Originally posted by Timothy First, I stated that simpler lens designs (meaning those with fewer element or less exotic materials) should be less expensive. You then disagreed with me, and stated that designs with many elements are more expensive. That's what I quoted.
You are not telling the truth ! in fact i don't even know if you read what you wrote !
You said simpler lens design should cost less,
I said, that is not necessarly the case.
By the way let me do this remark : if i had said what you say i said which is "complex lens design cost more", it would have mean i had agree with you when you said "simpler cost less" wich is the reciprocity of what you say i would supposedly had said (Cheaper / simpler = expensive / complex).
(ffs, it's hard to make a conditional sentence in english !)
Originally posted by Timothy I was hoping that Pentax had imagined that a telescope conversion would allow them to price themselves under the rest of the super-tele market with a lens that has a few compromises that distinguish it from the so-called pro-grade, but also a sizable market in place who is willing to put up with some idiosyncracies in the name of saving thousands of dollars. Instead, the compromises are all in place, yet they want to compete with the tools that --on paper-- beat the Pentax in every category save reach? Even if this lens is optically remarkable, finding its niche will be a major struggle.
For that point, i agree. it's a strange choice.