Not a fair comparison, you need to compare to a real store... not The Pentax Store. I honestly dont ever remember the Pentax Store having the FA 50 for $199...

I got mine at B&H for $199, and at B&H now it is $359! Now our resident experts will tell you that is a 20% increase across the board. (insert rollyeye face here) Everytime I read that nonsense I just have to smile the "here they go again"

Now the nasty little secret of the Pentax FA 50 1.4 is that as most will admit, it is really too soft at 1.4 and needs to be stopped down to a least F2 (I say F2.8) to get the consistantly good shots... So when folks try and compare it to the Sigma/Canon/Nikon at $400 dollars, it is not really a good comparison.

In my opinion is should be compared to the nikon 50 1.8 at $120 or the Canon 50 1.8 at $100, since they also need to be stopped down to get good shots. (I shot the nikon 50 1.8 at Thanksgiving, and it is a good little lens)

But have yourself another glass of the Kool-aid and say "199 to 359 is 20%" three times -- click your heals -- and press send on your Fa50 order.

Happy Holidays everybody

psst... $199 to 359 = 80% increase...

---

Last edited by Igilligan; 12-15-2009 at 10:03 AM.

[sbbtim]

Notice that Pentax FA50/1.4 lenses have no motors, while the "expensive" Canikon ones have.

Notice that Pentax FA50/1.4 lenses have no motors, while the "expensive" Canikon ones have.

Thank goodness for that... if the Fa 50 had Pentax's legendary SDM in it, you could add another $200 dollars to your original cost, to pay for the repair in the second year you owned it!

Wow I am really 'Snarky' of late!

[causey]

Now the nasty little secret of the Pentax FA 50 1.4 is that as most will admit, it is really too soft at 1.4 and needs to be stopped down to a least F2 (I say F2.8) to get the consistantly good shots... So when folks try and compare it to the Sigma/Canon/Nikon at $400 dollars, it is not really a good comparison.

And are Canikon 50mm 1.4 lenses very good wide open? Don't they need to be stopped down? This is a question, not an insinuation--I've never seen a Canon or Nikon 50mm 1.4.

And are Canikon 50mm 1.4 lenses very good wide open? Don't they need to be stopped down? This is a question, not an insinuation--I've never seen a Canon or Nikon 50mm 1.4.

My point was if you have to stop it down to get a good shot, it should be compared to the nikon/canon F1.8s since they have to be stopped down to the same point. And as sbbtim pointed out they also do not have focus motors just like the FA 50.

But as I said, I am a bit Snarky lately. And the FA 50 1.4 is probably the least used AF lens I own.

And I am just being an Asswipe

[causey]

My point was if you have to stop it down to get a good shot, it should be compared to the nikon/canon F1.8s since they have to be stopped down to the same point.

And my question--again, just a question--was whether one had to stop down a Canikon 50mm 1.4 to get a good shot. If the answer is affirmative, then perhaps the comparison between Pentax and Canikon 50mm 1.4 primes isn't far fetched.

Well since the canon and nikon 1.4's do not fit on the Pentax and do have AF motors, I can honestly say I dont know. (I have only used the D80 with 50 1.8)
I guess if you insist on comparing the 50 1.4's with AF motors, you could compare the Canon/Nikon/Sigma to the Pentax 55 1.4 at $649.. but I personally would take the Sigma 50 1.4 over the Pentax 55 1.4 and save the 150 bucks

I have used the sigma 1.4 in a pentax mount for a few minutes and it was very nice wide open... But there is no way in heck I would ever spend $500 or $650 on a fast 50.

[causey]

I have used the sigma 1.4 in a pentax mount for a few minutes and it was very nice wide open... But there is no way in heck I would ever spend $500 or $650 on a fast 50.

Neither would I. That's why I stick to the Takumars.

[DavidWasch]

What I don't get is why 50mm get all the attention-- a short tele. It was a normal lens on ff, so where is the fast 28mm or 35mm for today's APS-C? There is the FA*24, and the FA35, but the 31mm limited is the only normal faster than 2.0.

Some of the demand for the FA50 is misplaced imho.

[Marc Sabatella]

Have Pentax just gone crazy? Not sure when the price hit that value:

The current price for the FA 50/1.4 is $429.95.

You mean, the current *list* price is $429. Nothing all that unusual there - prices direct from Pentax are almost always way above actual street prices. As you correctly noted, the *real* price of the FA50 is about $350, just like everyone else's 50/1.4's. Yes, that's a big increase from the $200 it used to go for - but that's very old news.

[Marc Sabatella]

Now our resident experts will tell you that is a 20% increase across the board.

*On average*, yes. Some of the lenses that were *way* underpriced like the 50/1.4 - priced about $150 less than what anyone else sold theirs for - went up more. Some lenses went up far less or not at all.

I read that nonsense I just have to smile the "here they go again"

If you have stats to prove my assertions inaccurate, feel free to produce them. But I've actually run the numbers.

[lesmore49]

I should have qualified my statement: "within their price range".

I agree with you.

[lesmore49]

The street price is what B&H is selling it for, not what Pentax's web store can milk from it. Aevery price i quoted was from the B&H website as of this moring for a USA warranted item.
Why do you think Pentax should be able to manufacture and market a lens for less than Sony, Nikon or Canon?We know that manufacturing costs, raw materials, etc. will be similar for companies operating in the same part of the world. But also many of realize that an actual retail price is not necessarily indicative of manufacturing costs...mark ups for the great majority of product is very high. Basically it's whatever the market will bear.
When will people figure out that Pentax was plain and simply selling equipment at an unsustainably low price and now the party is over?That's an opinion, not necessarily fact. Also an opinion that would be hard to verify one way or the other without looking at the books. Also see above comment re: markup, etc.
They street price is competitive and is in line with what their competition is selling for.

It's always good for a company that is finding the competitive market a bit tougher then their larger and more successful competitors to be able to market a similar product at a similar price. If Pentax can do this and by doing this attract more customers and retain their long term brand loyal customers...then kudos to pentax.
But if you don't have the advertising dollars to compete or something that distinguishes their product from the rest, in the perception of a typical consumer...in other words.... what will motivate non Pentax customers to buy P., rather than N. ot C...or even S. ?

BTW I'm not negative towards Pentax. I'm a long term Pentax fan...bought my S1a...new...back in 1968 and although I have other equipment such as Mamiya MF and Leica...my heart still belongs to Pentax.
I want to see them succeed, still think their products are great and since November 2007 have bought new ... 2 bodies...6 lenses, flash, accessories...all Pentax and I'm happy with the equipment. But I'm a bran loyal amateur photographer who wouldn't be that brand loyal if the camera equipment couldn't do the job. Pentax stuff does the job. IMHO.

I just don't know what will work for them in the long run...success wise in the market place. I also am a Prairite and when I walk into top level camera stores out here and the clerks tell me that Pentax is the best kept secret in the camera industry..it gives me pause.

They're great cameras but people new to photography, watch/ read adverts and come in either looking for a Nikon or a Canon, because that's what they heard they have to get.

Marketing and marketing budget is a difficult thing, although I must say I'm seeing more Pentax ads then before.

In the end, I think we're both on the same side.

*On average*, yes. Some of the lenses that were *way* underpriced like the 50/1.4 - priced about $150 less than what anyone else sold theirs for - went up more. Some lenses went up far less or not at all.
If you have stats to prove my assertions inaccurate, feel free to produce them. But I've actually run the numbers.

Hey Marc,
If you have stats to prove your assertion that the Fa 50 1.4 was "way underpriced" I would love to see those. I just think that kind of assertation is being pulled out of some dark nether region. It is at best, an ok $200 lens IMHO.


It is a good, 'plastic', screwdrive AF lens, that needs to be stopped down to F2/F2.8 to look good. Just like the 100 dollar-ish 1.8's from canikon.
P.S. it also PF's like a mo wide open. But that is another argument for another day.


This is the entry level prime lens from Pentax, the one a new camera owner used to be able to afford as their first prime, and it has gone up 80% in a year! Are you honestly saying that you feel this truly a $350 dollar lens? If so, I will happily sell you mine.


Now I could care less if you have "run the numbers" and averaged the cost increase of every lens available in the pentax line up to come up with your 20% number... Most of those damn lenses are $650 to $1400 dollars... so of course they did not go 80 percent as they were already priced very high in the first place.
Hoya/Pentax who used to be the envy with their Prime Lenses Line up, has now priced the newbie and many of the rest of us out the market...

Shall we list the cost of the DA 35, the new 50 1.4, the 85mm (oops there is no 85)
Welcome to Pentax, with your great new $600 Kx... can I interest you in a $600 prime?

This is all just my opinion of course... and admittedly I am being Snarky as my K20 waits to be repaired...

Nothing but love to you Marc...

[roentarre]

This is why I bought a few Fa 50mm f1.4 just for investment potential. I never like the lens.