Pentax should build faster glass

distudio · 05-14-2009, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

Most people opt for Pentax because it is relatively speaking more affordable compared to similar offerings from Canon and Nikon. Faster lenses are nice to have but don't come cheap and the reality is most Pentax users are Pentax users because they either have a collection of legacy lenses, or they can't afford or are unwilling to spend the kind of money that a Canon or Nikon system will cost. Pentax already have the fast FA 31mm and FA 77mm but how many actually own one or both?

Late to the thread but I have to chime in. I have the FA 31mm and FA 77mm too (and lots of other fast Pentax glass like 85/1.4 and 300/2.8). And I had most well before Pentax had a digital body, that's why I would like a full frame option. What keeps me with Pentax is the lenses it's nothing to do with Pentax being "good value".

creampuff · 05-14-2009, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by distudio

Late to the thread but I have to chime in. I have the FA 31mm and FA 77mm too (and lots of other fast Pentax glass like 85/1.4 and 300/2.8). And I had most well before Pentax had a digital body, that's why I would like a full frame option. What keeps me with Pentax is the lenses it's nothing to do with Pentax being "good value".

I'd say you're probably the exception because I'd hazard a guess not many Pentax DSLR users have probably handled nor owned the fast glass that you're so fortunate to have in your collection like the 85mm and 300mm. You've no doubt invested a tidy sum in Pentax glass and like others who have invested heavily into other brands, there is precious little incentive to switch brands. Even if Pentax were to begin making a line-up of fast glass tomorrow, statistically speaking only a small percentage of users will have the means and wherewithal to commit to buy it. It's true whether one uses Canon, Nikon or any other brand on the market.

dave9t5 · 05-14-2009, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Well... True to a degree, but this statement is generic enough to have come from your typical Wired magazine article, where the future is always either present or happening tomorrow.

The advances in sensor technology are constant, but generally not revolutionary. The OP (Jay) has a professor who is working on some pretty impressive stuff, but I'd hazard a guess that if you asked him (face to face, out of earshot of his funding sources,) when his advancements are going to hit the marketplace, he'd probably say "5 years - maybe, if I can get a patent on parts of it that aren't already being developed by Samsung in their labs. Or Sony."

New stuff is always on the way, but in this case, you can't change the properties of light, and it would be difficult (and maybe not cost-effective) to develop technology that can recreate what can be done by a $350 lens - especially when that lens costs $95 to manufacture (even after R&D costs are included) and the rest of that $350 is profit.

It just doesn't make sense for any of these companies to actively work towards destroying a major revenue stream, even if it were possible to do so.

.

Js, after sleeping on it, I woke up regretting the tone of my reply as being too snippy and dreading logging on here. Now I find out it was perceived generic, what a slap in my face. I'm losing my touch. What's the point of posting on a forum with generic comments, maybe the pilot light is out on my inflame. Dang.

jsherman999 · 05-14-2009, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by dave9t5

Js, after sleeping on it, I woke up regretting the tone of my reply as being too snippy and dreading logging on here. Now I find out it was perceived generic, what a slap in my face. I'm losing my touch. What's the point of posting on a forum with generic comments, maybe the pilot light is out on my inflame. Dang.

No problem Dave. If you want, I can flame you and you can flame back just to see if you still have it.

Anyway, you're probably right, just a decade or so off, and I'm going to indulge in some LBA for a while until my lenses become obsolete.

.

dave9t5 · 05-14-2009, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

No problem Dave. If you want, I can flame you and you can flame back just to see if you still have it.

Anyway, you're probably right, just a decade or so off, and I'm going to indulge in some LBA for a while until my lenses become obsolete.

.

Meet you back here in 2019 to compare notes.

**monochrome** · 05-14-2009, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by dave9t5

Jsherman,

I have never seen a poor image that you have posted to this site, conversely I not only always enjoy your images immensely but I actively seek them out.

However...in the domain of product development, whatever you think you know, you don't. Whatever you have learned and accepted as current reality is already obsolete. Lens technology is not the future of photography. Algorithms are the future. That is all there is to say.

And a sad, sad future that will be.

Jewelltrail · 05-15-2009, 12:25 AM

The ISO performance, bright viewfinder, and dynamic range are tempting enough for me to covet a Full Framer. However, in my situation, I just can not justify the cost, nor do I want the added weight of such a system.

Surely I can clearly see why there are those who want a Full Frame Pentax-- yesterday.

huqedato · 05-15-2009, 10:36 AM

Fast glass ? Huh huh!

85mm f/1.4 --> 55mm f/1.2 => 2000$
300mm f/2.8 --> 200mm f/2.0 => 2500$
80-200 f/2.8 --> 50-135mm f/2.0 => 2000$

Therefore, fast glass = extra wage.

Pentax has fine and fast-enough glass. Pentax should build some fine cameras for his glass.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Who build Pentax Optio?	arm_jstp	Pentax Compact Cameras	3	10-10-2010 05:05 AM
Pentax Should Build an EVIL Camera	Biro	Pentax News and Rumors	308	02-08-2010 01:10 AM
faster glass?	Gooshin	Pentax Medium Format	21	08-21-2009 01:57 AM
looking for some longer/somewhat faster glass	khardur	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	04-26-2008 05:37 PM
Pentax glass versus 3rd Party Glass???	rdrum76	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	11-04-2007 04:02 PM

05-14-2009, 07:43 AM	#31
distudio Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney Photos: Albums Posts: 450	Originally posted by creampuff Most people opt for Pentax because it is relatively speaking more affordable compared to similar offerings from Canon and Nikon. Faster lenses are nice to have but don't come cheap and the reality is most Pentax users are Pentax users because they either have a collection of legacy lenses, or they can't afford or are unwilling to spend the kind of money that a Canon or Nikon system will cost. Pentax already have the fast FA 31mm and FA 77mm but how many actually own one or both? Late to the thread but I have to chime in. I have the FA 31mm and FA 77mm too (and lots of other fast Pentax glass like 85/1.4 and 300/2.8). And I had most well before Pentax had a digital body, that's why I would like a full frame option. What keeps me with Pentax is the lenses it's nothing to do with Pentax being "good value".

05-14-2009, 08:04 AM	#32
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Originally posted by distudio Late to the thread but I have to chime in. I have the FA 31mm and FA 77mm too (and lots of other fast Pentax glass like 85/1.4 and 300/2.8). And I had most well before Pentax had a digital body, that's why I would like a full frame option. What keeps me with Pentax is the lenses it's nothing to do with Pentax being "good value". I'd say you're probably the exception because I'd hazard a guess not many Pentax DSLR users have probably handled nor owned the fast glass that you're so fortunate to have in your collection like the 85mm and 300mm. You've no doubt invested a tidy sum in Pentax glass and like others who have invested heavily into other brands, there is precious little incentive to switch brands. Even if Pentax were to begin making a line-up of fast glass tomorrow, statistically speaking only a small percentage of users will have the means and wherewithal to commit to buy it. It's true whether one uses Canon, Nikon or any other brand on the market.

05-14-2009, 09:33 AM	#33
dave9t5 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Toronto, Canada & Taichung, Taiwan Photos: Albums Posts: 329	Originally posted by jsherman999 Well... True to a degree, but this statement is generic enough to have come from your typical Wired magazine article, where the future is always either present or happening *tomorrow*. The advances in sensor technology are constant, but generally not revolutionary. The OP (Jay) has a professor who is working on some pretty impressive stuff, but I'd hazard a guess that if you asked him (face to face, out of earshot of his funding sources,) when his advancements are going to hit the marketplace, he'd probably say "5 years - maybe, if I can get a patent on parts of it that aren't already being developed by Samsung in their labs. Or Sony." New stuff is always on the way, but in this case, you can't change the properties of light, and it would be difficult (and maybe not cost-effective) to develop technology that can recreate what can be done by a $350 lens - especially when that lens costs $95 to manufacture (even after R&D costs are included) and the rest of that $350 is profit. It just doesn't make sense for any of these companies to actively work towards destroying a major revenue stream, even if it were possible to do so. . Js, after sleeping on it, I woke up regretting the tone of my reply as being too snippy and dreading logging on here. Now I find out it was perceived generic, what a slap in my face. I'm losing my touch. What's the point of posting on a forum with generic comments, maybe the pilot light is out on my inflame. Dang.

05-14-2009, 12:59 PM	#34
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by dave9t5 Js, after sleeping on it, I woke up regretting the tone of my reply as being too snippy and dreading logging on here. Now I find out it was perceived generic, what a slap in my face. I'm losing my touch. What's the point of posting on a forum with generic comments, maybe the pilot light is out on my inflame. Dang. No problem Dave. If you want, I can flame you and you can flame back just to see if you still have it. Anyway, you're probably right, just a decade or so off, and I'm going to indulge in some LBA for a while until my lenses become obsolete. .

05-14-2009, 09:24 PM	#35
dave9t5 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Toronto, Canada & Taichung, Taiwan Photos: Albums Posts: 329	Originally posted by jsherman999 No problem Dave. If you want, I can flame you and you can flame back just to see if you still have it. Anyway, you're probably right, just a decade or so off, and I'm going to indulge in some LBA for a while until my lenses become obsolete. . Meet you back here in 2019 to compare notes.

05-14-2009, 10:27 PM	#36
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by dave9t5 Jsherman, I have never seen a poor image that you have posted to this site, conversely I not only always enjoy your images immensely but I actively seek them out. However...in the domain of product development, whatever you think you know, you don't. Whatever you have learned and accepted as current reality is already obsolete. Lens technology is not the future of photography. Algorithms are the future. That is all there is to say. And a sad, sad future that will be.

05-15-2009, 12:25 AM	#37
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	The ISO performance, bright viewfinder, and dynamic range are tempting enough for me to covet a Full Framer. However, in my situation, I just can not justify the cost, nor do I want the added weight of such a system. Surely I can clearly see why there are those who want a Full Frame Pentax-- yesterday.

05-15-2009, 10:36 AM	#38
huqedato Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: France, EU Posts: 97	Fast glass ? Huh huh! 85mm f/1.4 --> 55mm f/1.2 => 2000$ 300mm f/2.8 --> 200mm f/2.0 => 2500$ 80-200 f/2.8 --> 50-135mm f/2.0 => 2000$ Therefore, fast glass = extra wage. Pentax has fine and fast-enough glass. Pentax should build some fine cameras for his glass.