[normhead]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

When listing the cheap lenses, you've forgotten the fine XS40mm.

Which I take almost everywhere because it's so small and light "why not?". It's an amazing little lens.

Classical focal length?

I shot for years with a 55 mm on a Program Plus.

The only "classical" focal length for me is (55 / 1.5=) 36.7. Pentax should make a cheap one of those right? Please, spare me the insanity.

[boriscleto]

Which I take almost everywhere because it's so small and light "why not?". It's an amazing little lens.

Classical focal length?

I shot for years with a 55 mm on a Program Plus.

The only "classical" focal length for me is (55 / 1.5=) 36.7. Pentax should make a cheap one of those right? Please, spare me the insanity.

The DA 35 comes close enough.

What was the "classic" 3 prime kit? A slow 28, a fast 50/55, and a slow 135. Pentax currently has one of those covered in the DA lineup. Make an 18 or even 16 & an 85 or 90 with the same build quality as the 35 and price them around what Samyang charges for manual focus lenses. A 16/3.5 should be much cheaper to make than a 16/2...

[Andi Lo]

There is no gulf, the gulf is covered by 18-55, 18-135, and 55-300. Any consumer that is price conscious will (should) not look for exotic primes.

Probably mentioned above but the 560mm really doesnt count; it has all the qualities of a * lens and pentax is just shy of putting * on it. Many assume that it's because anything with a * is bad for google. The DA 14 is by no means a cheap lens.

So rather than saying there's a gap, it's really more that the 35mm and the 50mm have historically been cheap because of economies of scale and manufacturing cost, and this stays true to this day.

The discontinued F/FA 28 is relatively cheap, if you're into that, although I dont see much advantage of buying that over the 21mm or Tamron 17-50

In Canonikon world 85mm/1.8 old version is relatively cheap. Heck, it's the same price as the oldie but goodie Takumar 85, and almost half the price of DA 14 you mentioned.
http://www.ebay.ca/ctg/Nikon-Nikkor-85-mm-F-1-8-D-AF-Lens-/99752557?_tab=1&_...p2047675.l2644
http://www.ebay.ca/ctg/Canon-EF-85-mm-F-1-8-USM-Lens-/99712436?_tab=1&_trksid=p2047675.l2644
http://www.ebay.ca/ctg/Pentax-SMC-Takumar-85-mm-F-1-8-Lens-/101718626?_tab=1...p2047675.l2644

While we're at it, here's a cheap and good first party ultra wide angle, a first that really should be copied by all manufacturers
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/874-canon_1018_4556is

[northcoastgreg]

There don't seem to be a lot of cheap 28mm or 85mm prime options from Nikon or Canon either. Is there any reason for this? Are these focal lengths inherently more expensive for some reason?

I suspect the main reason for this is the overwhelming popularity of zoom lenses. I see lots of cameras and lots of lenses when I'm out shooting in northern CA and southern OR, and other places in the Western U.S., and I can count on one hand the times I've come across photographers shooting a non-supertelephoto prime on a non-Leica ILC. There are more people using primes in the local camera club; but even then it's mostly specialty primes (super-teles, macro, and tilt-shift lenses), and zoom lenses dominate, even among the pros and the award-winning amateurs. I imagine companies sell a fair number of cheap 50mm primes, along with macro lenses; but after that, the market isn't that large. Nowadays, even mid-range zooms are pretty damn good; and they are much cheaper way to cover more focal length, and a lot more convenient to use.

Give the small size of Pentax's user base, it's amazing they've produced as many primes lenses as they have. I would be surprised if we see any more APS-C primes out of Pentax. The next primes Pentax produces will probably be DFAs. And if the FA limiteds remain in production, we probably won't see a DFA 28, or a DFA 35, or a DFA 85. The Pentax FF userbase will be too small to afford a duplication of focal lengths with single focal lenses.

[Kozlok]

A 16/3.5 should be much cheaper to make than a 16/2...

Isn't the 15/f4 pretty darn close to what you're asking for? And it's tiny and AMAZING.

[boriscleto]

Isn't the 15/f4 pretty darn close to what you're asking for? And it's tiny and AMAZING.

And at least $450 more than what a plastic mount 16/3.5 should sell for. It's $300 more than the Samyang 16/2.

[Andi Lo]

And at least $450 more than what a plastic mount 16/3.5 should sell for. It's $300 more than the Samyang 16/2.

I suspect that a slow wide prime is not more cost effective to make than a slow wide zoom, the pricing of this lens vs other wide primes seem to suggest that anyway.

Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 STM IS - Lab Review / Test

[normhead]

I go to Henry's type in Canon lenses and go lowest to highest, and they have a similar looking version of the 40 XS, for about the same price, a 50 1.8 at a very good price, no 35 2.4,

A 50 1.8 at a great price... they have a 28 for $300, and ugly looking 40 for $300 where is this huge assortment of cheap lenses? If they are so possible, why doesn't everyone have them?

With the 35, 40 and 50 in the "cheap" category, pentax is right up there with all of them as far as I can tell.

[zapp]

Pentax' lens lineup is quite simple. Make lenses that sell well with cameras and do not spend any money on fancy stuff. Do not duplicate focal lengths. In short: keep it simple.
The DA 560 is a completely pointless design. The lens is cheaply designed as really long tele lens, much longer than any competitors lens. A major manufacturer would first introduce a 2.8/300 and 2x TC. The 560 only makes sense to show that Pentax has a really long lens in their line up. You don't need to sell a 2x TC and most important there is no competition for the DA*300. How desperate must one be to buy a 5.6/560 as stand alone large aperture tele lens?
New coatings for DA limited lenses are OK, but no change to the basic design. The DA limited zoom was also not exciting... there was no news in Pentax land with regard to quality lenses recently.
Buying lenses used on eBay is also insane. Asked prices for 15 year old lenses are more than for new lenses from the competition - a current Sigma lens costs less than most used FA* lenses on eBay only Pentax forum review will tell you that the FA* is the better choice. Add some more money and you get even better quality new from the competition that also sells serious cameras.

Pentax will know about all this, but appears not to have the resources to develop and produce new/additional lenses. In case a new DA* flops this could become a desaster for the brand. At the same time I can only buy more DA* lenses in case you offer new DA* lenses that make sense. There are some focal length lenses that I miss and can find in other lineups. I really like what I have from Pentax, but it is too simple to outgrow the Pentax system.
So far there was no sign from Pentax regarding the future. A full frame camera would bind all resources for new lenses to cover full format. If you stick to APS-C next to medium format, an interesting new lens here and there would be appreciated. Otherwise you will soon find my used Pentax lenses on eBay.

[normhead]

Pentax' lens lineup is quite simple. Make lenses that sell well with cameras and do not spend any money on fancy stuff. Do not duplicate focal lengths. In short: keep it simple.
The DA 560 is a completely pointless design. The lens is cheaply designed as really long tele lens, much longer than any competitors lens. A major manufacturer would first introduce a 2.8/300 and 2x TC. The 560 only makes sense to show that Pentax has a really long lens in their line up. You don't need to sell a 2x TC and most important there is no competition for the DA*300. How desperate must one be to buy a 5.6/560 as stand alone large aperture tele lens?
New coatings for DA limited lenses are OK, but no change to the basic design. The DA limited zoom was also not exciting... there was no news in Pentax land with regard to quality lenses recently.
Buying lenses used on eBay is also insane. Asked prices for 15 year old lenses are more than for new lenses from the competition - a current Sigma lens costs less than most used FA* lenses on eBay only Pentax forum review will tell you that the FA* is the better choice. Add some more money and you get even better quality new from the competition that also sells serious cameras.

Pentax will know about all this, but appears not to have the resources to develop and produce new/additional lenses. In case a new DA* flops this could become a desaster for the brand. At the same time I can only buy more DA* lenses in case you offer new DA* lenses that make sense. There are some focal length lenses that I miss and can find in other lineups. I really like what I have from Pentax, but it is too simple to outgrow the Pentax system.
So far there was no sign from Pentax regarding the future. A full frame camera would bind all resources for new lenses to cover full format. If you stick to APS-C next to medium format, an interesting new lens here and there would be appreciated. Otherwise you will soon find my used Pentax lenses on eBay.

I'll be watching... what have you got?

The DA 560 is a completely pointless design. The lens is cheaply designed as really long tele lens, much longer than any competitors lens. A major manufacturer would first introduce a 2.8/300 and 2x TC. The 560 only makes sense to show that Pentax has a really long lens in their line up. You don't need to sell a 2x TC and most important there is no competition for the DA*300. How desperate must one be to buy a 5.6/560 as stand alone large aperture tele lens?
New coatings for DA limited lenses are OK, but no change to the basic design. The DA limited zoom was also not exciting... there was no news in Pentax land with regard to quality lenses recently.

There are a number of people who post pictures taken with this lens in the 300 plus forum, So far I haven't heard except for a few whiners on the forum who don't actually own the lens. I thought it was a pointless lens, until I looked up the price of the the Nikon 600 ƒ4 the guy next to me was shooting with in Niagara Falls lat winter, then I thought, "that 560 is a pretty good deal." I guess it just depends on how limited your knowledge of Pentax shooters is. At this point, I'd buy that 560 for APS-c on my Pentax before I'd by that Nikon 600. And the pictures from it are as good as any of the images posted on the forum.

But in all fairness, I've made as many disparaging comments about the lens as anyone, but that's probably because it's so far out of my price range. Long glass costs a lot of money...there's no getting around it. If I could afford the 560, I'd buy it.... along with a 645z and at least 5 lenses, an FA*250-600, a DA*50-135, etc. etc.

So, what exactly is wrong with the 560 again?



You can tell me, but I'm not sure I'll be listening.

Check out the images here...
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/130-lens-sample-photo-archive/267580-hd-p...5-6-ed-aw.html

[ogl]

So, what exactly is wrong with the 560 again?


https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/130-lens-sample-photo-archive/267580-hd-p...5-6-ed-aw.html

The price

[savoche]

The price

What about the price? Long lenses cost a lot to make and are made in relatively small numbers. We can all dream of cheap long lenses but it won't happen. Unless you want crappy long lenses, of course, and even those won't really be cheap.

[Stagnant]

At this point the situation looks like this : the company offers one of the best aps-c cameras on the market (K-3) yet does not offer enough lenses to fully utilize its potential. More over there is not enough third-party glass that can fully utilize the potential of the camera.
* The best standard zoom for the system - DA* 16-50 falls short in many areas and it is far from being a reliable tool.
* Sigma 18-35 outperforms any offering in that range by Pentax, except for FA 31.
* The LTD primes sacrifice optical performance in favour of compact design, thus further cutting down the already limited choice of top level glass.
* The quality tele zoom / prime choice is also quite limited.

There may exist legacy glass like FA and FA* and FA limited, but typically the price is not very competitive comapred to some modern offerings by other brands.

[normhead]

At this point the situation looks like this : the company offers one of the best aps-c cameras on the market (K-3) yet does not offer enough lenses to fully utilize its potential. More over there is not enough third-party glass that can fully utilize the potential of the camera.
* The best standard zoom for the system - DA* 16-50 falls short in many areas and it is far from being a reliable tool.

Sez you.... a lot of people love their 16-50s.

* Sigma 18-35 outperforms any offering in that range by Pentax, except for FA 31.

The Sigma 18-35 outperforms a lot of glass on a lot of systems, so what? so does the Sigma 35 1.4.. So one company makes a couple good lenses and everyone is supposed to throw a fit? Or is it just you?

* The LTD primes sacrifice optical performance in favour of compact design, thus further cutting down the already limited choice of top level glass.

Well actually no. They sacrifice wide apertures, not optical performance. They actually increase choice by allowing me to carry 3 lenses for what would be one modern Sigma. I can only carry so much weight.

* The quality tele zoom / prime choice is also quite limited.

Like how many do you need? They have a 200 2.8, a 300 ƒ4, a 560 ƒ5.6 and a DA* 60-250 ƒ4 all of which are very high quality. How is that limited?

There may exist legacy glass like FA and FA* and FA limited, but typically the price is not very competitive comapred to some modern offerings by other brands.

Have you actually done any research on this. because every time I research this I see other brands with astronomical prices.

Did you really think a small company like Pentax can compete with everyone in every segment of the market? They've forgone competing in the "big and heavy" to compete in light and portable. Not every one has to shoot Pentax, those who want big and heavy can go elsewhere or buy Sigma. Those of us happier with slower and more portable can stay with Pentax. Most camera companies are really weak at good lightweight portable lenses. Why don't you call them out? Aftter all. look at all the holes in their high IQ very portable line up?

[clackers]

The price

Ogl, how much do you have to pay for a Canikonony prime in the 500-600mm category?

If you want cheap, there are mirror lenses, but if you want something you'd actually use ...