[devorama]

One of the original things that attracted me to Pentax was the Limited line. I think the 21, 40, and 70mm DA Limited series makes a great combo if you want to shoot all primes. This is assuming you have the budget for that. Let's say you want a cheaper option. The only DA primes that are NOT DA* or Limited lenses are the 14mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 560mm. That's a huge gulf between 14-35mm and 50-560mm.

It doesn't seem Pentax is alone here. 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? If Pentax announced a DA 24mm lens, I'd snap it up in a second. And don't get me started on the lack of WR primes!

[boriscleto]

The 28 & 85 are thought of as FF lenses and priced accordingly.

[luftfluss]

I don't know if it pays for Pentax to have a lineup of cheap primes - that may not be the direction they want to go. Based on your PF join date, I'm guessing that, like me, you bought into Pentax when they were something of a budget brand in some respects. I think over the last couple of years Pentax has shaken that label.

35mm and 50mm are fairly normal-ish lenses and cheap to make - they don't require as much correction as other focal lengths. Wide angle lenses require retrofocal elements (think of it as a reverse TC), more $$. And of course the longer you go, the more glass. Would there be a market for an 85/5.6? It could be small and cheap, but would anyone want it?

If I were steering Pentax, I'd want to to have just enough "cheap" primes to get people hooked, and then make 'em pay for the really good stuff.

And, BTW, I'd really, really emphasize that every lovely prime will be stabilized, something that neither Canon nor Nikon nor Fuji can boast.

[normhead]

I's bummer, but hey, the 35 2.4 and 50 1.8 are great options.You can only do so much cheap.

[VoiceOfReason]

After going to a Sigma zoom for my wide-normal end of things I don't think I miss primes at all.

[boriscleto]

They need a cheap wide prime. An 18/3.5 that is sharp wide open has been needed for a long time. An 85 or 90 F/2 would round things out.

[hoopsontoast]

If they could do an updated version of the smaller 85mm lenses (K85 f1.8 or M85 f2) that would be nice, I love the compact size of them, would fit in well. With the DA35, DA50 etc.

An updated FA28 would do quite well as a 'normal' 43mm Equivelent on APS-C although the DA20-40mm Limited might cover this adequately, if expensive.

IMO the DA14 should be a 'Limited' lens, at least its build is as good if not better than the 43mm Limited I had. An updated one of these with WR would be brilliant.

[ogl]

DA18, DA23, DA28 and DA85 are really need. It could be enough.
DA18/4, DA23/2, DA28/2.8 and DA85/2.4, for example.
DA85 and DA18 could be plastic.
DA23 and DA28 could be WR+DC.

DA20-40 is rather big and expensive and really good only as 28-40 mm.

[normhead]

DA18, DA23, DA28 and DA85 are really need. It could be enough.
DA18/4, DA23/2, DA28/2.8 and DA85/2.4, for example.
DA85 and DA18 could be plastic.
DA23 and DA28 could be WR+DC.

DA20-40 is rather big and expensive and really good only as 28-40 mm.

15,21 31,55 1.4,70 100 macro is an awesome line up...buy a K-3 so you can crop...
DO they need a 23 to go with the 21, ridiculous, and a 28 with the 31?
Adding new lenses to the line up would be great for "collectors" but do practically nothing for shooters...
I'd hate to see a company like Pentax with such low market share over-extend itself with lenses that would only cut into it's own profits.
And having a whole line-up of cheap lenses, I wouldn't carry them all anyway...I often go out with the 18-135, 60-250, 21 and Sigma 70 macro anyway...leaving the 35, FA 50 home. So what you're asking from my perspective is more glass to leave home. The only lens they are really missing is in primes is something about 8-10mm range.

Maybe Pentax can make a bit of money selling lenses to folks who collect lenses like we used to collect prizes from cereal boxes, and you know if you talk to these people, there are a lot of things they "have to have", but from a utilitarian sense...it's not needed. It's been a very long time since it was all about primes.

All camera companies for their bread and butter are going to top quality zooms. Primes are kind of a luxury item, for those who like to fidget and fuss.

[ZombieArmy]

A cheap 28 and 85 would be wonderful. I'd buy a 24 or 28 in a heartbeat.

[normhead]

A cheap 28 and 85 would be wonderful. I'd buy a 24 or 28 in a heartbeat.

Because you have the 21 and 31 and you just can't make do?

Not to be too critical, but if Pentax lenses were $100 each, I'd clear a room in my basement, build in shelves and a dehumidifier and fill it with lenses. The fact that I'd buy them doesn't mean Pentax should make them, although I'm sure they could whip out some optical plastic (instead of glass) parabolic lenses at that price.

Ya and I'd love a cheap DA 600, people want cheap every thing. The question sooner or later becomes, would a cheap prime be better than a good zoom. Check the numbers for the DA* 60-250 @ 200mm, and compare to the DA*200 2.8, and you'll notice, what you get is faster, not better. There's no point in even making a prime unless it's faster than the corresponding zoom. And faster isn't cheap. That's why everyone makes their 85 primes, ƒ1.4 these days...so what we're talking here is a contradiction.

Personally I don't want any slow primes except maybe the 15.. to me slow and cheap can be done by zooms. There's absolutely no reason to go to a prime for that. As fr wanting to shoot primes as a philosophical mindset, that's an attitude left over from the 60's, because that's the last time you could accurately say, primes are better than zooms. Since then its been "some primes are better than some zooms, but some zooms are better than many primes." People need to move into the 21st century. Primes are still better, if you pay a fortune for them...asking for cheap primes is so 1960s.... that's 50 years ago.

[Sandy Hancock]

normhead is right on the money. We currently have 14, 15, 21, 35, 40, 50, 55, 70, 100, 200, 300 and 560 covered. I guess you could make a case for a 28 and a 135, but more DA primes will not help the platform.
(D)FA primes? Well, that's another story....

[ogl]

15,21 31,55 1.4,70 100 macro is an awesome line up...buy a K-3 so you can crop...
DO they need a 23 to go with the 21, ridiculous, and a 28 with the 31?
.

Of course, 23 = 35 mm - classic focal range.
28 is not fast, not metal and not limited and cheaper than FA31. but with WR. what is ridiculous?
28 = 42 mm - one more classical focal range.

Street photos in any weather condition.

---------- Post added 09-05-2014 at 05:04 AM ----------

All camera companies for their bread and butter are going to top quality zooms. Primes are kind of a luxury item, for those who like to fidget and fuss.

Pentax can't make top quality zooms. Olympus can.

The primes are just photo tools for creative work and nothing else.

[normhead]

normhead is right on the money. We currently have 14, 15, 21, 35, 40, 50, 55, 70, 100, 200, 300 and 560 covered. I guess you could make a case for a 28 and a 135, but more DA primes will not help the platform.
FA primes? Well, that's another story....

Pentax has made some choices, there seems to be an assumption that Pentax is a cheap company. Pentax is a top tier company that over the years has stopped making many of their top lenses because there isn't demand at the price they can make them.

Want an FA 85mm?



They are out there... highly rated.... ƒ1.4, Cheap? Hardly!!, and demand is being met by the used market, you can buy one on ebay almost whenever you want. Does anyone honestly think if Pentax came out with a new version of this lens, it would be cheap?

Lenses like the FA 50 are still made. If people had been buying the 85, it would still be in production. For most of us the Tamron 90 macro is what we want in this focal length. But it's not Pentax build quality or WR. But 90% of the time it will do what I'd want this 85 to do, and it's macro, so the 50% of my shooting time when I'm shooting macro, the 85 won't replace my Tammy 90, or the 100 macro WR if I had that.

I actually think the Pentax lens lineup is very well thought out. I understand the Pentax thinking much more than I can understand the thoughts of folks asking for more focal lengths. I can't afford what's available now. But I can certainly see the logic in the thinking behind what's available now. Pentax's efforts to have the best APS-c line-up available of all the major camera makers seems to go largely unappreciated. This thread being a perfect example of that.

[bdery]

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