[stevebrot]

there have been lenses produced in conjunction with other brands notably Tokina and Tamron.

What he said. One of the most recent examples are the DA* 50-135/2.8 and DA* 16-50/2.8. These have equivalent Tokina models in non-Pentax mount (ATX 535 Pro DX and ATX 165 Pro DX).


Steve

[tabl10s]

Were they? I've never actually seen ads from Pentax that suggested so. I've always gotten the impression that their market was families, and serious enthusiasts. Even the 6x7 ads I've seen more aimed at serious hobbyists.

What kind of camera do you think the LX was, if not pro?

[stevebrot]

Were they? I've never actually seen ads from Pentax that suggested so. I've always gotten the impression that their market was families, and serious enthusiasts. Even the 6x7 ads I've seen more aimed at serious hobbyists.

Ummm...back-in-the-not-too-distant-past, Pentax was a consistent player in pro medium format gear. Spend some time with either a 6x7 or a 645 and you will soon realize that neither was intended as a hobbiest tool.

In addition, while it is hard to imagine based on its feature set, the Spotmatic series was a true system camera firmly aimed at photojournalists and others who needed a compact, robust SLR kit. Go back to say, 1968, and consider the options. Back then Nikon and Pentax were the pro-level Japanese cameras with Konica and Minolta not far behind. Canon was favored by enthusiasts along with Mamiya/Sekor, and Yashica and a host of others.

At least that is how I remember it. I was only 13 years-old in 1968 and badly wanting to have a nice camera. Every month there were ads for Pentax and Nikon and Hasselblad in the National Geographic and no others. NG was very selective about its advertisers back then.


Steve

[lytrytyr]

Smarter than that would be to make the FA and DA limiteds in other mounts and use the profits to fund more lens development.

Tokina offers the innards of the DA 35 Ltd in plastic for Canon and Nikon.

And the FA 43 was available in Leica M mount.

[lytrytyr]

Probably the 10-17 too (the only zoom fisheye!).

There was the Pentax F 17/3.5-28/4.5 fisheye zoom,
and Canon now have their 8-15/4 L.

[Miguel]

Smarter than that would be to make the FA and DA limiteds in other mounts and use the profits to fund more lens development. Probably the 10-17 too (the only zoom fisheye!).

This is offered for Nikon and Canon mounts by Tokina. It seems like it is the most popular of the Pentax/Tokina joint venture lenses. The Tokina 12-24mm is also somewhat in demand (I own the ES mount version, as well as two other Tokina/Pentax lenses). The others, not so much.

Canon and Nikon hasn't provided a comprehensive system of lenses aimed at their crop-sensor mount bodies like Pentax has, and I just don't see much demand for a full solution. Perhaps this is because the two major brands try to pull their customers up to the lucrative FF universe--either in sales or psychology. Or maybe most purchasers simply cannot conceive of any advantages, though the new Canon 40mm pancake should get them thinking about it.

So Pentax offering their lenses would take a major customer attitude change--and the weak Tokina sales results show that it probably ain't gonna work. Which is a shame because the Pentax approach just works better (which is why I purchased three Tokina lenses when I took on a 7D). It would also cost to license the mounts (I believe only Sigma reverse engineers the mount and this has led to retro-compatibility issues in Canon land). Plus the rationale for buying a Pentax body would be that much less (and it's not very compelling right now). Kinda like if Apple licensed OS-X, Mac sales would plop some (I build a Hackintosh this summer and have a clue about this).

M

[zapp]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh