Originally posted by Jonathan Mac There seems to be a lot of venom lately for people who have looked beyond what Pentax offer and ask reasonable questions about why Pentax don't offer something that brand X does. The OP does not seem to me to have been trolling, but many people are very defensive (characterised by seeing reasonable statements as attacks). I know this is the case for all brands and their die-hards, but for me the Pentax Forums have always been characterised by having a markedly lower level of fanboyism than many (all?) other makers of photographic equipment, and I'd hate to see that change.
So let me get this right, asking people critical fo Pentax to have their numbers right is fanboyism. I get it. Let ignorance rule.
Quote: Look again at my posts and read your rant again... You'll notice I've not counted Pentax lenses at all. Perhaps you're not using the quote reply correctly or you need to read more slowly. Talk about being allowed on the internet.
Quote: Does anybody know why Pentax's doesn't like to produce lenses between F1.2 to F2.0?
There are only 4 lenses in its current K mount / APS-C line up,
The number 4 is mentioned by the OP. I would expect any reasonable answer to correct that obvious error. A mathematical error in the first line of any formula makes the ensuing calculations false.
Right now for FF, Pentax is producing only lenses between ƒ1.2 and ƒ2.
Please explain to me how this post has any merit at all. Because he wants to get people discussing a falacy as if it were fact?
From where I sit his whole case, that Pentax doesn't like to produce fast glass is based in two fallacies. 1 being that they do produce fast lenses, and 2, that he didn't list the production of what other companies produce that's better.
But here's the heart of the matter. You think you can have productive discussion based on erroneous information. I think before that can happen you have to get the facts right.
Do you even care if the discussion has a possibility fo being productive if it contains a clear slander or one particular company. I would have done he same thing if he'd said Nikon or Canon only produced 4 sub 2 lenses. This isn't fan boy thing, this is a trying to have a meaningful discussion" thing.
I listed 7 FF capable lenses.The fact that you dispute three of them means nothing, that's just you and declare second hand possibilities meaningless. How do you start a meaningful when you claim more than 50% of the 1.2-2 FF lenses, which were produced by Pentax don't count?
But if you want to make this meaningful, what are the fact, how many lenses produced by Pentax between 1.2 and 2 compared to other manufacturers. After all the original post states 'Pentax does like to make 1.2-2 lenses. That's been completely dismissed. So where are you hoping to go from here?
Think about this for a second, if you say Company A sucks because they only have 4 trinkets and everyone else has 8, and it turns out company A makes 7, how does that present a reasonable grounds for discussion. This isn't even about cameras.
The facts are, Pentax has lots of 1.2-2 lenses available because of their legacy glass, and of the last four lenses announced 3 of the 4 are sub ƒ/2.
You can't argue the point and argue the facts, because the point made is not supported by any facts.
The facts are
There is good selection of ƒ1.2 - ƒ2 glass made by Pentax available both new and second hand.
3/4s of Pentax's recent development has been 1.4 glass.
Now what did you want to talk about?
How about, why don't other manufacturers have small lightweight sub-2 glass like the FA limiteds? Add up the weight of all three FA Ltds, and compare it to the Sigma 30 1.4. You'll be shocked.
Or how about, why can't other companies produce a nice lightweight 1.2-2 lenses like the 31 ltd, without doubling the weight for an inferior lens? I've often wondered that.
If you want to find reasons to bad mouth a company, you always can. Any company. The only question is, what is your motivation for doing that?
Last edited by normhead; 07-02-2019 at 06:53 AM.