[slip]

wow!
I knew the they would be expensive, but not this expensive

PentaxLife

what does everyone else think?

cheers

randy

[dave sz]

holy crap...........

[NaClH2O]

They are about what I expected. Maybe a bit more. I was expecting about 3K USD for all three. Since I'm expecting the 60-250 to be about 1200 USD, I think I was pretty much on target. Of course if the 60-250 lists for 1500 USD then my crystal ball badly "back focused"

NaCl(still cheaper than boating)H2O

[nosnoop]

Remember these are list price, the street price would be less.

Street price for 17-55mm f/2.8 Canon version is around $980, and for Nikon version $1,200. So Pentax version price is not bad, quite good actually if it drops more.

If you haven't seen how expensive glasses and lenses were made, check out this presentation by Canon:

Canon Camera Museum | Technology Hall

It gives you better understanding why these lenses are so expensive.

Another way to think of it. There are 15 elements in the 16-50mm. At the expected street price of $799 (or lower), that's only around $53 per element. Now how much does your glasses (for eye glass wearer) cost?

[SCGushue]

wow!
I knew the they would be expensive, but not this expensive



what does everyone else think?



randy

Randy,

I really think the prices are pretty good considering the quality that is usually found in the Pentax STAR class lenses. They, at least to me, are fairly priced. The only problem I see with this (here we go again) is that it may be somewhat of a dead end lens two or three years from now if the format changes to FF.

While pondering the forthcoming 645 FA 55/2.8... my mind wandered (what little of it is that is still intact ) to...hey, could it be possible that the 645 FA's could be adapted easily backwards via an adapter to fit the full frame DSLR. Hmmmm!?!?

And, as I said many moons ago, why not just have the DA's project on the larger FF sensor and crop accordingly. Diddo Hmmmmm!?!?

Anyway, I'm sure the forums will be rife with speculation and nonsense through their release

Stephen

[nosnoop]

The only problem I see with this (here we go again) is that it may be somewhat of a dead end lens two or three years from now if the format changes to FF.

Don't worry about it, 'cos it ain't going to happen
Believe me, there will be no mass exodus to FF. If you really want FF, you may just have to look elsewhere. Pentax has made it loud and clear as to their future lens direction. 1.3x crop is possible, but probably not FF.

[jfdavis58]

Well, at least not soon. Proportion the Canon market to that of the Pentax share--do dollars . Factor out Canons other markets and the fact that Pentax imaging seems separate from it's other stuff too. The Canon FF was 5 years from it's aps-c; that's at least 10 'Pentax' years in strictly a dollar sense-probably longer. FF chip costs must be covered before the camera ships; that revenue will come from the K-D series cameras and lenses.

[Alvin]

Don't worry about it, 'cos it ain't going to happen
Believe me, there will be no mass exodus to FF. If you really want FF, you may just have to look elsewhere. Pentax has made it loud and clear as to their future lens direction. 1.3x crop is possible, but probably not FF.

Could that just be because Sony (their CCD supplier) said so? I agree with the points that John pointed out. R&D costs for a FF sensor need to be covered. Canon's influence in the market could have some say in the size of sensor being used in the future.

Back to the OP - expensive, but in line with their competition.

[mattdm]

Predicting the future is a tricky game, but my guess is that the size/weight advantages of the 1.5x crop format will keep it viable, certainly on entry-level cameras but I think also in the next couple of price brackets. Advanced amateurs and many professionals will also see benefits in having more compact but high-performance (and pro-style UI) cameras. (In the later case, probably to complement a heavier FF body.)

In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if Olympus's 4/3rds gamble pays off eventually and a 2x crop becomes popular at the lower levels.

[Wethphotography]

wow!
I knew the they would be expensive, but not this expensive

PentaxLife

what does everyone else think?

cheers

randy

Randy,
I was pleasantly suprised; I had figured they would list for $1500 with street price around $1,000. That said, they are still too expensive for me, at this point. Time to refinance the house!

[Richard Day]

wow!
I knew the they would be expensive, but not this expensive

PentaxLife

what does everyone else think?

cheers

randy

Pretty much what was expected, thank goodness! The street prices will be about 10% less after a couple of months of reasonable availability.

If you feel they are out of your range, then the upcoming (this year) DA 17-70 and 70-300 may well be just your "cup of tea".

I expect that more info on these will be on the next roadmap (very soon )

[Timbuctoo]

17-70mm and 70-300mm would be perfect for me. I'm sure the IQ would be really good considering that the Pentax kit lens really isn't that bad. The Sigma 17-70 and 70-200 f2.8 might be a good alternative to. There are so many lenses to choose from that I'm sure anyone can satisfy their LBA.

[macdaddy]

Randy:
For a fixed aperture zoom of this quality, the pricing is well within reason, plus—as has been pointed out—real "street" pricing will drop that probably 15-20%, making them a relative buy for the quality.
One thing that continues to mystify me is the failure of forum members to understand the old axiom that "you get what you pay for" and in lenses, MOST of the time (there are exceptions!) combining a good to excellent Pentax body (i.e.; a K100D or a K10D) with better lenses will yield photos that are sharp all across the shot, not just in the center. THAT is what separates the men from the boys and why pros like Ben spend thousands of dollars on lenses without hesitating. We've all seen astonishing photos taken with average bodies BUT HIGH QUALITY LENSES that amaze us. Part of that is the photographer and part is the quality of the lens. Go to luminous-landscape.com and find Michael Reichmann's article on the old saw "It's not the equipment; it's the photographer" to see that fallacy shot to pieces!
If you think Pentax higher quality lenses are expensive, look at what canikon charges for their better or best ones in the same or similar focal lengths and aperture speeds; compared to them Pentax looks like the steal of the century! Just remember that tests over the last few DECADES have consistently shown Pentax' better and best lenses are equal to or better than those from the big boys, including names like Zeiss and Leica! That's why I'm saving furiously and even selling some of my woodworking shop to finance the purchase of both of these lenses and the 60-250mm when it comes out. Just my two cents!
Rob W

[FotoPete]

wrong lens generation haha. Older MF generations..yea they stood a chance and even bested the likes of Zeiss and Leica. Today?...eh..not so much. (Ltd maybe the expection)

One thing that truely mystifies me is how easily is the phrase "You get want you pay for" passed around. Its a great marketing catch phrase that has minimal benefits on image quality and sees great reductions in your wallet size. The lens as a product of how much $$ you put forth is something the store owners will eagerly remind you as you browse the store because they probably make commission!

..and guess what...stamping the brand name on a lens whos blanks are probably made buy some other company COSTS MONEY TOO!! Remember those 6 prime ZF lenses that Zeiss recently designed for Nikon F Mount? They look pretty nice eh? Well did you know that Cosina makes them? If you had a Nikon slr...are YOU still willing to pay the reported thousands for them?

"We've all seen astonishing photos taken with average bodies BUT HIGH QUALITY LENSES that amaze us."

True, we've all seen shots with the lastest L Glass, Nikkor w/e, Sigma EX. But have you see a $12 Russian Helios best Canon glass? or even the Zeiss Planar 50, cousin to the Biotar? Or a Samyang go head to head with a Canon prime?

Lets be realistic here, most of us here aren't blowing up images for magazines or giant posters. Even at 100% we strain to make out differences at times. So why spend thousands on something that has a rather arbitrary effect in bettering your image quality/ability to take good pictures?

Its not hard to find great quality lenses without dropping a lot of $. Go for those older Vivitar zooms, Russian M42 Zeiss Copies and Derivatives, Kiron, Makinon, Pentax MF varieties, RMC Tokina, Takumar, etc All full frame, great image and build quality at a fraction of the price of current AF lenses.

[macdaddy]

FotoPete:
As I said, "with some exceptions!" Yes, I've seen some incredible photos taken with some cheapies, too, but (and again, I DID put the proper qualifiers in there!) if I'm a pro whose livelihood depends on the quality of my shots, I ain't gonna use a $12 lens to create the shot I send to my client! For a PROPER discussion of all this about lens quality, pop over to TOP and read Mike Johnston's article(s) from last week; he agrees with us both. Again, I'm talking in generalities and AGAIN I'll refer you to Michael Reichmann's very good article about the quality of the photographer vs. his/her equipment and the importance of both.
I'm trying to make two points here: first, that the price of Pentax "star" and "Limited" lenses vs. other brands make them BY COMPARISON a relatively decent bargain (and yes, I WAS primarily referring to those two lines when I stated that they have for decades been competitive with such lens makers as Zeiss and Leica-a statement that held true as late as 2006 when 3 magazines did a scientific comparison of 2-3 different focal lengths and Pentax came out on top) and two, that FOR THOSE USERS WHO WANT OR NEED THE BEST LENSES FROM PENTAX, there is absolute justification for spending the dollars for the quality.
No, not everyone is a pro, nor does everyone print humongous prints (although I DO tend to print 16 X 20 fine art size when I do print) and no, you CAN'T usually see the difference on screen when you post a photo taken with a cheapie vs. a big ticket lens. For those folks who don't fit those parameters, then go as cheap as you want. (Which, I believe, is/was kinda my point!)
As for the Zeiss MF series, I'll simply say that they are made under contract by Cosina TO ZEISS STANDARDS, not Cosinas! (Although those are pretty high standards in themselves! I know; I shoot a CV Bessa R3M w/CV lenses in film!)
Finally, not all of us want or desire to buy older lenses such as those you listed nor to have to find the workarounds for their idiosyncrasies or the adapters, etal. to make them work with our digital systems. For those who enjoy that, more power to you. For me, I don't have resources close enough to have a pool of those types available to experiment with, so my options both money and time-wise are to buy new, buy good or better and go shoot!
I look forward to seeing some shots from the older, classic lenses (as have already been posted by others with them) and hope to post some of mine with the newer lenses when I get through finessing my K10D; and when it's all said and done we'll all be the richer for the seeing of them, won't we?
Peace,
Rob W