[Rondec]

It's more up market than APS-C, and it serves as a platform for the D FA* lenses. And it's a first step, not the end goal

Sure it is. But for full frame it is anything but up scale -- you have cameras that range for the most part from 1500 to what, 6500 for a D5? And Pentax has a K-1 body that is selling for 1800 dollars. True, Pentaxians complain about the price, but it feels like it is in the bottom end of the market that it is in.

I still see Pentax looking for niches and trying to wedge cameras between others that are on the market, but priced very reasonably for the slot that they are in.

[monochrome]

Sure it is. But for full frame it is anything but up scale -- you have cameras that range for the most part from 1500 to what, 6500 for a D5? And Pentax has a K-1 body that is selling for 1800 dollars. True, Pentaxians complain about the price, but it feels like it is in the bottom end of the market that it is in.

I still see Pentax looking for niches and trying to wedge cameras between others that are on the market, but priced very reasonably for the slot that they are in.

Pentax seems to be very adept at pricing cameras at a good markup over the cost of (sometimes quite competitive) components, while simultaneously choosing not to allocate the cost of marketing, Dealer floorplanning support, Regional office staff and customer services (like repair), warranty expense and other soft costs into the final retail price. Whether that product pricing model makes Pentax second-tier or Premium-Value is probably a matter of perspective.

[Rondec]

Pentax seems to be very adept at pricing cameras at a good markup over the cost of (sometimes quite competitive) components, while simultaneously choosing not to allocate the cost of marketing, Dealer floorplanning support, Regional office staff and customer services (like repair), warranty expense and other soft costs into the final retail price. Whether that product pricing model makes Pentax second-tier or Premium-Value is probably a matter of perspective.

For me, upscale means that you can sell a thousand dollar product for two thousand. Leica can do that. Pentax can't. But I don't really think that is Pentax's goal either.

[SSGGeezer]

Pentax seems to be very adept at pricing cameras at a good markup over the cost of (sometimes quite competitive) components, while simultaneously choosing not to allocate the cost of marketing, Dealer floorplanning support, Regional office staff and customer services (like repair), warranty expense and other soft costs into the final retail price. Whether that product pricing model makes Pentax second-tier or Premium-Value is probably a matter of perspective.

They certainly don't spend a lot on salary either based on responses on Glassdoor.com. Most are Ricoh imaging because they don't appear to hire many in the marketing job description.
I was disappointed by how little they start salary wise for some very technically demanding jobs. YMMV.

[cyberjunkie]

Would something like the FA20-35 suit your purposes? A cut above the FA-J series from everything I've heard, and capable of delivering quite good results, plus not being exactly the biggest lens on earth.

I went down the manual focus route for this and picked myself up an RMC Tokina 17/3.5...

The alternative to the Pentax-FA 20-35mm is the Tokina AT-X zoom with similar specs.
I'm trying it, it's better than expected on the K-1.

The Tokina 17mm is also good, the best MF lens in that range.
The Tamron Adaptall-2 17mm is more than decent, but should be purchased complete of the original hood.

Cheers

Paolo

[normhead]

The Tokina 17mm is also good, the best MF lens in that range.

I've heard the M or K 20 is the best in that range if you can come up with one.

I did give heavy consideration to the two 20-35s, I was offered some very attractive prices on them... but in the end, thought "Surely Pentax is going to release something some day soon." Every now and then I have regrets, but main thing is the 28-105 is excellent in the wide end, and all I need is a 20.

[pres589]

A 20—35 f4 should be a suitably normhead style lens, especially if the build incorporates enough plastic to get the job done while staying light. Better yet, variable aperture, like a f3.5 to 4.5.

[cyberjunkie]

I've heard the M or K 20 is the best in that range if you can come up with one.

Not so sure.
The M version is worth its weight in gold, considering it can use cheap, small filters and it is so petite... but i think that the A version is definitely better. Can't compare on digital cause i sold the M version to buy the A long time ago, when the only option was film
I bet the Samyang would do much better, unfortunately it's almost impossible to find second hand, and with all the lenses i already have in the 19/24mm range i can't justify the expense of a brand new one.
To be sincere, i could... if i were capable to sell one or two of my expensive objectives. Unfortunately it seems to go against my own nature, so i have to come to term with (financial) reality and do what i can without complaining
I love recent Samyang lenses though, and i just found a nice second-hand 24mm for a great price.
It will proudly take its place among its wide-angle FF relatives (14mm and 35mm), that proved to be great lenses despite their rather cheap build.
If i can afford to shoot stopped down, using the green button procedure (preferably on tripod), and i want relatively small lenses with great build, the first line of PK lenses (SMC Pentax) are still a great option. They are sooo well built! Almost at the level of the best of the best (Super-Multi-Coated line), with the ease of use of the bayonet mount.
At the time of the Super-A i sold most K and M lenses to buy the new A's with electric contacts with linear (vs logarithmic) diaphragm actuation. Now i'm buying them back, especially the K line, cause some later optical designs with a simplified layout are not at the same level.
I'd be happy to see a modern version of the 3.5/24mm, 3.5/28mm and 3.5/35mm, but i am afraid we'll never see anything like that.
Btw, if Pentax decided to release a replica with the same characteristics the price would be proportionally much higher than in the mid seventies. I guess they would cost more than a recent Cosina/Voigtlander MF prime, which are in no way cheap themselves... and people would still complain that the build is not on par with the vintage ones, even if wide open IQ, vignetting, distortion and coma were much better than the originals. After all, the best vintage lenses are not VISIBLY (with reasonable print size) worse than modern optics, if stopped down at their sweet spot.
Pixel peeping is a whole different story, but it's not the kind of movie i like
I'm sorry, Norman. I agree with most of your points but i don't see much chances. Your desires would probably never be fulfilled.
I know, having a choice is always good. The more of it, the better. Unfortunately pentaxians don't have so much of it, since quite long. On full frame the lack of choice has cut the wings of the K-1. Price vs quality/features the camera was so good when released that it could have won some market share, instead of mainly catering to loyalists (like me).
Let's come to term with reality, while Ricoh announced two new primes that will be hopefully released when the K-1 will be approaching the end of its commercial life, the smallish Samyang has taken a few serious steps forward. It's not about potential, it's about commercial policy.
Without innovative choices Ricoh will soon get less and less relevant, at least as lens maker.
Some ideas just need some courage, not money.
What about releasing the Pentax PKAF specs to public domain?
What about trashing the agreements that very, very likely prevent Tokina and Tamron from releasing PKAF lenses?
If you want to sell optics, you need to sell cameras. If you want to sell cameras, as good as they might be, you need a decent choice of compatible lenses (preferably with fast AF). If the company don't want (or can't) go all-in, why don't pave the way to other subjects, which could give the choices that are currently severely lacking?
If the choices of AF and MF lenses were as diverse as we had at the time of the Z-1 or the MZ line, don't you think that the K-1 would have sold much, much more? I guess that probably the OEM lenses would have done a little better too.

cheers

Paolo

---

Last edited by cyberjunkie; 12-23-2017 at 05:34 AM.