[pschlute]

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

Hasselblad know a thing or two about MF lenses. Last year they launched their fastest ever MF lens, a 80mm f1.9. Go figure !

....and the price ? about 5 times a DFA 50mm 1.4 !!

[DeadJohn]

What photos are you trying to create that can't be done because no k-mount lens is available? Low light? Thin depth of field?

What's your budget for buying new lenses? Would you spend $5500 for a 200/2.0 ... if yes it might be worth buying a Canon body to hang off that lens.

[Bob 256]

If you were making a car model and doing well on sales, would you make a version that had a V12 engine? It would sell at a premium and some people would buy it, but is it worth the investment to design that engine and fit it to an existing car for the few who would buy it.

I'm not trying to be facetious, just playing devils advocate.

Companies are in business to make money. If they feel an f1 lens would sell and make a profit, they would be there. It's a risk to make a super fast lens when there are already some which are almost as fast (there are f2s and f1.4s), and that risk is judged to be too high in most cases. A company doesn't make a lens to make people happy, period. Happiness could be a factor if that happiness would sell 1M copies for them but if it only sells enough to make a few people happy, there would have to be another factor involved (name recognition) before a company would commit. Just "Business101".

[Ontarian50]

What photos are you trying to create that can't be done because no k-mount lens is available? Low light? Thin depth of field?

It's all about thin depth of field, isn't it? Which means, that once again, it's all about phones.

It's a bit annoying to see photographers pushed in a direction that doesn't necessarily mean better photography. Phone cameras are technically very good these days, but they fall down when it comes to sensor size and lens size - so they've always got tons of depth of field. DSLR owners, looking for a technical reason to justify the larger camera investment, are pressured into doing things like long exposures with super dark ND filters, or going after razor thin depth of field - if for no other reason than that's something that can't be done (realistically, anyway) on an iPhone.

I recall some guy posting a message on this forum, or another, looking for advice on an upcoming arctic trip - where he planned to shoot everything at f1.4. What's that about?

I think good photographers need to concentrate on good photography, and not always worrying about the latest technical fad that keeps us ahead of the phone camera crowd.

[c.a.m]

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

Does anybody know the logic behind Pentax's thinking?

Here's a Pentax site that explains some of the thinking behind the FA and DA Limited series:

PENTAX Limited Lens Special Site | RICOH IMAGING

- Craig

[normhead]

Sorry, I can't take this seriously.
With 8 available lenses right inline with manufactures 20 times the size of Pentax, all you can say is, the OP has really poor research skills. Thanks y'all for helping him out.

But in my opinion, threatening him with a ban for misrepresenting Pentax and promoting another brand wouldn't be terribly inappropriate.

I don't even favour low light or narrow DoF shooting, and I own an SMC 50 1.4 and a DA* 55mm 1.4.The proposal is ridiculous.

[Not a Number]

I don't see why so many are getting so ruffled. It seems to me the OP made an observation and was wondering if there were some other design philosophy than size or weight considerations. The OP has neither expressed any need and desire for faster lenses nor promoted or even mentioned other brands. Any incompleteness of the OPs observation has been addressed previously.

[normhead]

I don't see why so many are getting so ruffled. It seems to me the OP made an observation and was wondering if there were some other design philosophy than size or weight considerations. The OP has neither expressed any need and desire for faster lenses nor promoted or even mentioned other brands. Any incompleteness of the OPs observation has been addressed previously.

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

Does anyone know that the last Pentax lens produced was the DFA* 50 1.4
The next to be produced is the DFA 85 1.4.

If you are going to elucidate as if you know something about Pentax, we expect you to know something about Pentax. How does anyone who even briefly follows the brand not know these things?

Most of the thread has been correcting this initial error. Coupled with the absolutely asinine suggestion that you need to switch to Fuji. Maybe it wasn't the OP but his nonsense observation certainly opened the door. Two guy working in cahoots?

When someone says something really off the wall, my first question is "Why did they say that? Is there a chance he actually believed it?" In this case even a few minutes research would have been enough, which begs the point, exactly how did the OP come to this flawed conclusion?

I have serious trouble believing this was a legitimate error.

But if the OP wants to come back and explain, I'll hear him/her out.

I'd expect something like "I've been living under rock for the last 30 years and I don't get out much."

[robiles]

Does anyone know that the last Pentax lens produced was the DFA* 50 1.4
The next to be produced is the DFA 85 1.4."

And a 35 1.4, confirmed by some knowledgrable forum member(s). The phrase: "the future is bright" was also mentioned.

[c.a.m]

But in my opinion, threatening him with a ban for misrepresenting Pentax and promoting another brand wouldn't be terribly inappropriate.

The OP may have been mis-informed or may have posed their question(s) in an awkward way.

The basic question as to whether anyone here has insight into Pentax's thinking is not easy to answer beyond a simple "not really." In some cases, we understand the design goals of some of the lenses (the Limited series for example), and in other cases we can infer some insights from recent interviews.

I think some of the replies in this thread provide useful guidance to the OP and others who may get tripped by the first post.

- Craig

[Lowell Goudge]

I find that the super shallow DOF look gets tired in a real hurry.

At one time fast was much more important due to iOS limitations but no more. Today 6400 iso replaces 400 iso film at least with my k5 and K1

Also, I would prefer super sharp wide open at F2 than needing to be stopped down to F4 or worse.

That is the reality, how many shots do you actually take wide open?

[lesmore49]

My fastest lens in my Pentax F1.4 50mm. I rarely use it at F 1.4 as the DOF is too narrow for my tastes. I find I do use my 100 DF A Macro at F 2.8 a fair amount.
For me, it's a balance between DOF, sharpness, etc.

[monochrome]

Here's a Pentax site that explains some of the thinking behind the FA and DA Limited series:

PENTAX Limited Lens Special Site | RICOH IMAGING

- Craig

As a collector I have many fast and ultra fast Pentax lenses. As a photographer I have fairly few opportunities to use them wide open. I just don’t have much use for 10” far to near focus at 10’ with a normal lens, and the truth about Pentax (and everyone else) is the f/1.2 version at f/2 is virtually identical to the f/2 version at f/2.

But man, I sure do love all that extra light in the Viewfinder.

[tvdtvdtvd]

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?

The modern fad for fast lenses is just that, a fad. Yes, there is a use case for fast glass but by and large the gluttony of fast lenses that have been dropped
on the market over the past few years is mostly about impressive specs and bragging rights. As others have pointed out, modern ISO performance has
largely eliminated the need for fast glass except in that specific case when you want/need razor thin DOF. For most situations a narrower aperture will
be better and for most cases a lens doesn't need to open that wide.

[pschlute]

I recall some guy posting a message on this forum, or another, looking for advice on an upcoming arctic trip - where he planned to shoot everything at f1.4. What's that about?

Lack of photographic knowledge.

---------- Post added 06-28-19 at 08:34 PM ----------

I don't see why so many are getting so ruffled

Well, just possibly because this kind of ignorant post which is both incorrect in fact and assumption seems all too familiar these days. Apologies to the OP if he is genuinely (although incorrectly) worried, but there is no need to be as has been amply demonstrated.

Despite his assertion it is quite clear there are 8 lenses available at f2.0 or less.

Despite his assertion about 500px he is clearly wrong.

I doubt very much he will bother to answer though.

---------- Post added 06-28-19 at 08:49 PM ----------

I too am bothered by Pentax's aversion to fast apertures.

I would be interested to know which of the 8 current lenses that are available new with a max aperture of f2 or faster are not suitable for you ?