[Pål Jensen]

Why would a Pentax 135mm f/1.8 cost $500 more than a Zeiss 135mm f/1.8? .

No idea. But we were able to ask this question (about the viability of a new version of the A* 135/1.8) to Jun Hirakawa (the designer) about ten years ago. He said it wasn't viable cause it would cost at least $1600. That was ten years ago; do the math....

[dnaseigel]

No idea. But we were able to ask this question (about the viability of a new version of the A* 135/1.8) to Jun Hirakawa (the designer) about ten years ago. He said it wasn't viable cause it would cost at least $1600. That was ten years ago; do the math....

And ten years ago dollars were worth something. I shudder to think what the price tag would be now.

[ewalk]

In september at Photokina we will see a couple of new lenses and new aps-c bodys and the 645 with new lenses.
Also Tokina shows new lenses,and some glass in coproduction with pentax.
It looks like,that the DA*16-50 is going to be out of production,will see whats coming up for that.
Hope they bring a new one.

Best regards,Andy

Out of all the people on the forum, I trust zackspeed.

[Winder]

No idea. But we were able to ask this question (about the viability of a new version of the A* 135/1.8) to Jun Hirakawa (the designer) about ten years ago. He said it wasn't viable cause it would cost at least $1600. That was ten years ago; do the math....

Yes, that was 10 years ago, and a lot has changed in the last 10 years. 10 years ago Pentax was not part of Hoya. 10 years ago Pentax did not have an APS-C digital camera.

If Pentax can not produce lenses for less than Zeiss then Pentax has some serious problems.

As an Olympus user my frustration has always been with the bodies not living up to the phenomenal glass (like the 150mm f/2) and the lack of smaller fast primes. With Pentax I really like the K-7 body (it is what I expected my E-3 to be), but I look at the lenses and it is pretty disappointing. The only Pentax lens that I plan to buy in the near future is the new 100mm macro, but I will be buying the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 before that. The Tamron 28-75 and 70-200 are good examples of lenses that are optically very good, but not expensive, and I would buy both of those before buying a Pentax zoom. The Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro (not available for Pentax) is also an exceptional lens that is not very expensive.

[bdery]

I certainly hope Pentax will begin plugging the many holes in its lens lineup

I've heard that a lot, but honestly I don't see those "gaping holes". The lineup can always be improve, and let's hope it is, but are there that many useful focal lengths (not talking about 600 mm and such, those are too particular to count) that are not covered?

We now have

10-17
12-24
16-50
17-70
18-55
50-200
55-300
60-250
50-135
14
15
21
31
35
40
43
49
50
55
70
77
100
200
300

I'm sure I'm missing many. That list isn't all that horrible, I'd say.

Perfect? No. Gaping holes? Noooo.

[Mike.P®]

I'm sure I'm missing many. That list isn't all that horrible, I'd say.

Perfect? No. Gaping holes? Noooo.

To be honest I find it incredible that a company such as Pentax with it's history of camera and lens manufacture over the years has a 300mm f4 as it's longest (and fastest) lens.

[Asahiflex]

To be honest I find it incredible that a company such as Pentax with it's history of camera and lens manufacture over the years has a 300mm f4 as it's longest (and fastest) lens.

You find it incredible? I find it a bloody shame, actually.

OTOH, the current tele lenses are SO much better and SO much more complex than the tele lenses back then, which were hardly more than drainpipes with a few elements and an aperture inside. Nowadays we demand ED glass, SDM motors, weather sealing... That all adds up to the price.

[Inspector 17]

I've heard that a lot, but honestly I don't see those "gaping holes". The lineup can always be improve, and let's hope it is, but are there that many useful focal lengths (not talking about 600 mm and such, those are too particular to count) that are not covered?

We now have

10-17
12-24...

...14
15
21

31
35
40
43
49
50
55
70
77
100
200
300

I'm sure I'm missing many. That list isn't all that horrible, I'd say.

Perfect? No. Gaping holes? Noooo.

I think that 21 to 31 is a gaping hole

Also an intermediate between 100 and 300 is usually provided in most product lines

and 400 and above

[Andi Lo]

I think that 21 to 31 is a gaping hole

Also an intermediate between 100 and 300 is usually provided in most product lines

and 400 and above

Anyone who REALLY needs something between those two lenses probably already own the Sigma equivalent, imho.

[Pål Jensen]

Yes, that was 10 years ago, and a lot has changed in the last 10 years. 10 years ago Pentax was not part of Hoya. 10 years ago Pentax did not have an APS-C digital camera.

If Pentax can not produce lenses for less than Zeiss then Pentax has some serious problems..

Everything have change for the worse. Hoya demand profit. The yen is stronger. The dollar is weaker. And Pentax was prone to have loss leaders; my guess that most of their exotic glass was. And what has APS-C to do with it? It is no cheaper to design a APS lens of a 135/1.8 as a FF; in fact they are identical.
You have no idea what this lens cost Zeiss or what calculations lies behind its price.
The people wanting the lenses with sales potential globally of 200 units are often the same who whine about a ~$50 price increase and stick to kit lenses and third party lenses and spend two years trying to save $32 on their DSLR purchase...

[Winder]

We now have
10-17
12-24
16-50
17-70
18-55
50-200
55-300
60-250
50-135
14
15
21
31
35
40
43
49
50
55
70
77
100
200
300

I'm sure I'm missing many. That list isn't all that horrible, I'd say.

Perfect? No. Gaping holes? Noooo.

Why have a 40, 43, 49, 50, & 55mm? A 14mm & a 15mm?

The line-up needs to be cleaned up and the really good primes need to be updated with modern coating. Keep the all metal construction. Why is the 77mm a f/1.8 lens? It is very soft at f/1.8, and suffers from a significant amount of vignetting & CA. Make it an f/2.4 and save the money or design it so that it is an excellent lens at f/1.8. These older film era lenses need to be improved if they are going to be used on high density digital sensors.

I would prefer a list that looked like this:
15mm f/4
20mm f/4
28mm f/1.4
35mm f/1.4
43mm f/1.4
55mm f/1.4
75mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.4 (update the old FA 85mm)
100mm Macro f/2.8
135mm f/2
150mm f/2
200mm f/2.8
300mm f/4
400mm f/4

I think this is a much more marketable selection of lenses.

Bring back the 28-70 f/2.8 and the 80-200 f/2.8. Used copies are going to well over $1,000 dollars, and plenty of people are buying the Tamron and Sigma versions for use on APS-C bodies. There is obviously a market for them and the design work is 99% done. Just update them for digital.

[zackspeed]

To be honest I find it incredible that a company such as Pentax with it's history of camera and lens manufacture over the years has a 300mm f4 as it's longest (and fastest) lens.

still

[Pål Jensen]

Why is the 77mm a f/1.8 lens? It is very soft at f/1.8, and suffers from a significant amount of vignetting & CA. .

No it isn't. It is the sharpest telephoto I've ever seen at F:1.8! I have never seen any visible vignetting and I haven't pixelpeeped enough to notice CA....

[Pål Jensen]

28mm f/1.4
35mm f/1.4
43mm f/1.4
55mm f/1.4
75mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.4 (update the old FA 85mm)
.

Are you willing to pay what these lenses will cost? People are already conplaining about the 55mm which will be the cheapest of them....

[Winder]

Everything have change for the worse. Hoya demand profit. The yen is stronger. The dollar is weaker. And Pentax was prone to have loss leaders; my guess that most of their exotic glass was. And what has APS-C to do with it? It is no cheaper to design a APS lens of a 135/1.8 as a FF; in fact they are identical.
You have no idea what this lens cost Zeiss or what calculations lies behind its price.
The people wanting the lenses with sales potential globally of 200 units are often the same who whine about a ~$50 price increase and stick to kit lenses and third party lenses and spend two years trying to save $32 on their DSLR purchase...

Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, & Sony all produce fast 135mm glass for $1,500 or less. Canon 135L is under $1,000.

The smaller image circle of the APS-C is less demanding than those of the full frame sensors, so building a 135mm f/1.8 for and APS-C sensor should be easier than building one for a full frame and maintaining edge to edge sharpness.

There are probably a lot of Pentax users using 3rd party glass. Mainly because there are several 3rd party options that are not available from Pentax or the 3rd party options are better and cost less. I bought the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 not because it is $200.00 cheaper than the Pentax 55mm, but because it is better. I have pre-ordered the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 from Amazon, because the only option from Pentax is out of production and only available used. Out of the 5 lenses that I would like to buy for the K-7 only 1 is made by Pentax (new 100mm macro).

The 70-200 f/2.8 is a great lens for APS-C users, but if you want one for a K-7 you have to go to Sigma or Tamron.