[Aristophanes]

I'm not the one who claimed they are pancake lenses. The only Ltd lens thinner than the DA 21 is the DA 40 which few have much love for anyway due to its awkward focal length. The DA 70 is not smaller than the DA 21 nor is it retrofocus. They are all generally fine lenses but I just don't see the overwhelming argument that the only reason they are small is lack of focus motors.

The DA40 is much loved. And the FL is equivalent to the 55-58mm of ye olden days when that was pretty standard. 15mm to 70mm in primes (22-105mm in 135) in such a small kit, even if you throw the DA 50/1.8 in is pretty good.

The DA Limiteds are tiny primes compared to the competition. They fit a DSLR even at WA in a pancake format.

I never said they were small only because of a lack of focus motors. I never said "overwhelmingly". That is your non-factual hyperbole. I said they are designed the way they are to take advantage of in-camera stabilization and focus motors to keep size and weight as small as possible.

They also keep them small, especially the front element, by not having large apertures. The moment you add another stop the front and rear elements start getting much larger. The Pentax design compromise and market differentiation is to design the smallest possible primes for APS-C. (The DA*55 is the exception. Then again it appears to be an FF lens.)

[Uluru]

No need to speculate. The HD DA 21/3.2 Ltd is larger dimensionally and weighs more than the Fuji 27/2.8. The Fuji 18/2.8 is slightly lighter than the 21/3.2 but about 15 mm deeper. Bottom line... it can be done.

What material in constructions of all parts Fuji uses? I don't like the feel of their lenses, they feel cheap(er), but did not want to scratch them to see.

But the problem with DA21 is its forced conformity to a bizarre rule. It started with a moment of weirdness inside some executive's head, when he could not decide between the 19mm (28mm in 135) and the 23mm (35 mm equivalent in 135), but ordered a middle way, and then do whatever needed to slim down the size and design for that very odd FoV.

Crazy! If he decided for the DA23, and was not afraid of extra 50g of weight (still lighter than DA35), great many things inside Pentax land would be been different today. A great many ..

[derekkite]

And Fuji is bleeding money from their Imaging Division according to their latest stats.

One of their talking points was that their P&S offerings (second only to Canon in gross unit sales) has withered and not as many high end sales have materialized.

I suspect that the Japanese camera companies have seen some utterly frightening numbers over the last year. Japan has seen some frightening numbers over the last year. In the photo gear marketplace whole segments have disappeared, and the market is flooded with very good products. Almost every one is losing money, substantial amounts, and many brands are boutique or positional goods, not profit centers. I don't think Ricoh wants to do that, and I suspect that the Pentax division now lives on cash flow. I suspect that it is profitable, but it has to pay it's way. China as a consumer market has slowed, the US is not vibrant by any means, same with Europe and Japan. The idea of creating a bunch of product and flooding the market in the hopes that it will sell is a good way to go bankrupt, and that will happen to a few. Canon and Nikon have broad product offerings, but everyone else is vying for niches that are profitable. Ricoh has accomplished that in a few spots, and the 645z will be another one.

Something will happen in the camera gear business that will overturn a half century of normal. Japanese manufacturing is in it's twilight stage, as is the country as an economic powerhouse. I suspect that all the manufacturers have seen double digit, even high double digit decreases in some segments, as well as serious losses on investments. And they can't paper it over anymore.

So what is the business case for those 6 lenses that are ready to go? Has the 20-40 taken the world by storm, no I don't think so. They probably sold more 1.4 TC's at more profit. And the reworking of coatings on old favorites has probably done quite well for them as a return on investment. I suspect the K-3 has increased sales on specific lenses such as the DA*300 and the 15mm limited. I suspect that they haven't sold any more than a handful of the new flashes released last year.

So right now with what they have in hand, what would you push out the door to generate cash flow? I would push the 645z and lenses. I would push the K-3 and the good selling lenses in the lineup. I'd push the GR line and the waterproof sports compacts. I'd go over the stuff not out and make certain that it receives the same reaction as their successful offerings; that is what was wrong with the 20-40.

I'm quite impressed so far with what they have done. It could be quicker, but they are not Sony who seems to throw mounts out like baked goods. Almost everything they have released since the beginning of 2013 has resulted either in my purchasing it, or wanting to purchase it, or simply not for me but a definite purchase for someone else. For example, the K30 wasn't for me but I bought the K-3. The 645 and accessories are not for me but many others have their needs filled very well by that offering. The only thing that I didn't buy but wanted but wasn't impressed enough with the offering to part with the money is the 20-40. I want one, but one that is better than that. Maybe Ricoh said to Pentax what they said when they saw the first iteration of the flucard: "come back when you have something better that you can sell". If the 20-40 was just a little bit better almost everyone here would have bought one already, but it isn't. Two generations ago someone would have cut out their guts over that.

[Uluru]

I suspect that the Japanese camera companies have seen some utterly frightening numbers over the last year. Japan has seen some frightening numbers over the last year. In the photo gear marketplace whole segments have disappeared, and the market is flooded with very good products. Almost every one is losing money, substantial amounts, and many brands are boutique or positional goods, not profit centers. I don't think Ricoh wants to do that, and I suspect that the Pentax division now lives on cash flow. I suspect that it is profitable, but it has to pay it's way. China as a consumer market has slowed, the US is not vibrant by any means, same with Europe and Japan. ...

There is too much gloom in reports and in everyday talk. All today's world is run on doom fuel. It is unhealthy, exhausting, as it allows sharks to swim in muddy waters of despair and snatch everything worth saving from them. Then the sharks will eat themselves alive. And honest businesses are, I believe, sick of it because they know they were the victims of the false economy ideas all this time, one that speedily drives the entire world in a disaster which is imminent. To paraphrase Dr Suzuki, we are all driving madly fast towards a brick wall, and we argue whether we'll take the picture of the wall with 35/2, or 50/1.4 lens.

While analysts of the old world call for doom which is not in honest, future business interests, those smart enough adapt to economy models which are not those from yesterday. They create new ways of living and developing. Future economies. Profits cannot be high, or maybe breaking even is all what is required. Ranges and offer cannot be huge. There is too much waste everywhere, too much same stuff. And we are all guilty of it: "Canon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Nikon have a 50/1.4mm lens — Pentax, where is yours, done the same way?" Or, "Nikon has 5 middle range DSLRs – Pentax, where are yours?" We users are disaster of this world.

I'd personally love Pentax to cut down its lens range by 1/3, even by half if the current range is difficult to maintain, but that what remains, and is updated, is of good quality and some thought behind it. Same with cameras. Rather than having K50/K500 basically same, have one. Or none: do something else.

We stupid users are doom of every industry, every faculty, including photography. Because of our irrational wishes Pentax most likely now burns midnight oil making an FF camera instead of perfecting lenses, because "the FF is what public apparently wants'.

No, we don't have a clue what we want because we don't know what we need first. Because we don't know our true needs, we want all the crazy stuff based on the flight of fancy. If we knew what we truly need to be happy, we'd never make a living hell for us, then the hell for manufacturers trying to please us, and the hell for this poor environment we live in.

---

Last edited by Uluru; 05-23-2014 at 10:57 PM.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

So, we're all doomed?

[mecrox]

So, we're all doomed?

Yes, "Pentax is Doomed" is so yesterday. Now it's all of us.

[arne.oestlund]

I'm not the one who claimed they are pancake lenses. The only Ltd lens thinner than the DA 21 is the DA 40 which few have much love for anyway due to its awkward focal length. The DA 70 is not smaller than the DA 21 nor is it retrofocus. They are all generally fine lenses but I just don't see the overwhelming argument that the only reason they are small is lack of focus motors.

I do not understand the expression awkward focal length. It is totally ridiculous. If you use a let’s say 24-70 zoom . Do you omit the 40 mm just because it is awkward? Do you say: I just use 24, 28, 35, 50 mm on that 24-70 lens as every other focal length is awkward? If 40 mm is an awkward focal length it is just awkward in the mind of the user! I hate that expression as it is severely narrow minded. There are no awkward focal lengths. I once had a Pentax kit zoom lense where the focal length even became decimal, 21.25mm for example. That’s awkward, but it didn’t bother me as it was useful for that picture. So, in my point of view, there has ever never been an awkward focal length. Every focal length among Pentax lenses are useful for something.

Today I have just fixed focal length lenses. 20mm, not awkward, 35 mm, not awkward, 50 mm, not awkward, 43mm, awkward? No, it is one of my favourite lenses, 77mm, awkward? No, it is one of my favourite lenses, and a 100 mm macro, not awkward.

[filoxophy]

I do not understand the expression awkward focal length. It is totally ridiculous. If you use a let’s say 24-70 zoom . Do you omit the 40 mm just because it is awkward? Do you say: I just use 24, 28, 35, 50 mm on that 24-70 lens as every other focal length is awkward? If 40 mm is an awkward focal length it is just awkward in the mind of the user! I hate that expression as it is severely narrow minded. There are no awkward focal lengths. I once had a Pentax kit zoom lense where the focal length even became decimal, 21.25mm for example. That’s awkward, but it didn’t bother me as it was useful for that picture. So, in my point of view, there has ever never been an awkward focal length. Every focal length among Pentax lenses are useful for something.

Today I have just fixed focal length lenses. 20mm, not awkward, 35 mm, not awkward, 50 mm, not awkward, 43mm, awkward? No, it is one of my favourite lenses, 77mm, awkward? No, it is one of my favourite lenses, and a 100 mm macro, not awkward.

Well said!

[IchabodCrane]

I do not understand the expression awkward focal length. It is totally ridiculous. If you use a let’s say 24-70 zoom . Do you omit the 40 mm just because it is awkward? Do you say: I just use 24, 28, 35, 50 mm on that 24-70 lens as every other focal length is awkward? If 40 mm is an awkward focal length it is just awkward in the mind of the user! I hate that expression as it is severely narrow minded. There are no awkward focal lengths. I once had a Pentax kit zoom lense where the focal length even became decimal, 21.25mm for example. That’s awkward, but it didn’t bother me as it was useful for that picture. So, in my point of view, there has ever never been an awkward focal length. Every focal length among Pentax lenses are useful for something.

Today I have just fixed focal length lenses. 20mm, not awkward, 35 mm, not awkward, 50 mm, not awkward, 43mm, awkward? No, it is one of my favourite lenses, 77mm, awkward? No, it is one of my favourite lenses, and a 100 mm macro, not awkward.

I think you know what I meant. If the DA 40 was missing from Pentax's lineup, few would be screaming about how lacking their primes are. For the last 50 years, most photographers have had this idea that a "normal" lens fits somewhere in this range of 40 to 50 mm (35 mm equivalent). After that, they look for something that's on the short end of the portrait range. The DA 40 fits neither.

[Erd§]

I do not understand the expression awkward focal length. It is totally ridiculous. If 40 mm is an awkward focal length it is just awkward in the mind of the user!

Exactly. It's all subjective.

40 awkward? Get a 35 or 50. You want 23mm? Stick on a 21 and take a step or two forward. It's not rocket surgery.

[IchabodCrane]

What material in constructions of all parts Fuji uses? I don't like the feel of their lenses, they feel cheap(er), but did not want to scratch them to see.

But the problem with DA21 is its forced conformity to a bizarre rule. It started with a moment of weirdness inside some executive's head, when he could not decide between the 19mm (28mm in 135) and the 23mm (35 mm equivalent in 135), but ordered a middle way, and then do whatever needed to slim down the size and design for that very odd FoV.

Crazy! If he decided for the DA23, and was not afraid of extra 50g of weight (still lighter than DA35), great many things inside Pentax land would be been different today. A great many ..

Most Fuji lenses are metal, as far as I can tell.

[normhead]

Most Fuji lenses are metal, as far as I can tell.

And according to lens rentals.com... metal is a bad thing. It's much easier to repair plastic lenses. They also mention that most lenses people think are metal have a lot of plastic in them, or are all plastic,

[Aristophanes]

I think you know what I meant. If the DA 40 was missing from Pentax's lineup, few would be screaming about how lacking their primes are. For the last 50 years, most photographers have had this idea that a "normal" lens fits somewhere in this range of 40 to 50 mm (35 mm equivalent). After that, they look for something that's on the short end of the portrait range. The DA 40 fits neither.

55-58mm was considered well within the "normal" range for decades. Close enough to 60mm on APS-C no one would know the difference.

Oh, look here's one:

Takumar 58mm F2.4 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Normal Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Of course the FA 43mm is a completely wrong FL on APS-C and they should all be put in a landfill right away. It is truly a debacle.

[normhead]

55-58mm was considered well within the "normal" range for decades. Close enough to 60mm on APS-C no one would know the difference.

Oh, look here's one:

Takumar 58mm F2.4 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Normal Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Of course the FA 43mm is a completely wrong FL on APS-C and they should all be put in a landfill right away. It is truly a debacle.

I have to agree, all these people wanting a particular lens.

From my perspective, a good photographer can take an image with whatever is handed to him her. If you have to have a 24 mm lens... you don't know photography.

What people don't understand when approaching this topic is, lenses like the 31, 21, 15 , 43, 77 etc. are not great lenses because of their focal length. Pentax could make lenses in every focal length from 10 to 100, and I suspect people would ask when they're going to start they are going to start filling in the .5s.

When I say I like my 21 Ltd. that doesn't mean I would like a Nikon 21 or a Canon 21, of any anything else 21. it means I like the Pentax 21. If I like the Canon 24, it doesn't mean I would like a Pentax 24. What I like or dislike about lenses not determine by the focal length.

To me, if you can get a great 21 but you won't because you want a 24, with all due respect, you don't understand photography. And I'd say this to anyone, if you have access to a 77 but not a 90, and you can't get by with the 77, you don't know what you're doing.

I'm ready for the barrage of ridiculous posts where people insist they have to have this focal length, but to me, it's the same thing as standing on top of a building and yelling " I know nothing about photography and instead of learning to take advantage of the great lenses out there, I'm going to sit here and whine about the lenses I don't have."

This is not about some people being pickier than me. This is about people being obsessive. I know it's easier to sit and whine about lenses that don't exist than it is to get out there and find out how to do what you want to get done.

One of my favourite quotes from school "Find the lens you like and buy the camera system that goes with it." Notice folks were encouraged to find the lens they love. At no point did my instructor advise sitting home and crying over the lenses that have never been made and writing to camera companies suggesting they make the lens. Life is too short.

People, this is foolish behaviour. The lens roadmap is made to let you know what might be coming. And that's encouraging. I was extremely disappointed with the Sigma 120-400. The idea of a Pentax 90-370 is something that interests me. It's to let you know that if you're looking, there's going to be something available. I've since moved on to the DA* 60-250 and 1.4 TC which makes almost any other combination redundant, but it's still interesting to see what's coming, if for no other reason to advise others. I've told lots to buy the 55-300, not because I own it, or will ever own it, but because from what they say, it's the lens they need.

The roadmap is not an excuse to spend your life crying in your beer because of some lens Pentax doesn't make.

And the other thing I'd leave this conversation with is, I've seen a photographer find the lens he loves, which say for example might be the 31, or a 50 or even a 70, but all the sudden that photographer hardly ever uses any other lens. On every possible occasion he uses that lens. He uses his 31 when he should be using a 40 or a 50, because that's his favourite lens. And if it's your favourite lens, using a 31 instead of a 43, it's close enough. Or using 40 instead of a 50, same thing. If you love the lens, it's close enough, if the lens is nothing special to you, then the focal length doesn't matter, you won't use it, even when you should.

It's kind of sad, seeing so many people who are still searching for a lens they can enjoy working with, and are actually hoping Pentax will miraculously produce in the future some lens that's just right for them. That's a long shot, no matter what you're hoping for.

A lot of people need to go back to square one. Find a lens you love, buy the camera that goes with it.

For me, my 18-135 and 21 ltd and 40XS and 60-250 are all I need to be happy. I go on lots of hikes with just those 4 lenses. If you're still looking for a lens at this point, I don't know what's wrong with you. I have lots of lenses I own and barely use...because I use the ones I really like.

[Aristophanes]

A lot of people need to go back to square one. Find a lens you love, buy the camera that goes with it.

The last Limited I bought was the DA 21. Why? I thought it slow and of a middling FL. Now, with Pentax you know their lens design philosophy: smaller but slower lenses. Impeccable built. Lightweight. Outstanding flare control and coatings. IBIS and in-body (slightly loud) focusing.

Then I got a deal on a DA 21mm and it completed my line-up.

I also now use it a LOT. Much more than I expected. Stopped down to f/4 it is as crisp as any lens and the colours and flare control are outstanding. The built-in hood is also terrific compared to the petal style rings from all other manufacturers. The size means it goes anywhere and really reduces lugging. The FL is what it is and it works. It's a very good lens.

If you want huge and fast glass, look at Sigma. Get a sherpa or burro to help haul it around.

Value wise the DA Limited are too costly. I think Pentax flushes some of their competitiveness by over-pricing their most interesting lenses.

If the DA 40 is a bad FL, then why do other brands have the same?