[Asahiflex]

I certainly hope Pentax will never offer "plastic fantastic" primes. They haven't done that in the past and I see no reason for them to do that in the future. I don't understand why everyone wants Pentax to be a "me-too" brand, following in the footsteps of Canon. Why don't you all buy a cheap SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7? Way better built than the Canon 50/1.8 and faster too. For a bit more convenience you can buy the SMC Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7.

Pentax is all about superb top-quality primes. We should cease to think of Pentax as a budget brand.

[Wheatfield]

I certainly hope Pentax will never offer "plastic fantastic" primes. They haven't done that in the past and I see no reason for them to do that in the future. I don't understand why everyone wants Pentax to be a "me-too" brand, following in the footsteps of Canon. Why don't you all buy a cheap SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7? Way better built than the Canon 50/1.8 and faster too. For a bit more convenience you can buy the SMC Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7.

Pentax is all about superb top-quality primes. We should cease to think of Pentax as a budget brand.

This goes back to the disservice Pentax did itself over the past couple of decades by pursuing the cheap and cheerful market rather than having equipment out there that cost real money.
Now that their market is a teacup in a swimming pool they have to deal with what they have attracted.

[kevinschoenmakers]

Pentax is all about superb top-quality primes. We should cease to think of Pentax as a budget brand.

I think the DA-L zooms prove you wrong. Pentax is definitely after the budget buyer, whether you like it or not. I think a cheap prime will help introduce all those people Pentax won over with the K-x to primes. Hypothetically, when these photographers on a budget realise how much better your photos look with an optically good prime (because, a plastic mount will not mean the pictures look any worse), they will be more willing to spend those hundreds of dollars for a limited.

You name an M or an A lens as a substitute, but the percentage of people who are willing to put up with manual focus is small. Granted, many people on this forum still have these lenses (so do I), but I'm sure that overall we are the minority.

I don't see why everyone is so furiously against cheap primes. As long as they are optically sound I don't see why this would harm Pentax as a brand in any way. It would introduce people to primes and it would be an instant best seller as well. Finally, I don't think what you want Pentax to be is what Pentax wants Pentax to be.

[Asahiflex]

This goes back to the disservice Pentax did itself over the past couple of decades by pursuing the cheap and cheerful market rather than having equipment out there that cost real money.
Now that their market is a teacup in a swimming pool they have to deal with what they have attracted.

I know, even in the Spotmatic era they sold most of their Takumar lenses at a loss.

[MrPetkus]

How is that too cheap? CaNikon manage just fine with lenses that cost even less.

For how much did the FA50/1.4 sell before the current inflation? It's currently hovering around $360. Don't remember the original price.

[Asahiflex]

I think the DA-L zooms prove you wrong. Pentax is definitely after the budget buyer, whether you like it or not. I think a cheap prime will help introduce all those people Pentax won over with the K-x to primes. Hypothetically, when these photographers on a budget realise how much better your photos look with an optically good prime (because, a plastic mount will not mean the pictures look any worse), they will be more willing to spend those hundreds of dollars for a limited.

I think those photographers on a budget wil still be on a strict budget after the purchase of such a cheap DA-L 50mm f/1.7 (for example). Rather than buying a more expensive prime I think they'll want Pentax to design and sell even more cheap primes. It's not gonna work... IMHO. It will devaluate the brand.

You name an M or an A lens as a substitute, but the percentage of people who are willing to put up with manual focus is small. Granted, many people on this forum still have these lenses (so do I), but I'm sure that overall we are the minority.

We aren't the minority. In my country we have a big 2nd hand online marketplace, "Marktplaats", owned by eBay. Lots of Pentax stuff is being sold there, and each and every old Pentax SLR there is sold to a new owner. I really believe that all of those buyers are DSLR owners wanting the standard lens that's mounted on the camera.

I don't see why everyone is so furiously against cheap primes. As long as they are optically sound I don't see why this would harm Pentax as a brand in any way. It would introduce people to primes and it would be an instant best seller as well. Finally, I don't think what you want Pentax to be is what Pentax wants Pentax to be.

Well, if Pentax wants it then they will. But I honestly believe it will do Pentax no good at all. It only attracts more cheapskates wanting more cheap primes. Again, IMHO.

[kevinschoenmakers]

People on a budget doens't mean people who are poor. Look at it like this. You're new to photography. With Pentax that means you've got a K-x and probably the DAL18-55 and the DAL50-200. You kind of like it, but you're not sure you want to spend all your hard earned money on this new hobby just yet. You see that, next to the cheap kitlenses, there's one other lens that's not really that expensive. You decide to buy it because people on the internet say it's a lot better than the lenses you already own, and, again, it doesn't cost all that much. You find out the pictures you make with that lens are far, far better looking than the ones you made with the cheap zooms. You get DOF control, great resolution, the lot. Now I might be interested in sinking 500 dollars into an even superior limited prime, otherwise, I don't think I would be quite so willing to invest that much into something I'm not sure I'll enjoy.

Also, imagine Pentax with only expensive gear. Where are the new Pentax users going to come from? People changing brand are just a trickle. Pentax needs to be interesting for people who are new to serious cameras. Young people who haven't got a lot to spend, and people who don't quite know for sure they wish to spend a lot of money on camera equipment.

[kevinschoenmakers]

Also, lenses bought off of Markplaats or eBay aren't making Pentax any money. I've got an A50mmf1.7. I love it, but the second a relatively cheap, auto-focus, digital-coated equivalent hits the stores I'm ordering one. People, like yourself apparently, who are more interested in getting the absolute top of the line can get the DA*55. I'm a student, I really can't afford to buy a full kit of €400+ lenses.

[Asahiflex]

Also, lenses bought off of Markplaats or eBay aren't making Pentax any money. I've got an A50mmf1.7. I love it, but the second a relatively cheap, auto-focus, digital-coated equivalent hits the stores I'm ordering one. People, like yourself apparently, who are more interested in getting the absolute top of the line can get the DA*55. I'm a student, I really can't afford to buy a full kit of €400+ lenses.

You are beginning to convince me

As a matter of fact I have *just* bought a 2nd hand DA* 55/1.4, only seconds ago, from Belgium

(Actually Pentax isn't making money from me too ).

[audiobomber]

For how much did the FA50/1.4 sell before the current inflation? It's currently hovering around $360. Don't remember the original price.

It was $199 at B&H and Adorama for a couple of years before the jump. FA 35 was $299. That's what I paid for them.

[tokyoso]

It's strange, it looks like the 50mm f1.8 has a metal mount, but I don't think it actually has one:



EDIT: I just checked with a friend, she just bought one a week ago and it has a plastic mount.

Canon EF 50 1.8 II has plastic mount. It's comparable to a DA L in build quality.

FA 50's are not plastic mounted, but the other parts feel equally cheap, especially the focus ring but thats probably not the main utility since its AF version. The F series is understandable worse in build quality compared to FA.

I have not tried a FA 50 1.7 lense, but it seemed to have been discontinued due to poor sales. FA 50 1.4 is a better lens than Canon 50 1.8 no doubt about it. But I've seen a lot of quality images posted with 50 1.8, very shallow DOF. I would have bought one if its available in pentax mount.

[tokyoso]

This goes back to the disservice Pentax did itself over the past couple of decades by pursuing the cheap and cheerful market rather than having equipment out there that cost real money.
Now that their market is a teacup in a swimming pool they have to deal with what they have attracted.

Thats a great point. Why build a cheap entry level K-x, best bang for the buck on the market? And then turn around to sell only expensive primes?

K-x with DA L lenses are great quality for the money, but doesnt it make more sense to follow up with a cheap prime or two to totally annihilate Canon in the entry level market? For old manual primes canon mount is still more adaptable if youre into various legacy lens collecting.

[Aristophanes]

Thats a great point. Why build a cheap entry level K-x, best bang for the buck on the market? And then turn around to sell only expensive primes?

K-x with DA L lenses are great quality for the money, but doesnt it make more sense to follow up with a cheap prime or two to totally annihilate Canon in the entry level market? For old manual primes canon mount is still more adaptable if youre into various legacy lens collecting.

Primes are NOT "entry-level". Their appeal is for compactness, but zooms rule for the consumer by and large. Primes have their place, but some zooms match primes for IQ, especially for the pro crowd (Nikon's FF line, for example).

The paradox of the prime is that its appeal is largely to the dedicated prosumer who also wants cachet as well as performance. Primes are all about getting exceptional performance in a relatively inexpensive design, maximizing margins. A simple optical formula can be value-added with Limited add-ons that realistically, may be unnecessary for optical performance.

What is odd about Pentax is they came out with a WR kit lens system, then took the entry level WR body out of production (the K200D). A K-x with WR and visible AF points, 1080p 30fps video, with dedicated video and SR buttons would be the bomb. Add a 55-300 WR and you are done for distancing from Canikon.

[Wheatfield]

Thats a great point. Why build a cheap entry level K-x, best bang for the buck on the market? And then turn around to sell only expensive primes?

K-x with DA L lenses are great quality for the money, but doesnt it make more sense to follow up with a cheap prime or two to totally annihilate Canon in the entry level market? For old manual primes canon mount is still more adaptable if youre into various legacy lens collecting.

Most K-x buyers are taking the kit zoom and they are done. Or they might buy a 50-300 and they are done.
Prime lenses tend to not be bought by entry level buyers, though I realize that there is a % of enthusiasts out there who will buy a K-x.
And, there is no way in hell that Pentax will ever annihilate anyone in the entry level or any other level market. They don't have the stones to do it with now.
And, before Pentax makes any cheap and cheerful primes to satisfy the needs of people who should have bought Rebels, they need to flesh out the lens line they are working on now.
That means at least 3 lenses, and probably more like 5 before they can even think about doubling up on focal lengths with new lenses.

[Blue]

. . .

What is odd about Pentax is they came out with a WR kit lens system, then took the entry level WR body out of production (the K200D). A K-x with WR and visible AF points, 1080p 30fps video, with dedicated video and SR buttons would be the bomb. Add a 55-300 WR and you are done for distancing from Canikon.

I agree there. Some people definitely didn't have their heads and asses wired up when they came up with that. Then they started pushing the WR 18-55mm with the K-7.