[normhead]

\

Do not be so excited. Behind the numbers, hide other figures. Appearances do not correspond to reality.

Please, the numbers reflect a certain reality, the one presented by the poll respondents.
The only thing that would supersede that would be better numbers showning a different reality.
It always amazes me that you collect, 187 opinions, and some guys says,
"My opinion should be listened to over the other 187 guys. Let me tell you what's real and what's not."
I give such opinions 1/187th of the weight I give the collective poll opinion.
Which would be exactly the weight the poll gives my opinion.
Do you want to know what Pentax users think. Or do you just want to rattle around in your own head?

[beholder3]

With close to 200 opinions documented I think we have a nice little PF view on what users here are thinking about prime lenses.

Overall people seem to ask first for portrait lenses 85-135mm and then for wide angles 20-24mm plus some uwa 12-14mm.

Interesting to see that a relatively slow 135/2.8 gets a lot of love. I do assume people here like the focal length but do not like the weight of a 70-200/2.8.

At least the 85mm thing seems to get addressed this year.

[Gimbeley]

Lol, people sure get triggered easily when asked to support their claims with reason and evidence. If you make ridiculous claims like that most parents who can be found at children's soccer games own Canon 5D Mark IV's, that all 8 billion people in the world can be defined as amateur photographers, or that tens of millions of people in Germany are buying professional photography equipment, please be prepared to be met with a little skepticism. I'm not being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I simply don't live in the same reality that you do where every ILC sale in a country equates with a soccer mom or dad buying a 5D Mark IV.

[normhead]

Lol, people sure get triggered easily when asked to support their claims with reason and evidence. If you make ridiculous claims like that most parents who can be found at children's soccer games own Canon 5D Mark IV's, that all 8 billion people in the world can be defined as amateur photographers, or that tens of millions of people in Germany are buying professional photography equipment, please be prepared to be met with a little skepticism. I'm not being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I simply don't live in the same reality that you do where every ILC sale in a country equates with a soccer mom or dad buying a 5D Mark IV.

Way better than people who base their claims on nothing. Only an idiot would say all soccer moms use 5D Mark IVs. And only a troll would say someone else said that.

Stats like that those quoted are evidence. Some guy on a rant isn't.

the way to overcome evidence you don't like is better evidence, not insulting everyone.

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-01-2018 at 11:07 AM.

[Gedeon]

Way better than people who base their claims on nothing. Only an idiot would say all soccer moms use 5D Mark IVs. And only a troll would say someone else said that.

Stats like that those quoted are evidence. Some guy on a rant isn't.

the way to overcome evidence you don't like is better evidence, not insulting everyone.

what about 400mm f5.6 which collects 10%? It was explained to me that it was not significant, because this or that fraction of voters wants this lens but without putting enough money into it ? Can we modulate the answers according to an infinity of underlying criteria, or should we take them in a primary way, as a matter of course ? it's rather fun this way to distort the results, according to what you want to see in evidence, or what you do not want to see as obvious ....

[Gimbeley]

Way better than people who base their claims on nothing. Only an idiot would say all soccer moms use 5D Mark IVs. And only a troll would say someone else said that.

Stats like that those quoted are evidence. Some guy on a rant isn't.

the way to overcome evidence you don't like is better evidence, not insulting everyone.

The only insults here are coming from the emotional insinuations in your post. I never insulted anyone or made claims about people's character. I just asked people to prove what they were assuming or claiming. I only care about what people say.

Summary of my replies:
Builttospill said "soccer moms will typically spend more than the pros." I questioned this claim.
Builttospill then claimed that "the moms" (I'm assuming this means "most moms" but I think that's a fair interpretation) at the children's sporting events he attends use 5D Mark IV's. I questioned whether his experience really translated to the world outside of his life, which might be biased by his socioeconomic circle.
Wheatfield implied that the claim "very few pros actually buy 'pro equipment' and that the vast majority of 'pro' equipment is bought by amateurs" is true. I questioned his premise by pointing out that it's not really self-evident, as his phrasing would suggest.
Monochrome said that there are "8 billion amateur photographers on the planet" and implied that this means more amateurs own pro equipment than pros do. I questioned both his claim and the validity of his logic with an analogy.
Wheatfield said he wasn't interested in what I thought. I called BS.
Beholder3 made certain claims about professional equipment purchasing habits and made the same logical fallacy that Monochrome did, that because there are more amateurs buying photography equipment in general than pros, therefore more amateurs are buying pro equipment. I asked for sources, and when he presented some, I asked for him to present evidence to support all of his claims, not just some or partial. I also asked a few questions to illustrate the logical disconnect from some of his sources and the claims he was making. It may surprise some people, but not just any source is relevant to any given claim. The people who think I was nitpicking him are not thinking critically.

Finally, I made a kind of joking post poking fun at some of the claims I had just finished addressing, only to be met with emotional responses from some of the people who'd defended or originally made them. When you start a post with "Lol," I hope people understand that the tone is going to be humorous. I think most people who read it would agree that I said nothing inappropriate.

Normhead, I don't believe I've replied to you until now on this topic, but all of a sudden you come at me with these emotionally-charged weasel words, saying I've done such horrible things in this thread.I hope you can see the irony in the fact that such unprompted venom as I highlighted in bold in your post is more troll-like than anything I've written.

[builttospill]

With close to 200 opinions documented I think we have a nice little PF view on what users here are thinking about prime lenses.

Overall people seem to ask first for portrait lenses 85-135mm and then for wide angles 20-24mm plus some uwa 12-14mm.

Interesting to see that a relatively slow 135/2.8 gets a lot of love. I do assume people here like the focal length but do not like the weight of a 70-200/2.8.

At least the 85mm thing seems to get addressed this year.

I agree. The survey has provided a lot of interesting information. Thanks for doing this, as well as taking some unfair criticism.

As indicated by an earlier post, I have strong interest in a nice 135mm. A 24mm would share this interest if I didn't have the incredible FA* 24. It's nice to have f/2 in such a wide lens, and I'd expect a new 24mm to cost quite a bit with a maximum aperture of f/2.8, and even more at f/2. I'll happily keep my FA* 24.

Summary of my replies:
Builttospill said "soccer moms will typically spend more than the pros." I questioned this claim.
Builttospill then claimed that "the moms" (I'm assuming this means "most moms" but I think that's a fair interpretation) at the children's sporting events he attends use 5D Mark IV's. I questioned whether his experience really translated to the world outside of his life, which might be biased by his socioeconomic circle.
Wheatfield implied that the claim "very few pros actually buy 'pro equipment' and that the vast majority of 'pro' equipment is bought by amateurs" is true. I questioned his premise by pointing out that it's not really self-evident, as his phrasing would suggest.
Monochrome said that there are "8 billion amateur photographers on the planet" and implied that this means more amateurs own pro equipment than pros do. I questioned both his claim and the validity of his logic with an analogy.
Wheatfield said he wasn't interested in what I thought. I called BS.
Beholder3 made certain claims about professional equipment purchasing habits and made the same logical fallacy that Monochrome did, that because there are more amateurs buying photography equipment in general than pros, therefore more amateurs are buying pro equipment. I asked for sources, and when he presented some, I asked for him to present evidence to support all of his claims, not just some or partial. I also asked a few questions to illustrate the logical disconnect from some of his sources and the claims he was making. It may surprise some people, but not just any source is relevant to any given claim. The people who think I was nitpicking him are not thinking critically.

It's okay to question some statistics, but to question and criticize nearly every person in this thread is something else. Some relevant data was shared here and it's quite logical. Wheatfield discussed how he has retail experience with cameras. That should go a long way to lend credibility to his opinions. I very clearly stated there are more soccer moms than pros; making this a significant contributor to the logic of soccer moms generating more revenue than pros. Logic further allows us to understand greater revenue sources generate R&D decisions. What questions do you have about this? I never questioned your response regarding economic factors among the demographics of my community, because I thought you made a good point here.

The problem with making one good point is destroying all credibility by speaking about the average income of the 90-95th percentile of 1.3 billion people buying a mk iv in a market never targeted by Canon or Pentax. And why would they, if the average per capita income is less than the cost of their flagship camera?

[beholder3]

A 24mm would share this interest if I didn't have the incredible FA* 24

For me a compact (!) 24/2.8 or 24/4 that is perfect corner to corner from F4 is pretty much the only lens I really miss. Neither 20 nor 28mm are my personal preference and a small, light gem would be great.
Weirdly enough not a single maker has such a lens on the market. They all have this or that quality issue versus my personal wishes.

The FA*24 is too large for me (I had it once) and I did not like the corners.

[Gedeon]

"the INCREDIBLE FA*24" 😂😂😂

[bdery]

Not exactly. With FF, I'd like less prioritization of size and more on optics, WR and reasonably fast in-lens AF motors.

I'd argue that the Da Limited do not compromise on optics. In some ways they are better than the FA Limited (more even performances, less CA, etc). WR is possible while preserving small bodies, see the 20-40. In-lens AF would require a slightly larger frame but nothing dramatic.

[Kunzite]

The DA 70mm and DA 35mm, sure (although they're still perfectible). The 21 and 15mm, not so much.
Now, the DA 15mm would've been my next lens, had I stayed APS-C... I'm not bashing it, just asking for a "next step" with FF.

[zzeitg]

I have expensive hobbies.

Everybody has... in a certain way. A guy who smokes 40 cigarettes per day has to pay approx. 3000 USD every year for his "hobby".


In this light buying several "expensive" lenses does not seem as so foolish idea :-)

[beholder3]

Everybody has... in a certain way. A guy who smokes 40 cigarettes per day has to pay approx. 3000 USD every year for his "hobby".


In this light buying several "expensive" lenses does not seem as so foolish idea :-)

But then there is this thread here on PF where the guy melted his camera and lens in a microwave. The smoker at least can enjoy his cigarettes the whole year.

[angerdan]

• For me a compact (!) 24/2.8 or 24/4 that is perfect corner to corner from F4 is pretty much the only lens I really miss.
• Weirdly enough not a single maker has such a lens on the market.
• The FA*24 is too large for me (I had it once) and I did not like the corners.

How about the FA 31mm 1.8 Limited or FA 20mm 2.8 ?

Olympus and Panasonic have a 23mm equivalent lens.
12mm in Objektive mit Objektivart: Festbrennweitenobjektiv, Fokussiermotor: mit Motor heise online Preisvergleich / Deutschland

The A 24mm 2.8 could be better.
SMC Pentax-A 24mm F2.8 Reviews - A Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database