[gatorguy]

So this is a bit off-topic, but still SLR-related. A couple of decades ago I was contracted to produce a few dozen sand-blasted redwood signs for Kodak and Cypress Gardens. Cleaning up an area today I came across one of the sole remaining signs. Gosh those were good days for photography.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[AfterPentax Mark II]

So this is a bit off-topic, but still SLR-related. A couple of decades ago I was contracted to produce a few dozen sand-blasted redwood signs for Kodak and Cypress Gardens. Cleaning up an area today I came across one of the sole remaining signs. Gosh those were good days for photography.

This is off topic as well, but today I entered a chemist's shop and saw many packages wearing the Kodak logo on it and I thought I take a look. To my astonishment it were not film rolls, but razor blades....

Look here for an example: https://www.outspot.be/nl/Kodak-scheermes-met-20-vullingen

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Lens sales, other than what comes in a kit, tends to be one off sales that aren't repeated. I've already bought my DFA*50/1.4 and DFA*85/1.4 for example.

So you did buy TWO more or less expensive lenses! That was my point. Not just a kit with just a lens and that's it.

[Wheatfield]

So you did buy TWO more or less expensive lenses! That was my point. Not just a kit with just a lens and that's it.

I think the problem here is that you drew the wrong conclusion from your point.

[biz-engineer]

We are not talking about *collaborations* - which all manufacturers have done, look at Pentax with Tamron and Tokina.

Such Tamron Pentax collaboration was beneficial to Pentax, because Tamron already designed DSLR lenses for Canon and Nikon, such as the DFA 15-30 , DFA 24-70 and DFA 70-210. Won't be possible anymore without Canon & Nikon driving the DSLR market.

[Wheatfield]

Such Tamron Pentax collaboration was beneficial to Pentax, because Tamron already designed DSLR lenses for Canon and Nikon, such as the DFA 15-30 , DFA 24-70 and DFA 70-210. Won't be possible anymore without Canon & Nikon driving the DSLR market.

I suspect that we will find that a lot of the third party glass for mirrorless is going to be little more than SLR lenses with a built in extension tube to let them work on the short registration mounts.
Even if this isn't the case, it's not like as if Pentax is incapable of designing lenses. My experience is they are pretty good at it.
They've used Tamron in the past because it was easier than designing their own not because they can't do it.

[clackers]

Such Tamron Pentax collaboration was beneficial to Pentax, because Tamron already designed DSLR lenses for Canon and Nikon, such as the DFA 15-30 , DFA 24-70 and DFA 70-210. Won't be possible anymore without Canon & Nikon driving the DSLR market.

Exactly right. The economics no longer make it possible for both to make money.

It works the other way, too.

Tokina used to sell K mount lenses remounted for Canon and Nikon, such as the DA*50-135 and the DFA 100 Macro.

Most recently, it was the DFA*50, rebranded as the 'Opera'. Got some nice mentions in some reviews, too:

"Tokina Opera 50mm f1.4 in my personal opinion is one of the best lenses, not only of 50mm but in general that you can buy, with its phenomenal image sharpness and overall image quality, packed in a modern looking premium body and a logical price tag."

from Tokina Opera 50mm F/1.4 Review - Christophe Anagnostopoulos

But if a deal with Tokina helped the DFA*50 get built, they chose not to continue the agreement with the DFA*85 (no matter how good it is) and I'm sure they're not interested in the 35mm of the series (no matter how good it is, either). It will simply be finances, nothing personal, and nothing to do with quality or technology.

Sadly, primes have *always* been in the modern age of little interest to most photographers (see attached image) so economies of scale are really lost.

There's no anti-prime bias from me, I am mainly a prime shooter myself. Just being realistic.

Attached Images

 

---

Last edited by clackers; 07-28-2022 at 10:18 PM.

[clackers]

Has Pentax??

No, not that I'm aware of. Not to anyone.

As a result, most Sigma products are likely past the seven year discontinuing of support, so not even Sigma needs to supply a firmware update or spare part if one of their lenses needs it on K mount.

I have two Sigma K-mount lenses - both are apparently KAF lenses, at least they are screw-drive.

Yeah, I've got HSM ones, like the 150-500 and 35mm Art.

When I was a Canon user, I used a Sigma 10-20mm lens, which had an in-lens motor. I was thrilled to discover that there was a K-mount version of that lens …. but it has a screw-drive; apparently that was the easiest version for Sigma to reverse-engineer. I wonder if difficulties in reverse-engineering keeps others from porting EF-mount lenses to K-mount, because it should be easy to port a EF-mount lens to KAF4-mount once you know the ‘magic’ formula, and most firms have EF-mount versions by now.

I don't think it's too hard. Sigma even used to offer a service where you could take that EF 10-20mm, and they would replace the mount at the bottom, and you now had the K mount version.

So it's not the art of reverse engineering - you just need an oscilloscope.

It's the financial model.

Pentaxians were resistant to the Sigma 35mm Art (which, as said, I bought), perhaps because of the specialness of the FA31 Limited, and just didn't buy enough of them, so that was the last Art lens they ever made for us. Previously there had been the 30 Art and 18-35 Art for APS-C.

Sigma took the hint.

[biz-engineer]

Exactly right. The economics no longer make it possible for both to make money.

You're nicely avoiding the meaning of my sentence. But everyone understood clearly what I wrote anyway.

[hayavuk]

I've obtained a used K-1 a few weeks ago. I'm a HUGE fan. I've also purchased a used Nikon D200 for a hundred bucks a while back, and a D700 before that. Even though it's clear that the gear has advanced a bit since D200, the difference is not always as clear-cut as I'd imagined in the past. Even the 17-year-old D200 can take great pictures given the right conditions. The new gear just makes it a bit easier, and more forgiving. In some ways, gear has even gone backwards. I really enjoy how tonal gradations turn out on the old CCD sensor, for example.

I buy the gear for my own enjoyment, and I don't really care whether the manufacturers stop making the latest version of whatever it is that I own. The used market is a treasure trove of good and even amazing clicky-slappy gear and it just does not make sense for me to buy anything new at full retail price. Sure I don't mind it if my favorite brand comes up with something compelling. It gives me that fuzzy warm feeling of being on the winning team, but that's about as much impact it has on my photography.

For full-time pros it may be different. However, I don't know a single full-time pro that has ever depended on Pentax releasing new gear (there may be a few here on this forum, of course), and I'd seriously doubt their business sense if they did. Pentax is clearly going against the grain (which I really like and wholeheartedly applaud), and that has its price. My opinion is that for a full-time pro whose livelihood depends on the features offered by the latest gear, a mirrorless system from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, or Panasonic, probably makes much more business sense. If I were a pro, I'd probably just go with one of the major brands based on the local availability of accessories (e.g. can I even get a remote flash trigger for it?), parts, and the lens roadmap, rather than whether it's an SLR or not.

Of course, this is just my opinion guided by the slice of the world I see from where I'm sitting.

[jersey]

@hayavuk - yes, it is logical and even Pentax is supporting this (probably pissing off die hard Pentaxians). It is enough to see some of their latest promo movies where they talk about using DSLR alongside mirrorless by pros. DSLR is simply for enjoyment, for after work art experience. MILC is for hard work and earning money.

[hayavuk]

It is enough to see some of their latest promo movies where they talk about using DSLR alongside mirrorless by pros.

Saw that. I thought it was quite indicative of the direction in which Pentax wants to move, too.

[reh321]

Pentaxians were resistant to the Sigma 35mm Art (which, as said, I bought), perhaps because of the specialness of the FA31 Limited, and just didn't buy enough of them, so that was the last Art lens they ever made for us. Previously there had been the 30 Art ………

Sigma took the hint.

Maybe 35mm is just an awkward FL these days.
I tend to use zoom on my cameras these days, so I can adjust for situations.

[biz-engineer]

If Pentax is the only SLR maker, there will be no third party lenses. Pentax will have to follow suit.

Pentax will not be able to follow suit because the market is shrinking and as @ clackers explained, the marketing isn't big enough for third parties to make money with K mount lenses, Pentax won't be able to make money with k mount lenses either.

[weverka]

I don't believe that theory, I think the profits are in the camera bodies. The reason I think so is because I was looking for lens elements to design my own lenses, and I've found lens elements to be rather expensive compared to electronic components that are shared across industry boundaries. Lens elements are expensive, especially the aspherical elements, because they are made specifically for a camera lens. Modern lenses also contain AF motors, micro-mechanical assembly, an electronic printed circuit board. All this unique from lens to lens, takes R&D time to design and sold cheaper than camera bodies. The only advantage I see going for lenses is that they have long product life cycles, unless it's being decided to change the lens mount... which cut off the planned life cycle of a lens, hence cut into profit making ability of the lens.

I am interested in your lens design work. Modern glass catalogs lend themselves to different solutions than we had before, but it is expensive to add the low dispersion elements and sometimes more than the aspheres.

My last lens optimization put optical power near the sensor, which was particularly beneficial for a tight vignetting spec. That inspired this topic, since the mirrorless has a shorter distance to the sensor. However I had a look at mount to sensor distance in the mirrorless cameras and found it is not nearly as small as some of my designs. Is this due to fear of something hitting the sensor if it is too close to the front?

---------- Post added 07-29-22 at 08:19 AM ----------

Exactly right. The economics no longer make it possible for both to make money.

It works the other way, too.

Tokina used to sell K mount lenses remounted for Canon and Nikon, such as the DA*50-135 and the DFA 100 Macro.

Most recently, it was the DFA*50, rebranded as the 'Opera'. Got some nice mentions in some reviews, too:

"Tokina Opera 50mm f1.4 in my personal opinion is one of the best lenses, not only of 50mm but in general that you can buy, with its phenomenal image sharpness and overall image quality, packed in a modern looking premium body and a logical price tag."

from Tokina Opera 50mm F/1.4 Review - Christophe Anagnostopoulos

But if a deal with Tokina helped the DFA*50 get built, they chose not to continue the agreement with the DFA*85 (no matter how good it is) and I'm sure they're not interested in the 35mm of the series (no matter how good it is, either). It will simply be finances, nothing personal, and nothing to do with quality or technology.

Sadly, primes have *always* been in the modern age of little interest to most photographers (see attached image) so economies of scale are really lost.

There's no anti-prime bias from me, I am mainly a prime shooter myself. Just being realistic.

Interesting. I suppose a lot of customers see the zoom as a good substitute for buying an array of primes.
I sold my 24-70mm when I realized most of my shots with it were at the extremes of the focal lengths. I have primes that serve me better.