's sad to see them releasing overpriced lenses with a lot of corner-cutting on the build and try to win on gimmicks, instead of toughening up and taking a no-compromisse, no non-sense, more focused approach.

If they *just* focused on releasing 2 bodies (entry level and pro), 2 kit zooms (like 18-55, 50-300) and Ltds, they would have a better product line than everybody else without the need for any loss leaders. Instead, they are all over releasing a bunch of dubious stuff.
07-27-2012, 12:27 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 691
Funnily enough the K5 and K30 have excellent built and IQ with WR. On the lens department same could not be said with the long focus throw SDM zoom that fails quite often enough to seduce new pentaxians. Hopefully Ricoh sees the point of having a DC 16-50 WR f2.8. In fact, more DC WR primes (f1.4/1.8) and zoom (constant f2.8 up to 200/300mm). These, with the upcoming K3, will have the big two sweating.
07-27-2012, 07:48 AM   #26
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
QuoteOriginally posted by hcarvalhoalves Quote
It's sad to see them releasing overpriced lenses with a lot of corner-cutting on the build and try to win on gimmicks, instead of toughening up and taking a no-compromisse, no non-sense, more focused approach.

If they *just* focused on releasing 2 bodies (entry level and pro), 2 kit zooms (like 18-55, 50-300) and Ltds, they would have a better product line than everybody else without the need for any loss leaders. Instead, they are all over releasing a bunch of dubious stuff.
If you're already saying their current lenses are overpriced, then pray tell how in the world you'd be able to afford what you're suggesting Pentax should do. You want good but you still expect it to be cheap... that's pretty unrealistic and wishful thinking imo.
07-27-2012, 08:28 AM   #27
Veteran Member
hcarvalhoalves's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 836
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
If you're already saying their current lenses are overpriced, then pray tell how in the world you'd be able to afford what you're suggesting Pentax should do. You want good but you still expect it to be cheap... that's pretty unrealistic and wishful thinking imo.
I don't know. The current lenses are overpriced compared to their build, that's what I meant. For instance, Pentax has an edge in that optical IS is not necessary, and even then, they manage to make their prices head to head to offerings from other manufacturers. There's cheap corner cutting, like plastic mounts and no lens hoods.

Why not focus only on better built lenses and sell at a higher volume, lower margin instead? When you get a lens from Zeiss, Voigtlander, Leica, et all, you're paying an insane margin. Limiteds (specially FA) are pocket change compared to some of those lenses already, even though they are just as well built, not mention they feature AF. Now imagine if Pentax focused on a smaller, but higher standard lens lineup? They could offer a no-compromisse lineup that, although not cheap, is cheaper than anything you can get elsewhere with the same build. It takes balls though, because Pentax would have to position itself as a premium brand.

I happily pay 200 USD on used, manual-focus Pentax lenses when I know it's worth it because I appreciate their build, and I could probably save more than that and buy a Ltd lens if I could avoid import taxes (60% here). I don't feel inclined to pay that on a plasticky lens though.

Last edited by hcarvalhoalves; 07-27-2012 at 12:00 PM.
07-27-2012, 11:56 AM   #28
Veteran Member
Sol Invictus's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 392
QuoteOriginally posted by Franky2step Quote
What a bunch of nonsensical posts regarding Pentax lenses. SDM, WR, prices too high, plastic mount, no hood....what a bunch of crap. Wake up, get your heads out of your a$$es. That's all I got!
I well reasoned and thorough argument. I already feel more enlightened.
07-27-2012, 11:57 AM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Niagara
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 791
I think it stands up pretty well against the BS I've read here
07-27-2012, 12:39 PM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,615
QuoteOriginally posted by hcarvalhoalves Quote
When you get a lens from Zeiss, Voigtlander, Leica, et all, you're paying an insane margin. Limiteds (specially FA) are pocket change compared to some of those lenses
While the remaining stocks last, you can get a Zeiss ZK 28/2 for about the same as a new FA 31.
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!
cost, dslr, fa, frame, k-mount, lens, lenses, mm, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The making of a Leica Lens interested_observer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 2 07-15-2011 08:34 PM
Pentax Lens Return Rob21 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 04-10-2011 08:04 PM
Pentax Roots ajuett General Talk 6 02-23-2009 03:13 AM
Return to roots Mike19 Welcomes and Introductions 4 06-04-2007 01:46 PM
making sense of Pentax's lens series WMBP Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 02-22-2007 07:18 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:01 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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