[awscreo]

But my income isn't.

Looking at the cost of the Pentax 15-30 and 24-70 on other mounts, I think you could also make the case that Pentax is charging outrageous prices for lenses that are 1/3 less on other mounts. Premium prices, but not premium product. I paid $700 for my 28-105 kit lens. Who pays $700 for a kit lens? What an act of desperation. They boxed me into a corner with no other options, then took my money.

The sad thing for me with the K-1 is based on my experience, I can't really recommend it to fellow shooters. Want to go premium, fine, but I don't recommend Lieca either. There you go, they must be a premium brand. Personally, I'm intellectually opposed to paying for "premium" which usually means a lot of cost increase for a little bit of functional increase. But I can kill my whole savings, just by buying the DFA 15-30 or DFA 24-70.



In Pentax's case it means a lot more money for the exact same thing where the Tamron rebadges are concerned.

The body is cheap enough if you buy one or two lenses you're still ahead. Any lenses after that will put you seriously behind in the cost effectiveness game.

I got a $4000 CAD camera, for $3000. Then paid $700 for a $350 lens, I'm still $650 to the good, and I intend to stay that way. And if I bought both of those, I would have been smarter buying a D810, at least from a cost perspective. Only legacy glass is making the K-1 a good purchase.

Premium prices is for sure, premium quality is debatable.

Price wise - isn't it the case of waiting and getting things cheaper, or wanting it right here right now and paying more? I got the 28-105 for under $500, fairly reasonable for an outstanding kit zoom with a great build. Got the 15-30 few days ago, $1300 at major retailers, almost $200 down from release. While it's more expensive than Tamron version, I'm glad it's available at all, especially since the Tamron 15-30 is such a highly reviewed lens. Why isn't it premium product?

[sibyrnes]

It would, but while I do my agonising over which one to get, how much to pay, and where it's going to live on my already-crowded study desk, this arrangement actually works pretty well.

Yes, it works very well. I use a DFA 50 macro with a Nikon slide holder on my K-1 for converting slides to digital.


Originally shot on Velvia with K24mm on my LX:

[Pål Jensen]

So "upmarket" people don't use wide angle primes?

Very few use primes at all. Primes probably only make sense for the manufacturer (and most buyers) if they have properties not viable in a zoom lens; like very wide aperture.

[sibyrnes]

Very few use primes at all. Primes probably only make sense for the manufacturer (and most buyers) if they have properties not viable in a zoom lens; like very wide aperture.

I'm a little confused by your statement. A lot more than "very few" Pentax users seem to enjoy the DA15 and 21mm, for example. Why not full frame versions of those lens?


And, I'm not sure how you define "upmarket" but wouldn't Zeiss, a company that only makes prime lens, be considered upmarket?

---

Last edited by sibyrnes; 11-29-2017 at 04:24 PM.

[monochrome]

Actually normhead is probably quite a typical example of a discerning enthusiast. Unfortunately the business doesn’t seem to support such a buyer any more. Younger people and their different tastes are having a now discernible disruptive effect on many industries.

Legacy product companies like dSLR makers need to excite a smaller number of wealthier, older people who will spend significantly more money per transaction - go upscale - to survive, and even that just delays the inevitable for a decade or so.

Eventually Ricoh Imaging will make a whole lot of automotive products, maybe something 360 - and digital still cameras will be a thing of the past. Before I die my legacy manual Pentax lenses will only be useful on a combination of elderly CLA’ed mechanical 70’s bodies, Legacy AF bodies until the PCB’s die and very expensive reissued modern film cameras.

[pathdoc]

Yes, it works very well. I use a DFA 50 macro with a Nikon slide holder on my K-1 for converting slides to digital.


Originally shot on Velvia with K24mm on my LX:

Nice. I had considered buying the D-FA50 for this - among other things, it would use the entirety of the K-1 sensor - but a few little things stand in the way. The 35 macro is so outstanding because with a couple of filters on the front to stand the slide holder off from the lens a little (for hood clearance), it can get pretty much the whole 35mm image onto an APS-C sensor (I was using my K-5 previously), and minimum focal distance is irrelevant. I wouldn't want to go to the D-FA and then find that I needed some sort of jury-rigged contraption to stand the slide holder off because it couldn't focus closely enough.

[normhead]

Norm, do you feel like the control layout is good enough to justify the small (to me, a K-5 II owner) top LCD display?

It's been 3 years since I owned a K-5 but I can't ever remember it being an issue. But then I hardly ever use the top panels, so I might not be the one to answer that.

[Kunzite]

Legacy product companies like dSLR makers need to excite a smaller number of wealthier, older people who will spend significantly more money per transaction - go upscale - to survive, and even that just delays the inevitable for a decade or so.

Eventually Ricoh Imaging will make a whole lot of automotive products, maybe something 360 - and digital still cameras will be a thing of the past.

So, the future photographer would park his car facing the subject and use its integrated camera to take the picture? That sounds cumbersome

Cameras will exist as long as photography. And by the way, automotive imaging is not part of Ricoh Imaging/Smart Vision, but of Industrial Products.

[Rondec]

Pentax is moving upmarket.

I don't really see it. The K-1 is definitely not an "up market" camera. It is priced right around where cameras like the 6D II and D750 were priced. The D750 has dropped recently. They still have the K70 which is quite reasonably priced as well.

I would say that Pentax is searching for niches in the market that they don't believe are filled well by other companies. The K-1 was supposed to be a D810-lite, at least with regard to price. They really don't want to match their products directly against Canon and Nikon directly and so we won't see a D500 type camera, but we certainly could see K3 II replacement in the 1200 dollar spot with 80 percent of the specifications of the D500.

As far as lenses go, I think the hard lenses are the big, wide aperture, top end lenses. I think the lower end variable aperture lenses will be released with less fanfare and may not appear on the lens map until they actually arrive, but hopefully they are also a little easier to design and release. Certainly I don't remember the 55-300 PLM lens being on any road map before its release, nor the DA 16-85. On the other hand, the 11-16 f2.8 was there forever before it was finally released.

[sibyrnes]

Nice. I had considered buying the D-FA50 for this - among other things, it would use the entirety of the K-1 sensor - but a few little things stand in the way. The 35 macro is so outstanding because with a couple of filters on the front to stand the slide holder off from the lens a little (for hood clearance), it can get pretty much the whole 35mm image onto an APS-C sensor (I was using my K-5 previously), and minimum focal distance is irrelevant. I wouldn't want to go to the D-FA and then find that I needed some sort of jury-rigged contraption to stand the slide holder off because it couldn't focus closely enough.

I did have to use "some sort of jury-rigged contraption" with my Vivitar Series 1 100mm. That is one of the reasons I went with the DFA 50. It will focus close enough with 1 to 1 magnification so the slide holder will screw right onto the lens. I do have to use a 49 to 52mm adaptor though.

Sorry if I have gotten a little off topic here.

[normhead]

Why isn't it premium product?

It doesn't test as well as the Nikon version, but who knows, maybe it has other positive attributes. Interesting that at least at Henry's the Pentax version is the same base price as the Nikon although the Nikon is $500 off and the Pentax version only $200 off.
The Pentax version on sale air Henry's right now for 1399 CAD $200 off. The 70-200 is $400 off at 1999, about 1600 USD.

So, OK, maybe it's a premium lens.

[awscreo]

It doesn't test as well as the Nikon version, but who knows, maybe it has other positive attributes. Interesting that at least at Henry's the Pentax version is the same base price as the Nikon although the Nikon is $500 off and the Pentax version only $200 off.
The Pentax version on sale air Henry's right now for 1399 CAD $200 off. The 70-200 is $400 off at 1999, about 1600 USD.

So, OK, maybe it's a premium lens.

Wait what? I've went through a ton of different reviews (youtube and whatever websites had reviews on it) before buying it, and vast majority of them placed the tamron (so basically pentax also) on the same level as the 14-24, if not higher in some areas (flare, vignetting). Build quality, optical quality - everything is at least equal to nikkor and a tad behind the canon's amazing 16-35, how is it not premium?

examples: Prepare to be impressed: Tamron 15-30 F2.8 vs. Nikon 14-24 F2.8: Digital Photography Review,
Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Review

You Tube

You Tube

[Kunzite]

I don't really see it. The K-1 is definitely not an "up market" camera.

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

[normhead]

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

It kind of reinforces the Pentax stereo type. "A Pentax shooter will buy a $2000 camera and put a 50 dollar lens on it." We are famous on the internet for ti.

---------- Post added 11-30-17 at 04:32 PM ----------

Wait what? I've went through a ton of different reviews (youtube and whatever websites had reviews on it) before buying it, and vast majority of them placed the tamron (so basically pentax also) on the same level as the 14-24, if not higher in some areas (flare, vignetting). Build quality, optical quality - everything is at least equal to nikkor and a tad behind the canon's amazing 16-35, how is it not premium?

I was looking at the 24-70, my bad.

[Kunzite]

It kind of reinforces the Pentax stereo type. "A Pentax shooter will buy a $2000 camera and put a 50 dollar lens on it." We are famous on the internet for ti.

That's not what I'm doing; and I couldn't care less about stereotypes made up by people with too much free time.