[zapp]

The general trend for FF length lenses goes towards f/1.4. Even Pentax went for the D-FA 50. Pentax did not refresh their large aperture glass in a long time, but the 50 is among the best. Add the promised 85 and life is bright.
You don‘t need such lenses all the time, but they are fun. An f/1.4 lens stopped down to f/8 offer little if any advantage over a small aperture Lens.
Question and observation are interesting, drawing conclusions from it, is tricky.

[lesmore49]

I was looking at some family pictures I have taken with both my HD Pentax-D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6 (to give it, almost it's full name) and my D FA 100 Macro F 2.8...attached to my K1 over the past year or so.

With family pix, I generally take these inside , in available light. I just up my ISO, use aperture priority, focus on the subject's eye and generally tend to stay around the F 2.8 to F 5.6 settings.

Now, we have some speed 'merchants' in our family, two...namely our little grandson and our daughter's big husky/greyhound. Both move around quickly without letup, it seems, and won't sit still and say cheese, like everybody else.

So in order to get pix of them, I also try to ensure, I have half decent shutter speed too...nothing incredibly fast, but enough to work with.

Anyways with the 28-105 I find I'm mostly using F 3.5 to around F 4...in interior, natural light shots. Of course the upped ISO makes a significant difference and the K1 I find has pretty good resolution to my eye @ 3200-6400 ISO...so even with the 28-105 which isn't a phenomenally fast lens... the picture quality is still quite good, if I don't say so myself, , thanks to technology...ie; high ISO performance.

Yep, I admit, sometimes I wonder what would that Canon 85mm F 1.2 be like to work with, but on the other hand @ $ 1850 CAD for this lens alone, that's not within my budget. But I'm not wistful for that fast Canon F 1.2 , as my relatively slow 28-105 and 100 F 2.8 Macro really do the job. For me.

[Kerrowdown]

Anyone interested in a lens is able to get older lenses as well

Don't forget my lovely "Lady Luck”(Pentax-A* 135mm F1.8), she even lies and reports herself in the EXIF as F1.7

[normhead]

Don't forget my lovely "Lady Luck”(Pentax-A* 135mm F1.8), she even lies and reports herself in the EXIF as F1.7

Too late we already forgot.

[Kerrowdown]

Too late we already forgot.

There will be tears before bedtime in the harem.

[normhead]

There will be tears before bedtime in the harem.

Tell her I'd mount her on my camera anytime.

[swanlefitte]

The OP's main reasoning was flawed but reasonable considering all the confusion in photography spread on the web.

Is 500pix selling more photos shot at f/<2.0? Is that representative of all selling photos?
From that data set and multiple brands you may see 50 different lenses at work. But without looking more you could miss that they were all shot on different versions of only 4 focal lengths. Many brands have multiple versions of the same focal length. Like Pentax has 3 f/<1.8 50s
Currently. Then add in legacy glass. Pentax has 4(?) takumar 50, k1.2,1.4,m1.4,1.7,2.0,a1.2,1.4,1.7,2.0,,f1.4,1.7,fa1.4,1.7,da1.8,daf1.4 and 2 versions smc/hd of many lenses. The data looks like thousands of f/<2.0 are being sold.
The data needs to be filtered into legacy vs current, and focal length to make any sense of it. Then on 500pix are the photos using a f/<2 lens taken at f/<2? It could just be people selling photos are using the best lenses they have.

I see the OP caught in a data snafu by using one stream of reason which is completely polluted.

[luftfluss]

Why does no one ever pop onto the forum to ask the reciprocal question:

Why don't other manufactures offer a 43/1.9 or 77/1.8? Do Canon and Nikon forums suffer from such questions?

There was a time when I would see on more generalized photo forums - like DPR - people ask why their brand of DSLR didn't make small lenses like the FA Ltds. In fact, I recall 2 Canon users who also had a Pentax solely to use those lenses.

[pschlute]

Is 500pix selling more photos shot at f/<2.0? Is that representative of all selling photos?

Is that correct ?

I mean that is not clear from what he originally posted, and is not clear from my admittedly cursory glance at that site.

I fear he is driven by gear heavy/skill light posts

[normhead]

There was a time when I would see on more generalized photo forums - like DPR - people ask why their brand of DSLR didn't make small lenses like the FA Ltds. In fact, I recall 2 Canon users who also had a Pentax solely to use those lenses.

Not to mention the DA 18-55 was considered the best kit lens of it's day, and the 18-135 was way ahead of it's time. The Pentax APS-c lineup is still without equal. That baton has been passed to the DFA* 50 1.4 and soon probably the DFA* 85 1.4. There's always something to buy Pentax for. For people like me, I haven't even tried out the best of what they have. 31 ltd, 43 ltd, 77 ltd. 35 macro.

Look at what 500pix sells, according to this guy.
https://medium.com/thoughts-on-photography-1/how-i-made-1-602-50-with-500px-...s-266ef818b1f0

I simply don't have images I could sell on 500pix. I have images I can sell on the craft show circuit. And I have never sold an ƒ/1.2-ƒ/2 image.

[swanlefitte]

Is that correct ?

No it wasn't. I should have said taken instead of selling.
As OP said "but looking at all the pics on 500px, most pictures are from lenses with F ranges"(f <2.0)

[monochrome]

There was a time when I would see on more generalized photo forums - like DPR - people ask why their brand of DSLR didn't make small lenses like the FA Ltds. In fact, I recall 2 Canon users who also had a Pentax solely to use those lenses.

I have three Pentax cameras* intentionally to use those lenses.


* SuperPROGRAM, MZ-S and K-1.

[Digitalis]

Don't forget the sigma 18-35 1.8 for apsc

Caveat Emptor*.

Does anybody know why Pentax's doesn't like to produce lenses between F1.2 to F2.0?

Pentax embraces the idea that even large SLR cameras should represent the ideal of take anywhere convenience. Lenses with apertures of f/1.4 and faster are heavy and big, even on mirrorless and RF systems, and doubly so on SLRs. Faster lenses are difficult to design and do design no-compromise fast lenses such as the Carl Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 can be outrageously expensive to manufacture. There is little point in producing something so expensive that hardly anyone is going to buy.


Pentax photographers for years have enjoyed the small and compact FA limited lenses that just happen to balance well and provide generally excellent image quality. Large fast lenses are also somewhat of a specialty. Despite owning some very fast rangefinder lenses, I frequently use lenses of f/2 and slower during daylight hours because there isn't much point in using anything faster than that in broad daylight.

even the 645 lineup doesn't have a single one.

Having done a fairly recent comparitive shoot out with the Leica-S Summicron 100mm f/2 ASPH Vs a 5th gen Hasselblad 110mm f/2 Planar FE. The problems with medium format fast glass are multiplied by the increased resolution of medium format sensors, the hasselblad lens suffers from a lot of problems which are made very apparent by the considerably more expensive and optically superior Leica lens.

looking at all the pics on 500px, most pictures are from lenses with F ranges that Pentax doesn't make.

Perhaps you should open your eyes to more sites where photos are hosted, and you will see that fast glass isn't always the top dog.


* come on, you guys had to see that comment coming.

[texandrews]

Neither does anyone else. Actually, Pentax does as well or better than any other manufacturer for what I want.

What I really want? Really well corrected, well coated, contrasty, crisp, WR/WP, smaller, lighter f4 lenses that are shooting their best from f5.6 through f11 and in medium format f8 through f16, that are more moderately priced. These are the lenses that would serve me best. Hmmm....the 28-105? the 50 and 100 macros? There's some that work for me. The 77, the 31? They work for me. I have an older f1.4 for the times I need that sort of thing. I've never taken a photo with it. All of my medium format lenses but the 45 work really well for me.

So, I do with we'd see a refresh of a couple of lenses, like that 45 or the 20. But I'm in Pentax because I knew what I was getting into in the first place, and that's what attracted me to switch---from Sony, no less (and I've said it before and will say it again: I love Sony).


With the high iso performance we have today---which those of us who started decades ago in film find mind-blowing---the need for these super fast lenses appears to be more mania than necessity, and for the sake of what? Mainly a particular photographic trope. I am not interested in photos of people in which the lashes are in focus and the rest of the face in blur. Or macro shots that are mostly out of focus. Let the astro photographers pay the astro prices for these lenses---and for those guys they can be as big as big, because it for sure will be on a tripod.


So, Pentax doesn't make what I really want (cameras and lenses that would automatically make me a museum collected photographer with no effort, and which would all be free)....it just does better than anyone else as far as I can see for my cases.

[midnightvisions]

Thanks C.A.M.


This was the most appropriate answer to my question.

PENTAX Limited Lens Special Site | RICOH IMAGING

Pentax prefers to make compact and light weight lenses.

The DFA line has slightly better performance, but it is still limited by the compactness and limited weight design philosophy.