Originally posted by cali92rs I think you are understating the market with the statement "vast majority" If there were no market for lenses wider than 24mm (or 15mm on APS-C), sigma would not have a zoom that starts at 8mm and another that starts at 10mm. Tamron has the same (10-24mm). Even Pentax has (had?) a 12-24mm zoom. Nikon and Canon both have 14mm (8mm APS-C equivalent) primes and no one is saying that it was a mistake that they introduced those lenses. Pentax has about 200 primes in the 30-55 range but none wider than 15mm??
Pentax had a 14/2.8. At B&H it has 8 reviews. The Samyang 8mm for Pentax has 1 review.
The Sigma 10-20mm has 35 reviews in K-mount. 11 for the 8-16mm.
I'd say given the very weak demand Pentax wisely lets Sigma do the lifting and focuses instead on an excellent set of pancake/small primes.
Pentax also has the 10-16mm fisheye. And the 12-24mm (24 reviews and on back order), so the market is covered.
And ultra-wide was not even very popular in film; for that you went to MF or LF.
While not empirical measures, things like the B&H comments are indicative of demand curves.
Wide and fast = big and expensive and very, very niche. The comments here were for the lens roadmap to have a fast, wide prime. The reasons for this diminish when you look at the cost and functionality. If you really, really want one and can handle the cost and the weight, there are options. Let's not try and normalize this type of lens as a broadly supported market "want".