[Plywoo]

I am quite new to Pentax: I switched when the K-3 appeared, leaving Canon and a range that didn't satisfy my needs. I guess I still have quite a 'fresh' point on view about what is going on. Besides, I have never been a 'fanboy' of any brand.

Ok so there have been loads of reactions after the Photokina, many negative. For my part, I was really worried about Pentax, but I think they chosed the right direction and there is hope. I add my personal timeline, as it can help newcomers to make a choice:

I wanted to upgrade from my Canon 550D, being quite unhappy about a number of things (colors quality and permanent blown highlights, entry-level lenses poorly constructed etc). Unfortunately, the Canon range was hopeless: slightly better Rebel cameras (nothing that justifies an upgrade), an APS-C flagship even older than my 550 (2009!!), and a full-frame, with a decent sensor in an entry-level, limited plastic body. Nikon seemed better (7100), Fuji not yet at DSLR-level. After checking every single review of about everything on the market, I chosed Pentax and the K5-IIs.

(BTW, any critic on a Canon camera on the forums ends up on an infuriating flood of 'But you just don't know how to use it', making really honest reviews few and far between - I just hate this type of community. PentaxForums appears to be surprisingly mature and unbiased, not hiding the flaws under the fanboy carpet. That's quite exceptional!).

1) The K-3 suddenly appears out of nowhere, and after a time of reflection, I decided to go for it, event with a higher price tag. Looking forward to have tiny Limited lenses, plus a 18-135 for general purposes and having at least one WR lens. I wasn't disappointed, awesome camera, awesome lenses (even the zoom, much better, sturdier and smaller than I expected). Looking forward for the HD Limited! Because HD means High Definition right?

2) The HD Limited get their first reviews. This was quite a blow. The HD name was just marketing b******t, as we just got exactly the same lenses, but with a different color and a minuscule coating improvement.... And a large price increase! HD, really?? I felt that Pentax/Ricoh was seriously taking its customers for fools. I expected maybe a faster 40mm, a better 21mm, WR, or general optical quality improvements. Nothing. Unsurprisingly, there was a rush online to purchase the stocks of 15, 35 and 70mm. I just barely got one of the very last 'non-HD' 35mm before it was too late. But I suddenly started to wonder if I made the right choice. Wait and see. (Unsurprisingly, there wasn't any rush for the 40mm 2.8. Loved by hardcore Pentaxians, but not by the mass, including myself). I have now the 18-135, the 15mm, the 35mm macro.

3) With a decrease in price, the HD limited started to be less shocking. Ok, if the price isn't much higher than the original Limited, it's acceptable. Then the new 55-300 appeared. Adding the WR was a nice improvement, although not a new lens. I might buy it one day, it's much better than its Sigma/Tamron (and I must say Canon) equivalents.

4) The 20-40. Finally a new lens! The first real new lens. Aaaand... it's almost a dud Of course you can take great pictures with it. But so can my phone. A lens that isn't much better than a basic Sigma zoom sold for 1 grand! Yes, there's the metal construction, the WR, the small size. But the reason to buy a lens is first how much picture quality you get for the price. The mechanical qualities come afterwards, IF the optics are good enough. The awesome 18-35 from Sigma is much cheaper, and it's not a cheap lens. I keep my 18-135! The 20-40 is not a bad lens at all, simply the price factor due to the Limited construction makes it irrelevant: High-quality lens with really average optics. When I look at the Fuji lenses (good optics, fast, well-built and decently priced), I wonder what Pentax really hopes to achieve with this guy. My opinion is, it's a waste of resources for Pentax as it costs money to conceive and produce, and it will never sell much.

This zoom opens questions: Is Pentax still able to do great lenses like the Limited, the DA31mm, the 60-250 (or even good compromises like the 18-135)? And is it really that hard to add the WR to the Limited? After all, the form factor is exactly what you expect from a limited that can zoom. The WR addition didn't seem to need a size factor increase. I am starting to wonder if my Pentax adventure will continue after the K-3... The roadmap shows new lenses coming. Hoping for something actually attractive. These new lenses will show if Pentax can still produce something good (the K-3 improvements come probably from the Ricoh technology after all).

5) The 645Z. Again, great camera, so no doubt about Pentax/Ricoh ability for bodies. It's not for me, but if it is successful (and it seems to be), it's very good news for Pentax.

Now the Photokina. Full-frame or not?

a) I think that the full-frame format is the future, as cheap cameras don't sell anymore. But it doesn't have to be issued right now! I think that they need first to make their flagship more attractive, by having a more consistent range of (good) lenses. Then, once Pentax is back in the hype, the FF will make the brand even more attractive. The K-3 is awesome, nobody doubts it. But roughly one year after it was unveiled, not much good happened lens-wise, apart from adding joints in the 55-300. In the same period, Sigma, Fuji and Sony have improved massively.

b) The LED-thingy new DSLR looks ridiculous to me. But maybe this is because I am European, and therefore I like no-nonsense designs? Maybe it will appeal to different markets with different aesthetic cultures. I hope so. Otherwise, it's just ruining a decent DSLR.

c) The mirrorless market: The Pentax offer in this range is more fun-oriented than pixel-peepers oriented. It's a concept that sells better in Asia where photography is still a lot for fun. In Europe (and probably in the US), people prefer stuff that look pro than stuff that look funny, at least for photography. I have little opinion on it. Unless Pentax unveils one day a Q (or rather R?) with the K3's sensor and a K mount. Now that might get my attention

d) The two new zooms. This is where I got hope again. In the end of the day, I was worried about Pentax (and my choice to switch) because of the lenses and what happened in one year. For me, the 20-40, the HD, that wasn't great at all. If now Pentax can issue a good 70-200 f2.8, it can be a game-changer; in my opinion this is THE missing lens.

We have the small Limited (great, but not too fast by nature), really decent entry-level zooms (18-135, 55-300), good but slow and slightly outdated telephotos, and a collection of totally outdated zooms with an ill-reputation of burning AF motors. Oh, and very nice cheap primes (50mm 1.8 if almost fast enough). And FF FA primes, good but very expensive. Plus a few interesting oddballs. Globally, a pretty comprehensive but very messy range, with price gaps (** bad, unclear example with the 55mm removed, my bad ^^' **). Most gaps are filled by Sigma/Tamron though but it's not ideal, for the usual AF glitches that can happen. Like the 30mm f1.4, the 18-35 f1.8 (and of course the 70-200 f2.8 Tammy).

Getting rid of the old zooms is apparently on the way: the standard zooms are covered (plus one more 16-85 soon), and a very likely 70-200 f2.8 is coming, along with a large telephoto. That's pretty good, at least on paper. If those two lenses actually deliver, the lenses range will be much more consistent.

I am optimistic because unlike the 20-40 limited, these guys don't seem to compromise: They look big, like 'as big as they need to be', which means that the optical quality was the main objective. That's very good, we were missing non-compromise lenses. We already have plenty that sacrifice fastness for the benefit of a small size. Wait and see!

Oh and for the full-frame part: I think it's actually coming this time. Why would Pentax plan to revamp the DA otherwise ? (I don't recall where I read that news though).

Bottom-line: if the zooms deliver, my opinion is that Pentax will be slowly more and more convincing. But they better not mess up this one, otherwise, the doom might become true.

Thanks to the ones who were patient enough to read this long, ranty post. As a reminder, this is the personal opinion of somebody who just came from Canon, and doesn't have any attachment to any brand.

---

Last edited by Plywoo; 09-21-2014 at 10:39 AM.

[MJSfoto1956]

well said! As a long-time (and current) Nikon owner I agree with pretty much everything you said.

Michael

[VisualDarkness]

They look big, like 'as big as they need to be',

Well, it's a compromise. People on this site often complain about the 16-50/2.8, 55/1.4 and 50-135/2.8 are all too big and heavy for them and that kind of sets the playground for lens design.

I won't put 700 bucks on a 55mm 1.4

Why not? It's priced slightly higher than the Canon 50/1.4 it beats optically, buildwise and is WR and it's half price of Canons only WR option in the 50/1.2. The FA 50/1.4 sells for exactly the same as the Canon 50/1.4.

The main problem for Pentax is that they are working in the shadow of two giants. When being in the shadow you have to differentiate yourself from the big ones to stand a chance, mere copying is a death sentence. There is a reason that Olympys and Panasonic went with the smaller sensor, that Fuji went for the neo-rangefinder and that Sony pushed the SLT design, they all needed to be different from the big ones.

Pentax have been the "large image quality in a traditional but small package" for a long long time now and even if they decide to change direction it will take time. The only thing I really care about personally is "do I have everything I need now at the moment?", when I need something in the future the market might look really different from today anyway.

[monochrome]

If you think about it, Ricoh is doing two things simultaneously:

1. Designing, manufacturing and selling high quality, traditional camera equipment to people who know, understand and appreciate the qualities of the old Pentax brand of equipment -
   1. That group of customers appears to be aged in the 50's - 70's, especially in the West and Japan, who are at or near the end of their acquiringing lives
   2. Their time horizon for this group is a rolling 20 calendar quarters
2. Establishing a freshened brand identity based on the same core quality values, targeted to develop a long-term affinity relationship with younger buyers.
   1. Their time horizon for this group is 20 or more years.

They've really just begun releasing products under this dual-path strategy. I'd consider the WG-4, Q7 and K-3 the start markers. Q-S1, K-S1 and WG-M1 are clear steps down the divergent paths.

[Aristophanes]

WR and the pancake primes don't go well together.

Pentax sticks to IBIS and works for more compact lenses. This will be what keeps APS-C chugging. The 20-40 is a case in point.

[Stavri]

And FF FA primes, good but very expensive. Plus a few interesting oddballs. Globally, a pretty comprehensive but very messy range, with price gaps (there are fast lenses, but... I won't put 700 bucks on a 55mm 1.4. )

I'm sorry to nitpick, I read your op'ed and I agree with a some things to varying degree. The DA*55mm 1.4 is a brilliant lens, there's no two ways about it. An f1.4 lens usable at f1.8 onward its worth its weight in gold (and the rendering is just gorgeous). (My Sigma EX 50mm f1.4 rendering seems jaundiced, and Pentax -F 50mm f1.4 cannot go close to the DA* 55 performance wide open)

With the new larger zooms, and projected new rumored limited lenses coming up for the full frame Dslr it's a very exciting time to be a Pentax shooter.

[Plywoo]

Well, it's a compromise. People on this site often complain about the 16-50/2.8, 55/1.4 and 50-135/2.8 are all too big and heavy for them and that kind of sets the playground for lens design.


Why not? It's priced slightly higher than the Canon 50/1.4 it beats optically, buildwise and is WR and it's half price of Canons only WR option in the 50/1.2. The FA 50/1.4 sells for exactly the same as the Canon 50/1.4.

The main problem for Pentax is that they are working in the shadow of two giants. When being in the shadow you have to differentiate yourself from the big ones to stand a chance, mere copying is a death sentence. There is a reason that Olympys and Panasonic went with the smaller sensor, that Fuji went for the neo-rangefinder and that Sony pushed the SLT design, they all needed to be different from the big ones.

Pentax have been the "large image quality in a traditional but small package" for a long long time now and even if they decide to change direction it will take time. The only thing I really care about personally is "do I have everything I need now at the moment?", when I need something in the future the market might look really different from today anyway.

Well for the 55mm it's really just me not wanting to put that much, because I seldom use it. My 50mm 1.8 is good enough, but I realize that I forgot about the 50mm FA 1.4, which is still available and fills the gap between the super-cheap and the 55mm. Sorry, bad example!

---------- Post added 09-21-14 at 10:40 AM ----------

I'm sorry to nitpick, I read your op'ed and I agree with a some things to varying degree. The DA*55mm 1.4 is a brilliant lens, there's no two ways about it. An f1.4 lens usable at f1.8 onward its worth its weight in gold (and the rendering is just gorgeous). (My Sigma EX 50mm f1.4 rendering seems jaundiced, and Pentax -F 50mm f1.4 cannot go close to the DA* 55 performance wide open)

With the new larger zooms, and projected new rumored limited lenses coming up for the full frame Dslr it's a very exciting time to be a Pentax shooter.

I removed the part about the 55mm, it wasn't what I meant, I wasn't clear sorry!

[VisualDarkness]

No problem, I just wanted to make clear that it fits pretty nicely in-between the offerings on the market.

The problem with fast lenses in that they get big (or extremely expensive due to exotic glass needed to get smaller) to be optically excellent. People are complaining about the fast Sigmas all being too large and heavy. Pentax simply collected a userbase sensitive to gear size (sounds bad) over the years and they won't buy the big lenses and prying the big and heavy glass guys from Canikon will be hard.

So Pentax basically have had two options the last couple of years, sacrifice speed to make smaller lenses or putting out a new mount to make smaller fast lenses possible. The problem with a new mount is that you risk alienating the old userbase so you can't rely on them and breaking new grounds with huge investments is always risky.

[Plywoo]

No problem, I just wanted to make clear that it fits pretty nicely in-between the offerings on the market.

The problem with fast lenses in that they get big (or extremely expensive due to exotic glass needed to get smaller) to be optically excellent. People are complaining about the fast Sigmas all being too large and heavy. Pentax simply collected a userbase sensitive to gear size (sounds bad) over the years and they won't buy the big lenses and prying the big and heavy glass guys from Canikon will be hard.

So Pentax basically have had two options the last couple of years, sacrifice speed to make smaller lenses or putting out a new mount to make smaller fast lenses possible. The problem with a new mount is that you risk alienating the old userbase so you can't rely on them and breaking new grounds with huge investments is always risky.

Putting out a new mount? Well I know that faster lenses=bigger lenses, but is there really a limitation or constraint with the K mount regarding the aperture? I mean there are a few f1.4 in the lineup.

I really don't think Pentax should sacrifice the compatibility. And an hypothetic FF body wouldn't be very welcome it the existing FA wouldn't work on it.

---------- Post added 09-21-14 at 11:15 AM ----------

Putting out a new mount? Well I know that faster lenses=bigger lenses, but is there really a limitation or constraint with the K mount regarding the aperture? I mean there are a few f1.4 in the lineup.

I really don't think Pentax should sacrifice the compatibility. And an hypothetic FF body wouldn't be very welcome it the existing FA wouldn't work on it.

I mean small AND fast would be pushing it a bit, I'm fine with small lenses, and large faster lenses. Having this choice is good enough for me.

[VisualDarkness]

It has to do with the mount to sensor distance, it's easier to design smaller fast lenses for a shorter mount.

[Plywoo]

It has to do with the mount to sensor distance, it's easier to design smaller fast lenses for a shorter mount.

Ok I see. Good to know.

[karro]

I wonder about the obsession with uuber fast lenses.
I mean, I can barely manage f/2.8 on aps-c sensor - DOF-wise, I had 50/1.4 on my PZ-1p back in film days and it was slightly nightmarish to use it wide open, I mean, the DOF is practically non-existent, I ended up selling it and never felt any remorse.
OK, you can stop down to, say, 2.0 or 2.8, and the lens will behave better, since it seems quite common for lenses to perform better when stopped down a little, but if this is it.. probably we're approaching the issue from the wrong angle.

imagine 200mm/2.0 at 10 feet - if Online Depth of Field Calculator works properly, the depth of field is 18mm. less than 2/3''. 200/1.8 at the same length is a bit over 15mm. at 8ft, it's less than 10mm. which photographic applications require that?

[VisualDarkness]

The latest Pentax anti-size thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/272778-pent...-please-6.html

[Plywoo]

I wonder about the obsession with uuber fast lenses.
I mean, I can barely manage f/2.8 on aps-c sensor - DOF-wise, I had 50/1.4 on my PZ-1p back in film days and it was slightly nightmarish to use it wide open, I mean, the DOF is practically non-existent, I ended up selling it and never felt any remorse.
OK, you can stop down to, say, 2.0 or 2.8, and the lens will behave better, since it seems quite common for lenses to perform better when stopped down a little, but if this is it.. probably we're approaching the issue from the wrong angle.

imagine 200mm/2.0 at 10 feet - if Online Depth of Field Calculator works properly, the depth of field is 18mm. less than 2/3''. 200/1.8 at the same length is a bit over 15mm. at 8ft, it's less than 10mm. which photographic applications require that?

You were using the 1.4 on a film camera, which means a much shallower DOF than on an APS-C due to the 35mm film size (full-frame). 1.4 on FF/35mm film is totally overkill, although it might give 'interesting' artistic results ^^'

2.0 is fast enough to have a very blurry bokeh, but let's not forget that the DOF depends essentially on the distance to the subject: even at 1.4 you can have a decent DOF if the subject in focus isn't too close. With the benefit of the light tap open very wide (if the lens is good at 1.4, which isn't so common). I only have one fast lens (50mm 1.8), and it's fast enough for me.

Then there is the focal length (which in this regard is roughly like being a bit further from the subject). I had the Sigma 20mm 1.8 on my Canon, and the DOF wasn't that shallow. On a telephoto, in the other hand, wider than 2.8 is probably useless. The 200mm 2.8 is probably shallower than a 50mm 1.8 (I don't have the figures). It's pretty nice to isolate the subject in action photography, and allows for really fast exposures. You need fast exposures with 200mm+. But 2.0 or less would be probably useless.

2.0 to 1.4 isn't useless on an APS-C, it's perfect for night pictures and it allows some funky DOF effects (I must admit, even if I love making 'serious', great pictures, I still love making dorky pictures as well! To each his own.)