Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-13-2009, 10:14 AM   #151
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Possibly because both Tamron and Sigma offer good ones at pretty good prices, and it would be tough for Pentax to make money there - unless they make it a DA*, and go crazy with the quality so as to distinguish it from the others, I guess.

But then, again, to make money after doing that it would be a $1200 lens anyway.
A 1200 USD would be most welcome - compared to the insane prices of the old 80-200/2.8 on ebay...

Ben

01-13-2009, 10:18 AM   #152
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by m8o Quote
And it has been answered even more... the 50-135 on a 1.5x crop sensor, for the equiv FOV as the 75-200. That is the pentax strategy in delivering lenses.
I know that, ofcourse. But I question Pentax' strategy. Pentax always has been extremely centered around Japan and the needs of the Japanese market, ignoring the bigger rest of the World. And because of that lack of real world marketing, I have to use a Sigma 70-200/2.8 or the Sigma 50-500 etc.

If there would be no need and no market for a 70-200, I wonder why Canon, Sony and Nikon decided to sell these lenses, even in APS-C times... Olympus with the 4/3 sensor is another issue, which I can understand. But they deliver at least fast glass!

Ben
01-13-2009, 10:23 AM   #153
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
because it seems that eventually canon and nikon will make all their SLR cameras full frame, then there wont be compatibility issues with old glass

pentax it seems, the one company that has boasted compatibility all these years, seems to be abandoning that philosophy partially, ie, allowing you to use only old glass on new systems.

which in all honesty would be perfectly fine, if they made the following * lenses, a 10mm f2.8 and a 20mm f1.8 that was distortion less and sharp corner to corner...
01-13-2009, 10:41 AM   #154
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 379
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
because it seems that eventually canon and nikon will make all their SLR cameras full frame, then there wont be compatibility issues with old glass.
Until the Rebel and D40/60 equivalents can be made FF and still be small and cheap, that's not going to happen. I'm sure that the Rebel and 50D outsells the FF lineup from Canon by a large margin, and the same goes for the D40, D60 and D90 for Nikon. The market will always be dominated by *smaller and cheaper* cameras, because most of them are sold to amateurs who don't want to lug heavy gear around. I don't see that changing soon. I think video in DSLRs is going to be the bigger trend, unfortunately.

01-13-2009, 10:45 AM   #155
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,284
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
...which in all honesty would be perfectly fine, if they made the following * lenses, a 10mm f2.8 and a 20mm f1.8 that was distortion less and sharp corner to corner...


That says it all...

Steve
01-13-2009, 10:48 AM   #156
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by GaryM Quote
Until the Rebel and D40/60 equivalents can be made FF and still be small and cheap, that's not going to happen. I'm sure that the Rebel and 50D outsells the FF lineup from Canon by a large margin, and the same goes for the D40, D60 and D90 for Nikon. The market will always be dominated by *smaller and cheaper* cameras, because most of them are sold to amateurs who don't want to lug heavy gear around. I don't see that changing soon. I think video in DSLRs is going to be the bigger trend, unfortunately.
a 5D cost what a 5D Mkii costs now 4 years ago

imagine what will happen within 2-3 years

also imagine a consumer level FF chip, kind of like what pentax did with the K-M, lets take ancient technology, update the software and jam it into the most simple body we can think of, and then change people next to nothing for it.

unlike Pentax, Canon and Nikon already have the ground work to make this easily happen.

look back 2-3 years and check out the prices of entry level D40 (non X) and the Canon Rebel 300, then factor in inflation, and the exchange rate dump, and you will see that FF consumer level cameras are not pipe dreams.
01-13-2009, 10:50 AM   #157
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote


That says it all...

Steve
what does it say?
01-13-2009, 12:17 PM   #158
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
to compare the ubiquos 70-200/4 L is simply far festched: this is an old lens, which has seen a long production run, a commodity lens. Taken the production run and the sheer absolute numbers for Canon into account, it has to be much cheaper, than the brand new Pentax.
From the book of Roland

Thing is, with all due respect, no one gives a toss about product life cycles and amortising development costs and all that jazz. Joe average walks into a store and sees the acclaimed 70-200/4 for $650 and thew 60-260 for $1,200.

Utter madness.

It would have been cheaper to dust off the FA80-200 /2.8 optics, add a ring motor and charge $1,100 for it. That's $350 more than Sigma charge so it's a wide enough gap.

200/2.8 is far more useful than 260/4 IMHO, you can add a tele-converter and you're at 300/4.

01-13-2009, 12:30 PM   #159
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Alfisti Quote
From the book of Roland

Thing is, with all due respect, no one gives a toss about product life cycles and amortising development costs and all that jazz. Joe average walks into a store and sees the acclaimed 70-200/4 for $650 and thew 60-260 for $1,200.

Utter madness.

It would have been cheaper to dust off the FA80-200 /2.8 optics, add a ring motor and charge $1,100 for it. That's $350 more than Sigma charge so it's a wide enough gap.

200/2.8 is far more useful than 260/4 IMHO, you can add a tele-converter and you're at 300/4.
I can see your point and have some smphathy. But Pentax cannot exist, charging that much. It is that simple. I also would have preferred a newborn 80-200 over the one stop slower 60-250 - but I hope, Pentax has done thourrough market research and developped a lens, many people long for. If not, they will have just one more problem.

What's "the Book of Roland" by the way?

Ben
01-13-2009, 12:47 PM   #160
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
If there would be no need and no market for a 70-200, I wonder why Canon, Sony and Nikon decided to sell these lenses, even in APS-C times...
Realistically, Canon & Nikon never *stopped* making these, and delivered them in enough quantity that discontinuing the lens probably never even crossed their minds. The lens continues to sell both because of the FF issue, but also because neither Canon nor Nikon apparently found it worth their while to develop a more appropriate alternative on APS-C. It would be interesting to see which lens would sell better on APS-C if they offered both a 50-135 and a 70-200. The existence of the Tokina version is not really the same - any more than the fact that you can get a 70-200/2.8 from Sigma or Tamron satisfies those clamoring for a 70-200/2.8 from Pentax too.
01-13-2009, 01:13 PM   #161
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Realistically, Canon & Nikon never *stopped* making these, and delivered them in enough quantity that discontinuing the lens probably never even crossed their minds. The lens continues to sell both because of the FF issue, but also because neither Canon nor Nikon apparently found it worth their while to develop a more appropriate alternative on APS-C. It would be interesting to see which lens would sell better on APS-C if they offered both a 50-135 and a 70-200. The existence of the Tokina version is not really the same - any more than the fact that you can get a 70-200/2.8 from Sigma or Tamron satisfies those clamoring for a 70-200/2.8 from Pentax too.
That is all true - but why stopped Pentax then making the wonderful FA 80-200? I never ever felt the urge for the 50-135mm and use my Sigma 70-200/2.8 all the time, very often near or at the long end. Pentax could have made the old lens in new DA disguise (quite like the DA 200/2.8) and all would have been happy.

To a degree I suspect Pentax is once more on the "make everything smaller" trip of the 1970s and that rules out really fast lenses of longer focal length...

Ben
01-13-2009, 01:23 PM   #162
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
That is all true - but why stopped Pentax then making the wonderful FA 80-200?...
To a degree I suspect Pentax is once more on the "make everything smaller" trip of the 1970s and that rules out really fast lenses of longer focal length...
Could be, but I also suspect that low sales volume due to smaller market share forced them to more or less discontinue the lens whereas Canon & Nikon didn't.
01-13-2009, 01:29 PM   #163
Pentaxian
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
[Devil's Advocate]

Pretty much every Canon owner I know has a 70-200/4. I don't understand why the Pentax 60-250 doesn't make sense. Street value of the P will be less than MSRP (obviously)...but it's "not wide enough and not long enough"? It's both wider and longer than the Canon, which is the Canon telephoto I see used the most.

What am I missing? Price isn't finalized...we don't have to pay for IS...so why not compare the 60-250 to the 70-200/4 IS version at $1024 (pre-rebate at B&H)? It weighs 1.7 lb (760 g) but is shorter than the Pentax.

The only reason I'd see for an f/2.8 lens would be to stop down to f/4. If this Pentax is sharp and has well-controlled CA wide open there'd be no point to a f/2.8 version which would be bigger and heavier...but the f/4 is already too big n heavy ZOMG.

I don't get the bitchin...

[/Devil's Advocate]

Flame on!!!!!!!!!!!
01-13-2009, 01:33 PM   #164
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
a) because the price is so absurd for an f/4 lens

b) You can't do a Roland and say "well all lenses are IS now so Pentax is great" then say "well you need to compare the non-IS Pentax lens to an IS Canon lens" ... it's either/or.

c) It's an absolute friggin MONSTER lens, it's not a walk around lens at all, you can't just chuck it in your bag.
01-13-2009, 01:36 PM   #165
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
Alrighty, instead of sounding negative let's think positive.

Imagine a 100-400 f/4-5.6, that's where the REAL gap in our line up is. They'd sell them by the truck load.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
examples, k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sports "Highside Exit" took 1st Place in DPReview "Missed It by THAT much, Part 1" Challenge MRRiley Post Your Photos! 27 02-21-2010 08:26 PM
For Sale - Sold: 2 18-55mm kit lenses ("L" and "AL II" version) dgaies Sold Items 5 12-28-2009 07:58 AM
K-7 and metering with "K" and "M" lenses NaClH2O Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 07-18-2009 09:00 PM
Original "K" and "M" lenses wlank Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 08-31-2008 11:00 AM
"Hunger for a DA*50-135?" or "The DA*50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?" Douglas_of_Sweden Post Your Photos! 4 08-13-2008 06:09 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:57 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top