[Nicolas06]

But think about it, if the budget lens is so good, then the expensive one is overpriced! They can price it lower or stop production and introduce a new high end lens. Segmentation shouldn't hold the customers hostage

But that's very comon to have overpriced things. Between entry level and high end level body there not much except better ergonomics, higher finish and removal of some software limitation; But look how expensive the high end model is !

I think in a shriking market it is even more important to keep margin as most will not buy more than the basic body + kit lens. Decreasing the price will just lower the revenue.

[ogl]

I am affraid that AF lens based on K85/1.8 would kill sales of FA77/1.8 and DA70/2.4....since optically that K lens is at least as good as it's modern 'siblings'. Anyway I will still welcome it, even if I have K85 and DA70 in my bag - since AF 85/1.8 (2) would replace both of them.

Make it plastic like Sony did and f2.8

[Stagnant]

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

The first one was replaced by a new copy, during the warranty period. Reason : SDM failure. The second underwent three or four maintenenances which still did not fix the issue and was replaced by a brand new one by Pentax Europe. The brand new had autofocus issues at 50 mm straight from the box. The defect was fixed. Shortly after the right part of the frame suffered a severe sharpness fall off. Received the lens back not long ago. I can't call this lens reliable.
Besides it is not too sharp wide open and the corner / side performance leaves to be desired.

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?

I am not throwing a fit, I am just stating the facts.

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.

I see no point in carrying 3 lens, instead of one, which outperforms them optically and offers more flexibility. Why should I compromise if I have an option not to ? As some poster mentioned in this thread, there is no point in having a prime which performs only as good as the zoom.

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?

DA * 60-250 is only F4, which in some cases is not enough. Besides the contrast is quite bad, even in bright light. 300 F4 is rather soft wide open and the copy I used had a rather quirky autofocus. Did not have a chance to try 200 and 560.

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

For example the price of FA* 85 is quite high 1000 + $, FA limited's are also very expensive, atleast in Europe - around 1000 Euros.

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?

I don't think they that they compete with CaNikon even when it comes to camera sales, at least here, in Europe. Their products are for the most part ignored (unfortunately) by mass consumer. Plastic wonders and alikes are aimed at mass consumer and are an intentional compromise of price/quality. I am not going to blame these lenses, or the approach, but I (I assume I am not alone) would expect them to produce a line of optics with the best possible performance. Sigma showed that it is possible and even the price is quite affordable. Unfortunately there is not enough third party lenses for Pentax system, which limits the potential possibilities.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love my K-3, DA 35 Limited and FA 50.

[Nicolas06]

The first one was replaced by a new copy, during the warranty period. Reason : SDM failure. The second underwent three or four maintenenances which still did not fix the issue and was replaced by a brand new one by Pentax Europe. The brand new had autofocus issues at 50 mm straight from the box. The defect was fixed. Shortly after the right part of the frame suffered a severe sharpness fall off. Received the lens back not long ago. I can't call this lens reliable.
Besides it is not too sharp wide open and the corner / side performance leaves to be desired.


I am not throwing a fit, I am just stating the facts.


I see no point in carrying 3 lens, instead of one, which outperforms them optically and offers more flexibility. Why should I compromise if I have an option not to ? As some poster mentioned in this thread, there is no point in having a prime which performs only as good as the zoom.


DA * 60-250 is only F4, which in some cases is not enough. Besides the contrast is quite bad, even in bright light. 300 F4 is rather soft wide open and the copy I used had a rather quirky autofocus. Did not have a chance to try 200 and 560.


For example the price of FA* 85 is quite high 1000 + $, FA limited's are also very expensive, atleast in Europe - around 1000 Euros.


I don't think they that they compete with CaNikon even when it comes to camera sales, at least here, in Europe. Their products are for the most part ignored (unfortunately) by mass consumer. Plastic wonders and alikes are aimed at mass consumer and are an intentional compromise of price/quality. I am not going to blame these lenses, or the approach, but I (I assume I am not alone) would expect them to produce a line of optics with the best possible performance. Sigma showed that it is possible and even the price is quite affordable. Unfortunately there is not enough third party lenses for Pentax system, which limits the potential possibilities.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love my K-3, DA 35 Limited and FA 50.

From your comments and expectations you should ask for Canon, take the professionnal service while you are at it and spend between 5000-1000€ to get your perfect gear (you'll need that for perfect transtandard, perfect 70-200 f/28 and a perfect 300mm. There nothing bad with this, it is just you should have the money in accordances with your expectations and also choose the brand accordingly.

[normhead]

The first one was replaced by a new copy, during the warranty period. Reason : SDM failure. The second underwent three or four maintenenances which still did not fix the issue and was replaced by a brand new one by Pentax Europe. The brand new had autofocus issues at 50 mm straight from the box. The defect was fixed. Shortly after the right part of the frame suffered a severe sharpness fall off. Received the lens back not long ago. I can't call this lens reliable.
Besides it is not too sharp wide open and the corner / side performance leaves to be desired.

I remember seeing a statistician going through posts like that he calculated the risks for getting a failure on something like a DA*16-50. Then he calculated the chances you'd get two bad one then three. It's possible to be unlucky. No arguments with the sharpness fall off. It's why I've never bought one.

I am not throwing a fit, I am just stating the facts.

Facts can be just as biased as anything else, depending on how they are selected.

I see no point in carrying 3 lens, instead of one, which outperforms them optically and offers more flexibility. Why should I compromise if I have an option not to ? As some poster mentioned in this thread, there is no point in having a prime which performs only as good as the zoom.

Instead of the 18-35, I'd carry the 21, XS 40, and maybe a DA 70. The zoom apparently has some pretty harsh bokeh.

DA * 60-250 is only F4, which in some cases is not enough. Besides the contrast is quite bad, even in bright light. 300 F4 is rather soft wide open and the copy I used had a rather quirky autofocus. Did not have a chance to try 200 and 560.

I get along fine with mine. It's hard to tell the difference between it and one of my primes.

For example the price of FA* 85 is quite high 1000 + $, FA limited's are also very expensive, atleast in Europe - around 1000 Euros.

If you want the 85, you aren't wanting what Pentax is good at.

I don't think they that they compete with CaNikon even when it comes to camera sales, at least here, in Europe. Their products are for the most part ignored (unfortunately) by mass consumer. Plastic wonders and alikes are aimed at mass consumer and are an intentional compromise of price/quality. I am not going to blame these lenses, or the approach, but I (I assume I am not alone) would expect them to produce a line of optics with the best possible performance. Sigma showed that it is possible and even the price is quite affordable. Unfortunately there is not enough third party lenses for Pentax system, which limits the potential possibilities.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love my K-3, DA 35 Limited and FA 50.

You've obviously tried a lot of stuff, and had some less than stellar luck. That really sucks... if I was Pentax I'd take the time to make sure you get some quality items, but hey, they don't listen to me. When it comes to making sure their customers are happy, they have a really poor track record. That's one knock that really can't be disputed. But if you get something that works the way it's supposed to, they're good.

[ogl]

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 ...

Nothing. I have no any interest for such lenses.
Anyway, I found DA560/5.6 as very good lens.

The optical scheme of DA560 is much simplier than Canon or Nikon or old Pentax lenses. That's why I think - the real price could be not higher than USD3000.
But it's just my opinion.

[Nicolas06]

Nothing. I have no any interest for such lenses.
Anyway, I found DA560/5.6 as very good lens.

The optical scheme of DA560 is much simplier than Canon or Nikon or old Pentax lenses. That's why I think - the real price could be not higher than USD3000.
But it's just my opinion.

If it was sold in number like cell phones it could be sold for 500€ with a small profit. More basic version would be still good and sell for 200€.

But there no point for that as it is very specialized, heavy and big... This mean a few only would be interrested meaning the price would have to go at least to 2000-3000€. But because such a price is already very expensive, there very few that would consider. And then to not loose money on this thing, you need insane price like 6000!

[normhead]

If it was sold in number like cell phones it could be sold for 500€ with a small profit. More basic version would be still good and sell for 200€.

But there no point for that as it is very specialized, heavy and big... This mean a few only would be interrested meaning the price would have to go at least to 2000-3000€. But because such a price is already very expensive, there very few that would consider. And then to not loose money on this thing, you need insane price like 6000!

Exactly. for a lens like this the cost of production only comes into play, if they are turning over their inventory as fast as they sell it. I'm sure they ran a large number of parts for this lens in a production run, and then will assemble as needed. Once the initial price pays off the development and production costs, I'm sure we'll see the cost come down... but every year the parts sit in a warehouse somewhere, the price goes up. If we want lower prices, a good number of us have to bite the bullet and pay the $7000, so that those who come after us can benefit from lower prices. Of course no one knows what the magic number is. Or if Pentax would ever lower the price. But with most things prices fall to 75% or less of their starting price within 18 months, often 12 months. With a lens with such limited market, it could take a lot longer, if ever.