Originally posted by hjoseph7 He could have gotten the Pentax 20-40mm f2.8-4 which would have solved all his problems, but Nah he has to mention the old bugaboo "not enough lenses" when he obviously only needs 2.
I've been doing a lot of thinking about this lately. It "feels" like Pentax doesn't have enough lenses, but in reality there's more than enough, and maybe more than even most of the competition. But why the disconnect?
I'm starting to believe that it's the lack of coherency in the lenses we do have. Take Fuji for example. Most of the lenses all look the same. They all function the same in their particular groupings. There are maybe 3 main lens types. The ones with aperture rings, the ones without. The pro zooms, the non pro zooms. But there is a lot of consistency. Canon might even be a better example. All EOS EF lenses look almost the same. They all function the same. The pro ones have red rings. The numbers conform to the historic standards. 20/24/28/35/50/85/105/180/200/300 16-35/24-70/70-200
Keep that in mind and then think about the Pentax offerings. I have a bag full of lenses here. The only ones that are the same are the DA LTD primes (and those can be had with green or red rings!). The DA ZOOM is different. The FA LTD Prime is different. Some of the lenses are PLM, some DC, some SDM, some WR, some not. Some have aperture rings and focus clutches. And focal lengths? LOL 15/21/31/35/40/43/55/70/77/200 11-18/16-50/50-135 15-30/24-70/70-200
They all work, a lot of them are optically best in the business (which is a big deal actually) but as a set of lenses, there is very little cohesion or even rhyme or reason.
The focal lengths are interesting in comparing FUJI to Pentax APS-c as well.
It's a classic perception vs reality thing.