The bottom line is that NO DIGITAL SLR has as many excellent and reasonably-priced lens options as Pentax, as long as you aren't allergic to manually focusing. If there are too few K-Mount lenses in the world for you, get a genuine Pentax M-42 adapter and the world is your oyster.

It is only people who feel they have to have AF that even THINK about complaining about lens selection/prices on Pentax. This is the #1 reason I selected Pentax (K200D owner).

I use MF lenses probably +80% of the time... But I complain about the cost of Pentax Lenses because when I need to use AF..........

P.s. there are other DSLR's that use all of the M42's that pentax can and some that can use many other lens mounts with adaptors that Pentax can not use.

[stevebrot]

...P.s. there are other DSLR's that use all of the M42's that pentax can and some that can use many other lens mounts with adaptors that Pentax can not use...

Yep...so true...so true...

Steve

[ryan s]

...and none that can perform auto-aperture stopdown

(Err...maybe Nikon can? Doesn't matter to me, really )

[stevebrot]

...and none that can perform auto-aperture stopdown

(Err...maybe Nikon can? Doesn't matter to me, really )

Nikon can't mount Pentax without an aux rear lens. Canon can mount and meter M42 just fine in stop-down mode (just like a Pentax). I believe that Canon also retains focus confirm with a chipped adapter. K-mount on Canon is stop-down mode only and incompatible with the mirrors on the FF bodies. Some of the most enthusiastic Takumar users on the planet shoot Canon.

Steve

[Marc Sabatella]

Well, a while ago I could confidently state that Pentax lenses were very affordably priced compared to the competition. Now I'm not so sure anymore.

I suppose it could be useful to actually produce lists: which lenses were cheaper than the alternatives in the past, and which of those are no longer so. I don't mean this rhetorically. I'm honestly curious, as my impression is that it's always been the case that Pentax was cheaper on some lenses, and more expensive on others, and that this basic fact really hasn't changed much, at least in the US.

For instance, the FA50 obviously used to be a lot cheaper than everyone else's, but many still complained because everyone else had a 50/1.8 that was cheaper still. Now the FA50 is basically the same price as everyone else's 50/1.4. The FA35 used to be comparable in price to others 35's, then Nikon introduced a cheaper one, and Pentax's became harder to find. The FA77 has always been more expensive than others' 85's. I believe the 16-50 has always been and still remains still quite a bit cheaper than others' equivalents. As far as I know, no one has ever offered anything like the 50-135, or most other relatively high end DA lenses (* and Limiteds, DA14 etc). The 17-70 has always been on the overpriced side, but it's come down a bit, and is now actually quite comparable in price to others' sort-of-similar zooms.

So it seems you me you really have to pick and choose to find a list of Pentax lenses that *used* to be cheaper than Canikon but are now more expensive in the US. FA35 is really the clearest example I can think of. Most others were either *always* more expensive, or are *still* less expensive, or just have no analogue.

Please note that the price hike for non-US customers is not an illusion.

Understood. I've tried to be careful to be explicit that I am talking about the US, and have as far as I know only been challenging claims made about US prices, since those are the only prices I have access to.

You seem to suggest that Pentax is not to blame for this.

It's certainly possible, I agree. I'm just suggesting that since there appears to be a large disparity in prices depending on where you are in the world, whatever is going on is more complex than it might at first appear. Your theory is certainly plausible.

It's certainly possible, I agree. I'm just suggesting that since there appears to be a large disparity in prices depending on where you are in the world, whatever is going on is more complex than it might at first appear. Your theory is certainly plausible.

There could be any number of contributors to what has been happening with prices, the global economic meltdown of the last year, retooling and relocating lens assembly plants for example. It's also worth considering that Hoya would have taken a while to get up to speed with Pentax's viability as a business and the price increases in the varying markets were a result of new strategy, the timing would be about right for that scenario. Not necessarily good for the customer base in the short term but if that were to be the case it could be considered a brave but sensible move in the business sense that might give us all long term benefits.

There could be any number of contributors to what has been happening with prices, the global economic meltdown of the last year, retooling and relocating lens assembly plants for example. It's also worth considering that Hoya would have taken a while to get up to speed with Pentax's viability as a business and the price increases in the varying markets were a result of new strategy, the timing would be about right for that scenario. Not necessarily good for the customer base in the short term but if that were to be the case it could be considered a brave but sensible move in the business sense that might give us all long term benefits.

Not you too DB... Oh you are so buying dinner next time if I have to put you on the apologists list. If not dinner, then a whole lot of beer if you start talking the 'new strategy" haha

[jadedrakerider]

Are the Pentax-Tokina lenses exactly the same? Are there any build improvements on them?

I have a sneaking suspicion that OEM products by Nikon and Canon don't HAVE to be as expensive as they are. But because they have the OEM brand on them, they sell for much more.

This case in unfortunate since everybody knows who makes Pentax's lenses, and can put the same lenses side by side for other mounts and have a good look at the dissonance between the products.

^.^

[rcs914]

Sure, but that's because it is considered "the norm" by the generation that has come into photography over the last 15 years.

I say "Question Reality":
Why turn the simple act of focusing over to some algorithm? I would argue that actively taking control of what you are focusing on will lead you to being a better visualizer/photographer.

If you find manual focusing difficult, how about MASTERING IT? Doing anything worthwhile well SHOULD be a little difficult. Maybe it will mean getting a real focusing screen for your camera. Not as sexy as getting a new lens (perhaps) but it will give you more control over focusing a whole world of MF lenses.

The biggest problem with manual focus is that the cameras themselves don't have a very good system for being able to tell that it is in focus. Think back to our old K1000's or ME's - the "assist" in the center of the viewfinder was significantly better, and much easier to manually focus with. I know that the autofocus square will blink when it is in manual focus mode, but this doesn't work well at all in low light situations. I personally just find it difficult, in low light, to tell when the manual lenses are in focus with the current digital bodies (at least with the istD and K100D Super).

So from your post though, and I apologize for being a novice at this, but you mention a focusing screen? I didn't realize they were replaceable - obviously this makes my point above somewhat moot, other than wishing that Pentax would include a better one out of the box.

Chris

[Rondec]

I think that optically the lenses are the same. The differences are coatings, cosmetic differences, and for the DA* lenses, SDM and weather sealing.

I just want to echo what Monochrome said. It is important for the survival of Pentax that they not only make money on individual lenses, but they also need to make money as a company. Clearly they were not doing this prior to Hoya's acquisition. Whether or not they can make a profit on the FA 50 selling it at 200 dollars, they need to have a strong enough revenue stream that they can fund R and D for future lenses and bodies.

I certainly don't want to go back to the old days of poor performance and lagging bodies. Cameras like the K20, K7 and kx don't happen without significant input of capital and that has to come from sales of existing products.

[MikePerham]

Sure, but that's because it is considered "the norm" by the generation that has come into photography over the last 15 years.

I say "Question Reality":
Why turn the simple act of focusing over to some algorithm? I would argue that actively taking control of what you are focusing on will lead you to being a better visualizer/photographer.

If you find manual focusing difficult, how about MASTERING IT? Doing anything worthwhile well SHOULD be a little difficult. Maybe it will mean getting a real focusing screen for your camera. Not as sexy as getting a new lens (perhaps) but it will give you more control over focusing a whole world of MF lenses.

Well, I think there is a time for auto focus and a place for manual focus as well. I tend to use AF when shooting off hand, at events or the like. However, when my camera is on a tripod and I am being very deliberate, I am in manual focus and checking my DOF etc.. I would say that in terms of usage, AF is used more frequently than MF, even if the latter is where I am enjoying my photography most. About the only exception to that is when I try shooting birds, I use AF even if my camera is on a tripod as I can't focus fast enough otherwise.

[Marc Sabatella]

This case in unfortunate since everybody knows who makes Pentax's lenses

Right - Pentax does, except for the 18-250, which was made by Tamron. A few people have been fooled into thinking that because Tokina puts out certain co-designed lenses under their own name, that this means Tokina actually designed and built the lenses for Pentax. But this is not true.

I just want to echo what Monochrome said. It is important for the survival of Pentax that they not only make money on individual lenses, but they also need to make money as a company. Clearly they were not doing this prior to Hoya's acquisition. Whether or not they can make a profit on the FA 50 selling it at 200 dollars, they need to have a strong enough revenue stream that they can fund R and D for future lenses and bodies.
I certainly don't want to go back to the old days of poor performance and lagging bodies. Cameras like the K20, K7 and kx don't happen without significant input of capital and that has to come from sales of existing products.

This may be my favorite excuse yet for the 80% price increase of the FA 50...
To fund R&D for future lenses...

It looks to me like the entire lens R&D under hoya so far has been not about future lenses, but existing lenses...
How can we make existing lenses cheaper... remove metal mounts and replace with plastic, remove quick shift AF, and remove the lens hoods) then add an L to the front of the lens designation...
The other direction they seem to be going is adding some weather sealing to existing lenses... And the WS 100mm macro is a sales joke if you ask me. How many new camera owners are gonna pic a Weather Sealed 100mm macro as their first prime? How many experienced macro shooters need weather sealing for their bug / flower macros? haha Heck we dont even need AF for macros... this was a waste of time and money developing this lense in my humble opinion. They would have been better off weather sealing the 55-300 or DA 40 / 70.

Weather sealing is a welcome addition, but requires little "lens R&D", And in the end, if the lenses are priced so high that few can afford them what difference is that gonna make in saving the company?
Hoya/pentax is not going to stay alive as a company on the few of us loyal customers existing now... They need to attract new folks to buy their nice new bodies. If they have no lenses that the newbies can afford it will eventually affect sales IMHO. And they need to stop crippling sales by having no Camera bodies / lenses on the retail store shelves in the U.S.

If it had not been for the relatively low priced FA 50 / FA 35 when I bought my first DSLR it would have not been Pentax... Now the FA 50 has gone from $200 to $360 and will eventually be replaced completely by the DA 55 1.4 at $650. And the FA 35 has been replaced by the DA 35 which is $535

[monochrome]

I find the combination of fanboys and whining so amusing, you guys make my day whenever I see threads like this.

And to suggest that it's not whining but "The purpose is to let Pentax know the displeasure that some of us have felt." ROTFLMAO

Who do you think is listening? Ned Bunnell? He's having too much fun with his Leica still. John Carlson, Manager of Product Marketing and Support, Mr. Personality himself?
If he's listening it's because he's secretly working as an undercover agent for Nikon.

Here's what I think Hoya's (Pentax) attitude to all this is. The customer is the one who needs Pentax to survive. Hoya don't care, they have options, they can sell Pentax, they can keep Pentax or if Pentax fails, they get a nice right off.

Stop buying those second, third, fifteenth hand 30 year old lenses and buy some brand new, high priced (but comparable to other brands) lenses. After all, what's a few hundred lousy bucks here or there for something you love.

Actually, Gary, there's quite a lot of truth in your statement. If we want Pentax to survive (it will, owned by Hoya) we have to patronize them every once in a while.

It we really believe they are marketing dolts, now owned by barbarians, making 90% cameras (at best - f'n autofocus) with arrogant US management and worse service - -

then WHY THE HELL DO WE CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO PENTAX?

[Marc Sabatella]

I guess I just find it odd that people would base entire camera system purchases on the price of two lenses (35mm and 50mm AF primes), especially when one of them (50) is not all that useful a focal length and an MF version really serves the need for that particular focal length quite well.

Once again, yes, I think it would be great it Pentax were to offer an inexpensive 50/1.7 and 35/2 again. I just don't see the current situation as nearly as dire as it's being painted.

Anyhow, I'm not saying it isn't a shame that Hoya/Pentax found it necessary to raise the price on lenses. Obviously, it beats the alternative of Pentax going under. Whether there were *other* alternatives too, we really don't have the necessary information to know for sure, but I guess I don't see why people automatically *assume* that Hoya/Pentax is acting irresponsibly here, as opposed to simply doing the best they can with what they have to work with.