[house]

To the OP.

If Pentax does not produce the lens that can produce that winning shot for you.....perhaps you can post a photo where you were denied the result you wanted due to lack of equipment or even post an image with another lens/camera that you want to replicate ?

After 40+ years in photography I generally find that it is the fault of the photographer rather than the equipment, but am always willing to be proved wrong

psclute see first post below

Hello,

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 K full frame has three lenses, but even the 645 lineup doesn't have a single one.

I realize the lenses would be a little bigger and weigh more, but looking at all the pics on 500px, most pictures are from lenses with F ranges that Pentax doesn't make.

Does anybody know the logic behind Pentax's thinking?

Considering this pschlute your suggestion, though perhaps helpful, seems to miss the point of the thread as does many other replies.

---

Last edited by house; 07-01-2019 at 11:14 AM. Reason: clarity

[pschlute]

Considering this pschlute your suggestion, though perhaps helpful, seems to miss the point of the thread as does many other replies

The point of my latest post was to make clear to the OP and to you if needed, that Pentax have 8 , yes eight primes available now, yes now from new , which have a maximum aperture of f2 or less.

My previous posts on this forum were to show the OP that he was wrong, yes wrong in his assumption of what that site 500px showed.

My previous posts were also to to show to the OP that his assumptions about MF lenses were wrong.

So, in a nutshell he does not know of what he purports to speak.

What is your excuse ?

[BigMackCam]

Folks, if we're going to have this kind of discussion and debate, let's show some courtesy and respect for each other, please. Responding in kind to posts you feel are rude and/or unhelpful just fans the flames. We're better than that

Thank you

[house]

The point of my latest post was to make clear to the OP and to you if needed, that Pentax have 8 , yes eight primes available now, yes now from new , which have a maximum aperture of f2 or less.

I was replying to a different point. See below. Your number above however is optimistic? Pentax forums list 7 ff sub f2 lenses, two of which are the same lens (35mm f2) so really it's 6. Then looking at the f-stop and focal length distribution of those lenses it's clear that Pentax doesn't focus on fast glass as most are at or near f2. As I've said only 50's are f1.4.

My previous posts on this forum were to show the OP that he was wrong, yes wrong in his assumption of what that site 500px showed.

My previous posts were also to to show to the OP that his assumptions about MF lenses were wrong.

So, in a nutshell he does not know of what he purports to speak.

What is your excuse ?

I was replying specifically to your last post. (I quoted for clarity). Cropping the quote below to highlight what I was replying to.

perhaps you can post a photo where you were denied the result you wanted due to lack of equipment or even post an image with another lens/camera that you want to replicate ?

There is nothing in the OP suggesting any personal need for fast glass nor a wish to achieve a look. Hence your suggestion above misses the point. Instead it was a general question about "the logic behind Pentax's thinking".

---

Last edited by house; 07-01-2019 at 01:09 PM.

[pschlute]

Your number above however is optimistic? Pentax forums list 7 ff sub f2 lenses, two of which are the same lens (35mm f2) so really it's 6

6 FF lenses and two DA apsc lenses = 8

[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.

[normhead]

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.

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.

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.

[pschlute]

I don't think anyone was trolling in this thread. I think it is quite normal that people look beyond Pentax and ask reasonable questions about why another brand offers more.

But the OP here has made a mistake about how many sub f2 lenses are available new. He is also mistaken on the the pictures on the site 500px that are taken at <f2. He further confused the issue by expecting MF lenses to be less than f2 maximum aperture.

I do not think it "venom" to point that out.

[house]

So let me get this right, asking people critical fo Pentax to have their numbers right is fanboyism. I get it. Let ignorance rule.

I can't imagine you actually believe anyone would take issue with a friendly correction of the numbers. What you are doing is diverting from your behaviour. Consciously or unconsciously, neither is a good look.

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.

Calling miscounting the number of lenses 'slander' is most definitely a fanboy 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?

Just look at the OP. It talks specifically about Pentax and ff.

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.

I did take a look at Nikon, Sony, Fuji can post the list later. It doesn't look good for Pentax and that's without third party stuff which makes it even worse for Pentax.

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.

I dispute this fact. In addition the op asked about the *relative* lack

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.

Your argumentation is flailing wildly. Showing you're concerned with the imagined brand "slander". The above doesn't support the claim that Pentax has a fast glass lineup comparable to the competition. It would however, if addressed coherently, answer the op question by showing Pentax previous focus on the above important qualities of lenses.

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?

The only reason to pose the above question based on op is what is commonly known as fanboism.

[BigMackCam]

Thread CLOSED.