Originally posted by Tony Belding Still marked $497 at B&H, $450 at Adorama.
I've heard a lot of griping about the price of the 08 lens, and guys who'd like to have one, but they think it's too much dough. Somebody has to say this: The 08 lens is awesome. Shop for something in the same zoom range for other systems and see what it costs you!
It also holds a rating of 9.80 here in the PentaxForums.com lens database. One reviewer noted: "But to really appreciate this lens you have to place it in context with the Q- bodies. It is simply gonna BE THERE when any of my other APS-C DSLRs and WA lenses would have been too burdensome to bother with."
Serious wide-angle is an issue with almost any camera, but the smaller the sensor, the more of a problem it becomes. I don't do serious wide-angle very often - most often when I'm at a museum and narrow aisles don't give me any place to go. When I moved from Canon to Pentax for my primary camera last May, the thing I missed the most was my Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lens. Later I was able to buy one used-like-new from a member here (the same, except the K-mount variant doesn't have an internal focusing motor). Even buying it at the PF marketplace, it is currently the most expensive lens in my bag, despite its also being the least used. The newer Sigma f/3.5 costs $496 at B&H; in that context, I guess the 08 is reasonable at $449 (but I'm not buying one - one expensive, little used, ultra wide-angle lens is enough for me).
---------- Post added 10-31-15 at 05:47 PM ----------
Originally posted by Nicolas06 Just to be clear, i don't think the Q can't do as well as similar camera in different form factor (compact) with similar quality optics and sized sensors. Sure you get the flexibility of being to mount any optics. Even through the native choice isn't that great (some complain of it even there). I don't doubt the Q is a great as any other camera in the same league.
No my claim was a bit different. My claim was the market for a such tiny interchangeable lense camera was quite small. This is because even with a compact or smartphone you get similar quality picture (technically) and that if you really mess up with the ILC part, usually you are an enthousiast that expect more. Even if you want something small. At the bottom you already have your phone anyway with you so you expect more than that.
Some m4/3 camera indeed are priced like the latest Q body (for example Olympus Pen vs Q-S1); They are small, they are ILC, they are design, they can mount anything with converters... But have more than 80 native lense avaiable from Samyang, Olympus, Panasonic, Tamron, Sigma, Voigtlander... And you can evolve in the mount by getting camera with EVF, with outstanding video, by getting lenses with f/0.95 or up to 300mm (600mm FF equiv)... You even have a TC if you want !
I don't want to prevent anybody to invest into the Q... I just think the market is small and so I'am not surprised there no much activity from Pentax/Ricoh in Q mount... To me it was logical to put the priority on the 645Z, K3 and FF instead because there was more potential.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You don't need 70 native lenses if 5 native lenses can cover all missions. Seeing the great excitement following the Canon and Nikon super zoom bridge cameras, I believe that a reasonable 100-300mm lens would complete the 01, 02, 06, 08 family,
I've said that for many years I used two cameras to cover all my needs - a primary camera and a pocket camera - but that isn't quite true. Ever since I got my second film camera, I also had a secondary camera (my previous primary camera) in reserve in case my primary camera had issues. That basically ended eight years ago when I went digital, because the only backup for my primary camera was a couple of film cameras in the closet. Then, my primary camera (a Canon Rebel) unexpectedly died this past May. I had bought my Q-7 in December, and I found myself accepting it also in the role of backup secondary camera, in addition to its roles as pocket camera and birding camera; I was able to buy a used-like-new K-30 in a fairly short time, but my wife was surprised at how relaxed I was about it. In truth I had found that, while the Q-7 certainly doesn't come up to the quality of the K-30 in darkish times, it does quite well under sunlight (and several times I preferred my Q-7+01 over my Rebel in dark churches). From my experiences, I believe that a few things would make the Q a much better camera - I would welcome an EVF, WR, and a tilting LCD - but, frankly, its biggest issue right now is that no one knows about it. It is a much better camera than I realized when I purchased it ten months ago. I agree that Pentax sees more potential from MF, FF, and APS-C, but I believe they need to keep up the Q family, partly because it does have potential right now if people just knew about it, and partly because I believe Pentax needs to be completely familiar with current MILC technology just in case we reach a tipping point and suddenly APS-C (or even FF) camera sales are primarily MILC.