[luftfluss]

I see the DA 50mm 1.8 has finally made it to the market--I've been checking often--and I am quite disappointed with the pricing compared to a similar lens Nikon offers for it's DSLR cameras.

It's called (informally) the "Early Adopter Tax"... ... you see it a lot with technology.

Look at it this way: if you bought the lens now for $249, and then the lens dropped to $199 in 6 months, would the "extra" $50 you spent be worth it for the "extra" 6 months' amount of photos you took with the lens?

[fikkser]

The last stadium of Fanboyism disease before you die is when you'll defend a 2500kr lens that is built like and performs similarly to a 890kr lens from another brand (Canon 50 1,8 II). Fanboyism breaks down the brain like syphilis and results in insanity.

When you reach the insanity stage you don't even bother that Samyang makes better primes and sell them for 50% less money.

:-)

[fikkser]

You don't make an iPad-killer by making a joke-pad that's 2,5x higher priced do you? How is this going to draw customers? Pentax logic is upside down, or maybe it's smart because fanboys are stupid enough to buy this without feeling ripped off. :-)

Pentax plastic lenses seem to have some kind of Leica status here at the forums.

"Hey guys, lets buy this premium budget 35 f2,4 lens that are worse than Nikon's 35 f1,8 in every single way. The Nikon lens must be cheaper because it's heavier, Pentax makes great compact glass, lets buy this guys" - Any Fanboy on the forums

[luftfluss]

The last stadium of Fanboyism disease before you die is when you'll defend a 2500kr lens that is built like and performs similarly to a 890kr lens from another brand (Canon 50 1,8 II). Fanboyism breaks down the brain like syphilis and results in insanity.

When you reach the insanity stage you don't even bother that Samyang makes better primes and sell them for 50% less money.

:-)

1. The Pentax is a new product, so yes it is over-priced, here in the US it is about 2x the cost of the Canon 50/1.8 II. The price of the Pentax will most likely be $199 by the end of the year.

2. The Canon 50/1.8 II is very sharp. However it has horrible bokeh and extremely cheap construction - far worse than even the cheapo Pentax FA-J lenses.

As far as the Samyang 14mm is concerned, yes it is a far better deal. For those users who want a completely manual lens, they should get it.

You say, "Samyang makes better primes" yet they are manual and there is a very small selection. They mostly co-exist rather than replace Pentax primes.

I hope you recover from your syphilis!

[wlachan]

Let's face it. The only brand new Pentax lenses worth buying are the LIMITED.

[deadwolfbones]

The last stadium of Fanboyism disease before you die is when you'll defend a 2500kr lens that is built like and performs similarly to a 890kr lens from another brand (Canon 50 1,8 II). Fanboyism breaks down the brain like syphilis and results in insanity.

When you reach the insanity stage you don't even bother that Samyang makes better primes and sell them for 50% less money.

:-)

Samyang makes better primes than most of the first-party companies, and sells them much cheaper too. Compare the Samyang 35/1.4 to the Nikkor 35/1.4G, for example. Or the 85/1.4 to either Nikon or Canon's.

[NKK]

The last stadium of Fanboyism disease before you die is when you'll defend a 2500kr lens that is built like and performs similarly to a 890kr lens from another brand (Canon 50 1,8 II). Fanboyism breaks down the brain like syphilis and results in insanity.

When you reach the insanity stage you don't even bother that Samyang makes better primes and sell them for 50% less money.

:-)

I'm a little frustrated about the prices over here too - but a quick search shows that 249 USD ~ 1720 SEK. The difference in 780 sek you can't really blame on Pentax. That's just insane taxes, import rules etc here in Sweden.
I know it's still x2 on the Canon, but i don't think you can compare them 1:1 - and again the prices should go down (we hope)

I'm grabbing one when i'm travelling to the US later this year.

[luftfluss]

Let's face it. The only brand new Pentax lenses worth buying are the LIMITED.

The DA 35/2.4 is quite good. Unless you need the macro, there's little objective reason to selected the DA35 Macro over it.

[wlachan]

The DA 35/2.4 is quite good. Unless you need the macro, there's little objective reason to selected the DA35 Macro over it.

The issue with plastic mount lenses is that they have far worse resale value. This may not be an issue to some consumers, but speaking from experience, lenses would be sold at some point and if I had the choice, I would avoid them. Also, I just appreciate well made products and wouldn't trade a single well made lens for 10 crappy plastics. But that's just me.

[Docrwm]

The issue with plastic mount lenses is that they have far worse resale value. This may not be an issue to some consumers, but speaking from experience, lenses would be sold at some point and if I had the choice, I would avoid them. Also, I just appreciate well made products and wouldn't trade a single well made lens for 10 crappy plastics. But that's just me.

You have no meaningful data on the assertion that "plastic mount lenses is that they have far worse resale value." because you can't - there is only one and its the DA35/2.4 and it sells used for within $10-20 of what it sells for, real street price, new. The DAL lenses sell for less (not really as they are ONLY available in a package with a camera) than their DA equivalents to begin with, but the % of their resale prices are not significantly different than the % resale prices for their DA counterparts.

As for the equally absurd "crappy plastics" comment. What, do you live in the 1960s? Plastics today are amazing and the polymers that are being used are often truly superior in many regards to metal for the same application.

There are lots of myths about the 35/2.4 and it get irritating because people focus on such weird stuff - the little lens puts out amazing photos, period.

Oh, and don't "Fanboy" me - its an ad hominem and not a valid response first, and second I'm often the first to criticize Pentax (literally the first around here) when its appropriate.

[wlachan]

That's fine with me since it's not my money. People are free to spend and believe whatever they want. I only speak from experience of trading used lenses for the last 2 decades or so. By plastic I was referring to the lens mount only and nothing else. One can argue how great plastic mount is but the truth is broken plastic mount still being reported on DA zooms. I am aware plastic have come a long way and they can be awesome, I don't even mind plastic body K mount, but as to the lens mount, I prefer metal anytime because the bayonets are just too thin for plastic by design.

[cali92rs]

As for the equally absurd "crappy plastics" comment. What, do you live in the 1960s? Plastics today are amazing and the polymers that are being used are often truly superior in many regards to metal for the same application.

That is a +1 from me.
I work in the aerospace industry and I think these people would be surprised about how much plastic is used in planes.
I can pretty much guarantee that in 50 years the plastic bodies of lenses will be fine yet the metallic circuitry and contacts of the lens will be non-fuctioning.

[lytrytyr]

I can pretty much guarantee that in 50 years the plastic bodies of lenses will be fine . . . .

I have a plastic-bodied ISCO M42 lens that's more than 40 years old,
and it's still as solid as ever.

[Barnster]

It's called (informally) the "Early Adopter Tax"... ... you see it a lot with technology.

Look at it this way: if you bought the lens now for $249, and then the lens dropped to $199 in 6 months, would the "extra" $50 you spent be worth it for the "extra" 6 months' amount of photos you took with the lens?

It depends on the performance of the lens.It mightn't be any better then the 50mm you already have in the bag.And it also depends on how desperate you are on owning this lens.You would get a lot of people like geekette who are willing to pay say $200 instead of $250 and willing to wait it out for months on end until the price came down.So therefore in that time,Pentax could have sold a lot more of the 50mm and probably made more profit rather then having a higher price in the first place and probably selling less in that time.It's like the K5.Yes it would have sold well when it first came out,but you could just imagine how well it would have sold if it was at todays prices from the start.If they can sell at the current price now,why couldn't they sell it at that price back then.

[normhead]

When a product first comes out, they try and recoup development costs... at the end of a Camera run, they are just trying to clear out old stock. My guess, Pentax knows exactly how many days until the K-5 replacement comes out, they know exactly how many cameras they have to sell a day until that happens. The price will reflect trying to get the best price possible while still moving the camera out the door. When something is first released, it's quite possible they won't have enough of them to cover the immediate demand. How do you decide who gets one? How about people who will pay the extra 50 bucks get one first?