"Lenses I Just Don't *Get"

Ben_Edict · 01-13-2009, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

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

Ben_Edict · 01-13-2009, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by m8o

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

Gooshin · 01-13-2009, 10:23 AM

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...

**GaryM** · 01-13-2009, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Gooshin

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.

stevebrot · 01-13-2009, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Gooshin

...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

Gooshin · 01-13-2009, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by GaryM

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.

Gooshin · 01-13-2009, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

That says it all...

Steve

what does it say?

Alfisti · 01-13-2009, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Ben_Edict

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.

Ben_Edict · 01-13-2009, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Alfisti

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

Marc Sabatella · 01-13-2009, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Ben_Edict

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.

Ben_Edict · 01-13-2009, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

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

Marc Sabatella · 01-13-2009, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Ben_Edict

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.

ryan s · 01-13-2009, 01:29 PM

[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!!!!!!!!!!!

Alfisti · 01-13-2009, 01:33 PM

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.

Alfisti · 01-13-2009, 01:36 PM

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.

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 DA50-135?" or "The DA50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?"	Douglas_of_Sweden	Post Your Photos!	4	08-13-2008 06:09 AM

01-13-2009, 10:14 AM	#151
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by jsherman999 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
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by m8o 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
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	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
GaryM Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Montclair, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 426	Originally posted by Gooshin 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
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Gooshin ...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
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by GaryM 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
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by stevebrot That says it all... Steve what does it say?

01-13-2009, 12:17 PM	#158
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	Originally posted by Ben_Edict 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
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by Alfisti 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
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Ben_Edict 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
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella 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
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Ben_Edict 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
ryan s Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,383	[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
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	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
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	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.