Originally posted by Kunzite So Pentax should change its mount, not to a modern, full-electric one - but retaining the mechanical aperture lever and the in-body AF motor? Just to make it slightly wider?
As Mistral said, that "Leica" is an m4/3 lens. Big difference, because it's the short registration distance that allows for such a low price. Also, it's not ultra fast - being "only" f/1.4. And last but not least, you should compare it with a 50mm f/2 - because you wanted something "equivalent", right? At least, try to be consistent.
If you would take some time and compare lens prices, you would have the answer. How about... a 25mm f/4 for $5000? Is that a competitive price? Is that a fast lens?
It also seems you either don't really know the Pentax K-mount lens range, or you're purposefully ignoring the APS-C lenses. Breaking news: the K-mount can easily accommodate APS-C cameras and lenses, and Pentax have both.
Yeah, you "proved" lots of things, like with the "4/3" lens
I didn't said to make it only a bit wirder, i wrote it down 4 times already how and what so not going to do it again.
About my consistency i said that with a shorter register and wider diamater mount a "real" APS-C "FF equivalent" could be made and that the lenses can become cheaper.
The example was the 24mm f/1.4 4/3th lens compared it with the 25mm f/1.4 FF lens and you saw a real difference there in price.
What i tried to show was that with Pentax we are now using those FF lenses so if pentax will make a 24mm f/1.4 then it would also be $1000+ lens right, but almost the same lens with a mount with a shorter register is only $500.
So it means that the "normal" lenses will become more affordable for APS-C and also wide angle lenses would become cheaper, longer lenses would probably become a bit more expensive.
To make it absolutly clear, a mount specialized for APS-C would mean
- "real" APS-C "FF equivalent" might be possible
- wide and normal lenses for APS-C would be cheaper
- body depth would be smaller, making the K-01 product more attractive
I know the DA range, i've the DA*16-50, DA*50-135 and couple more and i shoot with cannon 5D mkII and have shot a couple of times with a technical camera if that helps... but we aren't discussing my experience.
If we had a shorter register and slightly wider mount the DA*16-50 would have been cheaper and the lenses might be able to hit f/2 (maybe it won't be cheaper then but hey f/2.8 vs f/2)
And about the ASP-C lenses, just look up the test and you will see that many work on FF quite well and you're also still restricted by the FF mount so how much of APS-C lenses are the DA lenses really?
Some are direct clones form FA lenses for example...
I already agreed that if Pentax comes with FF camera they should keep the K-mount for sure but if they decide not to then what's the purpose for keeping the K-mount beside that you can use older lenses without an adapter.
Pentax now is in a position to make a real change with APS-C with a mount designed for APS-C, this will make the system more future proof and make it better marketable for the professional market.
Anyway go ahead and put up some prices then, compare APS-C lenses with the same 4/3 lenses then so lenses with the same focal length and aperture.
Before you say that the "real" APS-C "FF equivalent" would be more expensive then the FF lens they mimic, i can only say that you would most likely be correct but look at the price for high end APS-C body and a low end FF and then look how many times you've bought a new DSLR in 10 years time and how many times you've replaced a lens in that time.
Even if an APS-C FF equivalent lens will be $1000 more expensive you will already have that money back when you replace your first camera.