[ALLCAPS]

My biggest issue with the diminishing 3rd party lens production for pentax is that it removes the price pressure to keep pentax brand lenses affordable. To start we already have large price disparities between VERY similar Tokina and Pentax offerings. As the sigma supplies are already drying up for k-mount, will rokinon be next? Sans same mount competition i imagine each forthcoming lens from ricoh will be increasingly out of touch price wise.

[k1man]

Hi all, I have had Pentax cameras for more than 40 years now, from 6x7 645 film 35mm and now k7 k1 digital and have never needed any more lenses than Pentax produce so for me 3rd party lenses just don't interest me, thanks Ian

[Mr. Ed]

I currently have lots of lenses and only one that is not Pentax branded. An Sigma 170-500 bought for use with my PZ1. Can live without third party glass but not without Pentax glass.

[sjwoodworth]

I chose the Zeiss ZK Distagon 35mm f/2 and the Irix 150mm f/2.8 macro over Pentax OEM choices, and not exactly for cost. It’s nice to have choices and of course it hurts when other brands abandon the mount.

[Paul the Sunman]

I have only two non-Pentax K-mount lenses, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. I don't think anyone would claim that either of these is inferior to comparable Pentax lenses, but both were cheaper. So I definitely miss having 3rd party AF lens manufacturers in K-mount, and the point made by ALLCAPS about price pressure above is valid too.

The emerging reality of a very niche Pentax (both as a a brand and as a DSLR manufacturer) has brought us to this state, and it looks very unlikely to change. To me its a significant "con" when lining up the "pro" and "con" columns for Pentax, though it's not (primarily) of their making.

[lesmore49]

I want a very good lenses, that have been built for a particular brand of camera, and in my case that means Pentax...when it comes to lenses and bodies.

So far that philosophy has worked just fine for me, over a period of 50 + years.

Why would I change, given that I have no issues with the quality of Pentax equipment.

As a result, I don't care if aftermarket companies have cut out the K market.

[Tas]

The impact on DSLR systems with the transition to mirrorless is definitely noticeable when you look at new lens announcements.


I have 8 third party lenses I use with my K-1 and five Pentax lenses. I plan on more of the newer Pentax glass, but first I have to be out shooting more regularly to justify the expenditure on the latest D-FA* lenses.

The decline in third party support is most apparent in specialty lenses the super-teles and the tilt shift lenses etc. I think Pentax make good quality lens options for about 90+% of users but if you want a particular style of lens that is not available and no third parties are making that lens then you either don't get to practice a style of photography or consider dual systems, changing systems etc.

I don't think most Pentax users want a 600mm f4 or a tilt/shift lens, but some of us do. The only thing I've been disappointed with so far as third party lenses goes (other than Zeiss no longer supporting us) is the Sigma & Tamron 150-600 lenses not being made in K mount. Sure, I had to go with a 150-450 Pentax lens but that means I don't have that extra reach out to 600mm.

But that's just me, and as others have expressed each to their own.

Tas

[stevebrot]

Will this mean even less third party lenses for Pentax?

Probably the greatest determinant for both Pentax and third-party lenses coming to and staying on the market is the size, purchasing power, and "needs" of the K-mount owners. The existence of other mounts is actually a red herring. For example, in the early 1980s, there were about a dozen lens mounts with several variants per mount and dozens of third-party makers producing lenses for all mounts.

Supporting all that variety and volume was a consistent throng of new SLR owners who really wanted and needed at least a small quiver of lenses and who had money to satisfy those needs. That dynamic continued well into the 1990s.

What has changed since then is across the board decreased demand for cameras and lenses caused by a decrease in market size and increased interval between major purchases. The very fact that I went six years between my K10D purchase and the K-3 and the fact that during those six years, I spent about $1000 on new lenses from Japanese manufacturers, including two from Pentax tells a story. In the six years since I bought the K-3, I have only purchased one new (non-Pentax) lens for a total outlay of about $450. It is quite likely that a K-new purchase might result in ZERO new lens purchases for several years, a continuation of that story.

If my pattern is at all typical, it should be obvious that recruitment into the ILC camera world, and Pentax in particular, is essential for continued choice at attractive points for both price and performance.


Steve

[Gray]

I own two very good Sigma lenses: the HSM 8-16 and HSM 50-500. The 8-16 alone justifies me hauling a heavy Pentax camera thousands of feet and many miles into the mountains. It's a superb and unique lens. Since I got it eight years ago, I've hardly used the DA 15 Limited. The only downsides are that it doesn't have a filter thread, but the in-mount clip filters by STC work very well, and it's not weather sealed. The 8-16 beats the DA 15 always (except for it's lovely starbursts in the SMC version).

[Papa_Joe]

There allready is no 3rd party manufacturer for K-mount AF lenses anymore.
There are only MF lenses to aquire new.


Very sad from my point of view, as Pentax has a very limited range of lenses, which lacks a lot in some departments.

[ThorSanchez]

Competition and choice are always good. It's never a positive thing when you are forced to go to one manufacturer for everything, even if most of their products are very good.

[Frater]

Very sad from my point of view, as Pentax has a very limited range of lenses, which lacks a lot

Monopoly effects, esp. monopoly prices, are the other major system spoiler. Even Fuji X, which have achieved a much broader and more consistent lens coverage than Pentax, in only a fraction of time, "suffer" a lot from such monopoly effects / monopoly prices. If they had full 3rd party support, with increased choice, and regulated price levels, then Fuji would command a major part of the camera world today.

Nikon Z may be running into similar problems (uncertain yet). Sony seems to demonstrate, how important openness can be for a system to thrive, which in turn attracts more 3rd party efforts. So that a win/win iteration loop starts to kick off between 1st and 3rd parties to lead them onto a mutual growth path. I'm surprised, that everyone else in the industry is so reluctant / too short-sighted to learn from success stories.

[ALLCAPS]

Sony seems to demonstrate, how important openness can be for a system to thrive, which in turn attracts more 3rd party efforts.

The intriguing part about this is how hard this lesson was for Sony to learn. Betamax and the "Memory Stick" were superior media formats to their competitors. They were relegated to the fringe by Sony's hard hand in licensing and regulating how the technology would be employed. Openness would have yielded market success yet the rigid doctrine they employed ensured failure.