[dankoBanana]

So what lenses is Pentax missing?

a fast UWA prime or zoom. I envy the Tokina 11-16 2.8.
A better standard top zoom (16_50 is nice, but for a pro DA* designation it has to be better)
a faster focusin top zoom (in terms of optics, the DA* 50-135 has no faults, but its slow to AF)
a bigger sellection of fast primes. DA 35/2.4 is not fast and not cheap (compare what the others are offering).
SDM II

[Rondec]

I'm not saying the lens line up poor, there's problems in it but there's problems in everyones line up. I'm saying very little of note has been released in K-mount for almost 5 years now. In that time according to my possibly faulty memory; we've had one super zoom, a re-skin of a (very nice) macro, and 2 plastic consumer primes to show for this past 4.5 years.

Since the DA15 was released in late 2008, Nikon as an example has had 20+ lenses

24mm f/1.4
28mm f/1.8
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.8
85mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8
200mm f/2
300mm f/2.8
70-200mm f/2.8 VRII
70-200mm f/4
10-24 (DX)
18-200 (DX)
18-300 (DX)
55-300 (DX)
16-35mm f/4
17-35mm f/2.8
18-35mm f/3.5-4.5
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
24-120mm f/4
28-300mm
80-400mm f/3.5-5.6
200-400mm f/4
60mm f/2.8 micro
and a couple of tele converters, flashes etc ...

I'm not crying into my skinny latte about this, and I'm enjoying shooting with my 20 year old FA limiteds and my K-5 a lot, however the lack of momentum for k-mount looks very real to me.

You know, Nikon releases new versions of their lenses regularly to keep buying their lenses. Often the updates are barely skin deep. Sometimes the updates have to do with VR improvements, where Pentax releases their image stabilization improvements in their cameras.

I don't see updating 15 year old lenses (the first FA limited was the 43 released in 1997) just so you can tack an extra 10 percent surcharge on the "new release." Yes, Canon and Nikon both regularly re-release lenses, but Pentax, not so much. The 50 f1.8 design you list in your list there is probably 50 years old. I can't believe an upstanding camera company like Nikon would even have such an old lens in their portfolio.

[bossa]

I've seen great things with Olympus glass - even on my good old XA film camera!

And if you have a Sony store nearby, go in and try the Zeiss 16-35, 85, and 135. You'll find yourself thinking about it until you realize only these three plus a body will cost you more than a top-shelf 12 lens Pentax kit!


Far from being a joke, this list has a lot of merit (sorry D800E owners, although I'd certainly love to have your 14-24 lens) and I think many of us realize our eyes do not deceive us when we look at our images. Pentax bodies (though good) may leave us uncertain at times (e.g. action AF, TTL flash), and 3rd party accessory support may be challenging, but it's hard to argue with the results we get.

Look at my signature.. what do you see? Those few Pentax lenses are right up there.. the 31 and 55 are unmatched AFAIC. I'll be adding a few more soon that I sold last year under the mistaken belief that the grass was greener on the Canikon side.. an expensive lesson but a lesson just the same.

[GibbyTheMole]

I'm surprised that someone put Olympus in the #2 spot. Not that it doesn't deserve to be there, just that someone else realized how great a lot of their lenses are. Some of the best glass I ever owned were Olympus lenses.

[B Grace]

You know, Nikon releases new versions of their lenses regularly to keep buying their lenses. Often the updates are barely skin deep. Sometimes the updates have to do with VR improvements, where Pentax releases their image stabilization improvements in their cameras.

I don't see updating 15 year old lenses (the first FA limited was the 43 released in 1997) just so you can tack an extra 10 percent surcharge on the "new release." Yes, Canon and Nikon both regularly re-release lenses, but Pentax, not so much. The 50 f1.8 design you list in your list there is probably 50 years old. I can't believe an upstanding camera company like Nikon would even have such an old lens in their portfolio.

Nikon and Canon lens updates do seem pretty blatantly focused on getting customers to upgrade but then that would be the business both companies are in - selling camera gear. Many of the upgrades Nikon has made to its prime lenses over the past five years have been focused on adding the AF-S motors to them, especially the F1.8 primes, but they've also addressed some serious design issues which resulted in pretty average performance on DX cameras. Those Nikkors worked great on film but DX digital revealed some problems. The old Pentax primes I've owned dating back to the mid-1960s shot on a K200D have been killers compared to the Nikon AF-D primes I've shot on my D40x. Chalk it up to fantastic luck on Pentax's part with their inherited film camera-era lenses being more aligned with the needs for digital capture. Those old Nikkors certainly perform better on the current FX cameras.

As for the AF-S50/1.8G, yes, the basic design dates back to the E-series 50/1.8 of the early 1980s but that 50/1.8 formula is so basic in concept we might as well say it dates back to the Contax lens ranges of the 1950s. The rumor was always that Japanese lens design during the 1930s consisted of Nikon hiring Zeiss consultants while Pentax went with Leitz.

[bossa]

That is interesting. Why are you coming back to Pentax?

I'm still using Nikon gear it's just that it's very heavy when you're walking around with two bodies and some lenses strapped on and very expensive. My D800E and the 70-200 VRII with the grip is a scary thing to be walking around with.. almost 8 grand in one camera just looking for a mugging.. I feel that I am not so conspicuous with the Pentax cameras and their size is never a hindrance so I can relax more and enjoy the experience.

[RyanW]

So what lenses is Pentax missing? Your personal lineup seems pretty complete. And let's remember, this is a conversation about quality, not quantity.

Personally, I think they are missing a good fast 18mm and 24mm prime. Something that gives you 28mm and 35mm on 135 format. I can't get excited about f/2.8 primes for the most part.

Pentax has more than enough zooms <300mm, but could use a few more longer than that.

We probably don't get fast wide primes for the same reason we don't get long zooms or primes.

[RyanW]

Also, anyone willing to spend that kind of money on a lens is bound to be extremely good at photography.

Oh, you'd be surprised.

[scratchpaddy]

Oh, you'd be surprised.

Right. I forgot about Leica Man. I wouldn't expect many poseurs in the medium-format world, though. Those cameras are big, heavy, and not at all sexy to non-photographers.

[bossa]

a fine lens, but that was announced 2008

That's the thing about great art.. you only need do it once!

[Bestzoom]

Interesting list compiled by Mike...

The Online Photographer: The World's Great Lens Makers

I kind of agree but not certain about Olympus as i have never owned one.
The poor guy copes a lot from the Canikon fans for putting Pentax ahead...

Enjoy...

[Na Horuk]

Pentax seems to be the cheapest on that list. And it offers AF and the lenses are compact. But, you know, okay article, nice to see Pentax mentioned a little

[JinDesu]

Pentax seems to be the cheapest on that list. And it offers AF and the lenses are compact. But, you know, okay article, nice to see Pentax mentioned a little

Don't worry, Pentax is slowly making their prices match the others

*snickers*

[Na Horuk]

Don't worry, Pentax is slowly making their prices match the others *snickers*

lol touche, but I really hope it doesn't match Zeiss and Leica

[fewayne]

I had a 24mm 2.8, a 50mm f/3.5 macro, and a 200mm f/4 back in the photo-J days. The first two were cut-yourself tack-sharp. I wound up usually shooting the 200 wide-open to get sort-of-hand-holdable shutter speeds, so I wasn't driving it in its zone most of the time. (Why no tripod? See: photojournalism.) I was especially fond of the 24, contrasty, vivid color, you name it, that little beauty had it. Broke my heart to eBay it when I went digital. OTOH now I have a K-7 (and a IIs on the way!), so life evens out.