[Spock]

Further to this thread, here is an idea:

Traditionally Pentax and other lens manufacturers produce:

1. entry level lenses with F4 or slower apertures and also
2. professional lenses with F2.8 apertures.

The difference between these lenses in cost and size is substantial.

What if Pentax were to capitalise on the 'prosumer' nature of it's K7 flagship and produce a line of lenses a half stop slower than professional level but a half stop (or more) faster than its entry level lenses - ie. F3.3.

That I think would be interesting.

Imagine for example, smaller cheaper versions of say the DA*300/2.8 or DA*50-135 F2.8 in the form of a DA300 F3.3 WR and a DA50-135 F3.3 WR

[tr13]

I tell you one small secret.
Pentax could produce same F2.8 lenses and sell them for about 1/3 of current price.
Without any speed penalty :-)
I find it better alternative.

[Marc Sabatella]

Why not just suggest they give them away free? Wouldn't that be even better?

Personally, I'd rather see Pentax actually make enough profit to not go out of business.

[raymeedc]

Why not just suggest they give them away free? Wouldn't that be even better?

Or even better, include a hundred dollar bill with each lens they give away.

[creampuff]

OP what you are suggesting of a two tier "professional" grade and "consumer" grade lens line-up already exists, except not in identical focal lengths. If you want a consumer grade lens to reach 300mm for example, look at the DA 55-300mm, if you want a better lens at that focal length, there is the DA* 300.

The reality is Pentax can ill afford to have many duplicate lenses of similar focal range that either cannibalise sales of one or the other, plus puts constraints on production, distribution and inventory. Not feasible imo.

[Ash]

If you want a quality lens, be prepared to pay a quality price for it.

[tr13]

If you want a quality lens, be prepared to pay a quality price for it.

I don't belive in "quality for good price". This whole concept was presented in marketing books. Contrary, in production reality other concept takes place "more money for lesser or same quality". Many of the famous DA* lenses cost similar to cheap kit lenses to produce :-).

[Ash]

I don't belive in "quality for good price". This whole concept was presented in marketing books. Contrary, in production reality other concept takes place "more money for lesser or same quality". Many of the famous DA* lenses cost similar to cheap kit lenses to produce :-).

Lens producers are in business.
They charge large sums from people who are willing to pay it for the quality and potential their products give the consumer.
The fact that something can be made for much cheaper than its listed price is not justification for the consumer to demand a lower price.
As mentioned, lens producers stay in business from the sales of their big ticket items, which comprises a much smaller percentage to their lower ticket items, but gives them a larger profit margin.
This is not a bad thing.
It is the VALUE the consumer puts on such a product that makes an expensive item viable for the manufacturer.
I don't have any business background, but this to me makes sense for Pentax and other companies to stay in strong competitive business.
One only has to look as far as Canon & Nikon to see that DA* lenses are actually very good value, and ARE worth paying the RRP for.

[tr13]

Good thing that I was born in different country with different traditions and different teaching about correspondance between price and prime cost. :-)
I also don't believe in "worth paying the RRP for" as this is positive feedback situation.
If most people here told that I was telling prices could be much lower :-)
Whole current situation is one small pimple in production economic history. Made by marketers for marketers :-)
It is very interesting to know that you can live happily in society where anyone knows your prime cost. Good thing that we are going to such society :-).

[Ash]

I don't deny that there are profiteers out there preying on unsuspecting consumers to pay top dollar for a product worth far less. But that wasn't really what I was referring to.

I understand and respect your point, tr13 - I also want to pay the lowest amount for a product, and do shop around researching for the best price, but would willingly pay the $679 for a Tamron 70-200 (for example) because I believe it's a good product that is worth the price. It doesn't matter to me that the materials it takes to make one of these lenses costs only $50 (just a guess).

What I dislike is local vendors (as we do here in Australia) hiking prices up for whatever reason unnecessarily - but then I just take my money to where there is the best price for the same product.

[ilya80]

Good thing that I was born in different country with different traditions and different teaching about correspondance between price and prime cost. :-)

/sigh

[Blue]

Why not just suggest they give them away free? Wouldn't that be even better?

Personally, I'd rather see Pentax actually make enough profit to not go out of business.

I could get them an image of the Florida Big Foot (Sasquatch) for their new Ad campaign if they would send me prom FA* 600mm f4.

Caption: For when your subject may rip off you arms and through your camera at your dying carcass . . . the FA* 600mm!

[Marc Sabatella]

I don't belive in "quality for good price". This whole concept was presented in marketing books. Contrary, in production reality other concept takes place "more money for lesser or same quality". Many of the famous DA* lenses cost similar to cheap kit lenses to produce :-).

There is essentially no way this could possibly be true. And unless you are an accountant or upper level manager at Pentax, there is no way you could possibly know such a thing.

[Spock]

Getting this thread back on track, consider this:

Pentax FA 28-70 F4
66cm x66cm, 240 grams and cheap



Pentax FA* 28-70 F2.8
85cmx104cm, 800 grams and EXPENSIVE



Now, if there had been an FA 28-70 F3.3 I am guessing it would have been cheaper and smaller than the FA* version but nonetheless desirable and affordable for those don't have professional needs (or budget) but want better than an entry level product.

This is not a new concept for Pentax, remember such legendary lenses as the A35-105 F3.5?

[reeftool]

Unless I'm missing something looking through what is currently available from Pentax, they already have several "prosumer" lenses along with many higher quality lenses. There are the 18-55 kit lenses, the 18-250, the 55-300 all in the "prosumer" price range. These are just off the top of my head, there may be more. I know several people who own DSLR's, "prosumer users" it that term really means anything. They use their cameras at partys for their kids and soccer games or other sports and events. They will buy their cameras with a kit zoom and a tele zoom and be happy. Their cameras rarely leave full auto mode (green mode on Pentax) and always auto focus. I have a friend who shoots with an Olympus DSLR for many years and recently told me his camera broke because all his pictures were coming out blue. I told him his white balance was off and sure enough it was. Turns out his kid was using the camera a little more creatively than he was and moved it from the auto position.

The point of this story is that those kind of DSLR users, and there are lots of them, will probably never buy a prime lens, a super wide angle, a macro, etc. He thinks I waste money with lenses. To him, 2 zooms is all anybody needs. That is why most of the Pentax lens line up and most of the others also is mostly geared to the more advanced photographer. There is very little profit to be made with cheap lenses and the aftermarket companys who specialize in those products can do a better job. A lot of the "prosumer" lenses are farmed out anyway.