[clackers]

New 35mm is long overdue. 50mm too must be revamped. Current 35 and 50 are all plastic rubbish, in fact all 35 and 50mm are below standard of other DSLR brands..

The DA35 and DA50 are a reason to go with Pentax - excellent IQ dirt cheap primes, image stabilized unlike the corresponding Canikon rivals, hold on to 'em if you upgrade to full frame, too!


Plastic and poor build quality?


You must try the FA31 Ltd and DA*55, sometime, champ.

[Uluru]

The DA35 and DA50 are a reason to go with Pentax - excellent IQ dirt cheap primes, ..

That's your problem. Plastic DA35 and DA50 have just decent image quality, sufficient for primary- to high-school projects.
Not for serious photography. Pentax users have no idea what a good 35mm or 50mm may produce because they never had a really good one. When folks come and say, "we have Takumars, we have 6-blade FA50, cheapo DA50", that is for kids today. For example, today's Tamron 35/1.8 and 45/1.8 lenses are miles ahead of Pentax offer. Tamron 45/1.8 dwarfs FA 43/1.9 in all respects. Simply because Tamron never stopped improving and always positively reacted to feedback. I won't even write about even more serious Zeiss and Leica stuff, Nikkor 35/1.4, etc. because it's embarrassing.

[Uluru]

They must deliver superior 35mm and 50mm lenses. Joking around with ancient film lenses or stupid plastic lenses must be over, because the market is merciless; winning enthusiasts is crucial, because enthusiasts getting fed up with instant smartphone snapping are increasingly into more serious photography, and which serious brand they will choose? Seriousness of a camera brand is determined by a number of seriously good lenses.

[Venom3300]

That's your problem. Plastic DA35 and DA50 have just decent image quality, sufficient for primary- to high-school projects.
Not for serious photography. Pentax users have no idea what a good 35mm or 50mm may produce because they never had a really good one. When folks come and say, "we have Takumars, we have 6-blade FA50, cheapo DA50", that is for kids today. For example, today's Tamron 35/1.8 and 45/1.8 lenses are miles ahead of Pentax offer. Tamron 45/1.8 dwarfs FA 43/1.9 in all respects. Simply because Tamron never stopped improving and always positively reacted to feedback. I won't even write about even more serious Zeiss and Leica stuff, Nikkor 35/1.4, etc. because it's embarrassing.

I notice you didn't repond to the schooling I gave you earlier about 35mm production dates. But here you are blabbing about nothing again.

The DA* 55/1.4 is the most recent 50ish mm Pentax prime. It has 9 rounded aperture blade, and yes it works on full frame.

Again, no Pentax hasn't updated everything as quickly as we would like. But they are getting around to it- you will see that soon when the new DFA primes come out. Recent Pentax lenses are every bit a match for the competition.

If you don't like Pentax offerings, then move on. But quit accusing us of being ignorant. I've shot Canon before coming to Pentax- USM, STM, L lenses, etc. Im well aware of Pentax weaknesses.

[DoubtingThomas]

That's your problem. Plastic DA35 and DA50 have just decent image quality, sufficient for primary- to high-school projects.
Not for serious photography. Pentax users have no idea what a good 35mm or 50mm may produce because they never had a really good one. When folks come and say, "we have Takumars, we have 6-blade FA50, cheapo DA50", that is for kids today. For example, today's Tamron 35/1.8 and 45/1.8 lenses are miles ahead of Pentax offer. Tamron 45/1.8 dwarfs FA 43/1.9 in all respects. Simply because Tamron never stopped improving and always positively reacted to feedback. I won't even write about even more serious Zeiss and Leica stuff, Nikkor 35/1.4, etc. because it's embarrassing.

When I read your reply, my initial thoughts were "That's pretty impressive bluster...his portfolio must be off the charts" . When I looked closer at his gallery, I couldn't stop laughing. Honestly. I'm not a seasoned forum member but I'm familiar with Clackers impressive samples and his always constructive and supportive contributions. Come back and lecture people when you make a living with images that make a difference in the real world. At this point, you really just induce pity and laughter. Lashing out at Clackers and others must be your outlet from not enough hugs. Get a life. Good people take time out of their real and productive lives as big boy/big girl photographers to contribute here and you haven't earned the privilege to reap those contributions. Which is funny, because all that's required is common courtesy.

[Uluru]

I wonder how true it is. To me it sounds like insignificant fragments of facts interleaved with questionable claims and nonsense interpretation - all to attack Ricoh Imaging and its users i.e. us.

By the way, have you seen this?
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/products/lens/images/K_Mount_D_FA_Lens_Roadmap.pdf

I did not need to interpolate anything — there were no data in the last 18 years, so the picture is clear.

New roadmap also says nothing. Those two lenses better be four lenses, f1.4 pair and f1.8 pair, and overall all modern primes worth talking about. Because DA35 and DA50 are optically good for kids, and FA limiteds well past their due retirement.

This is different time and age, and digital photography has exacting demands which Pentax cannot meet using previous or current optical approach (or "management strategy").

Low end 35mm lens by Pentax must match or better this at least: Tamron SP 35/1.8. It must be no worse than that.

Higher end 35mm lens, say 35/1.4, must be comparable to Nikkor AF-S G 35/1.4 at least.

[stevebrot]

When I read your reply, my initial thoughts were "That's pretty impressive bluster...his portfolio must be off the charts" . When I looked closer at his gallery, I couldn't stop laughing. Honestly. I'm not a seasoned forum member but I'm familiar with Clackers impressive samples and his always constructive and supportive contributions. Come back and lecture people when you make a living with images that make a difference in the real world. At this point, you really just induce pity and laughter. Lashing out at Clackers and others must be your outlet from not enough hugs. Get a life. Good people take time out of their real and productive lives as big boy/big girl photographers to contribute here and you haven't earned the privilege to reap those contributions. Which is funny, because all that's required is common courtesy.

Yes, it has been a long time since @Uluru has started a thread or made other than disparaging or mixed commentary regarding Pentax product and Ricoh's management of the brand. Maybe it was because Ricoh did not pick up on his (excellent) suggestion that they offer several camo versions of the K-50. I dunno.

<Self-censor...comment not included because it was not charitable nor particularly helpful>

No, Uluru does not have an extensive gallery here. Neither do I. My shots are posted to Flickr and shared from there (LINK...nothing particularly exciting as of late...most taken with sub-grade lenses). Perhaps he does the same?


Steve

[stevebrot]

They must deliver superior 35mm and 50mm lenses. Joking around with ancient film lenses or stupid plastic lenses must be over, because the market is merciless; winning enthusiasts is crucial, because enthusiasts getting fed up with instant smartphone snapping are increasingly into more serious photography, and which serious brand they will choose? Seriousness of a camera brand is determined by a number of seriously good lenses.

Let me get this straight:

• I post news (PSA, actually) regarding N. America availability of a lens that people have been asking about since the K-1 was released here
• Other people respond by saying it was always available in "x" market and "y" market
• Yet others complain that is still not available in "z" market
• A couple of days and 48 posts later, Uluru breaks in to tell us all that lens is c***
• The mods swiftly edit Uluru's post to remove vulgarity (Uluru has a potty mouth)
• There is some pretty good (off-topic) discussion regarding the fecal content of available Pentax lenses and whether those feces are well-formed
• Some time later (post 94), back comes Uluru with more wisdom, though the follow-up comments also lack originality and substance. Same song, though different key, but same none-the-less and neither lyrics nor tune are cogent or on-topic

Mods (@BigMackCam??), is there any chance we might close this thread? It has been several pages since anything related to the topic has been posted.


Steve

[ChristianRock]

That's your problem. Plastic DA35 and DA50 have just decent image quality, sufficient for primary- to high-school projects.
Not for serious photography.

I wish I could say what I really think of you and your moronic posts, but I would get in trouble with the mods... again.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what makes a good photograph, otherwise you would know that a lot of pros use lenses, often zooms, that fall short of the quality of the two primes you are deriding. Some even shoot with *gasp* pretty old cameras and lenses. Yet they get paid the big bucks and take great pictures.

You have no idea what serious photography even means.

I'll give you just one name: Terry Richardson. Go look it up. Most of his famous work was taken with a Panasonic GF1 and the 14-45mm lens. What is that, a kindergarten setup?

Pentax users have no idea what a good 35mm or 50mm may produce because they never had a really good one. When folks come and say, "we have Takumars, we have 6-blade FA50, cheapo DA50", that is for kids today. For example, today's Tamron 35/1.8 and 45/1.8 lenses are miles ahead of Pentax offer. Tamron 45/1.8 dwarfs FA 43/1.9 in all respects. Simply because Tamron never stopped improving and always positively reacted to feedback. I won't even write about even more serious Zeiss and Leica stuff, Nikkor 35/1.4, etc. because it's embarrassing.

You know, you might be bitter at Pentax for whatever reason, and have moved on to something else. But you don't need to be so rude, condescending and wrong. First of all because you obviously don't know how many people here shoot multiple systems - many do.

Second because you compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Comparing 100 dollar lenses to 600 ones? Seriously? Are you even aware that you should be comparing them to the Pentax DA*55 1.4 because that is the lens that is in that price range? You should be comparing the DA 35 to the Nikon 35 1.8, for example. I've had both (I had my brother in law's D7000 for a few months before I got my Pentax) and they both have their positives and negatives, but I personally prefer the color and rendering of the Pentax DA 35, which costs about half what the Nikon costs. And sharpness wise to me they are the same.

Also, the 43 you mention is an older lens but it is by no means bad by today's standards for actual photography. I have to say I am unimpressed with the color rendering and the bokeh of the new Tamron lenses. Resolution tests don't say the whole story, and Pentax was never about them. I would rather use the DA 35 Limited (or even the DA 35 2.4!!!) and the FA 43 Limited than either of the Tamrons, any day of the week, because I like the colors and rendering better.

The philosophy of Pentax has never been to please the measurebators, it was always to work well in the context that people take pictures. If you don't like that, and obviously you don't, just hit the road, will you? I'm tired of your whining and talking down and bashing Pentax. Just move on, if you haven't already. Pentax is obviously not for you. Go join the people who like lenses that test oh-so-well on newspapers in basement while in real life being so over corrected that the bokeh is nervous and full of frog egg highlights.

Just go away instead of trying to turn Pentax into something it is not, while pissing of those of us who actually like the Pentax philosophy.

[6BQ5]

That's your problem. Plastic DA35 and DA50 have just decent image quality, sufficient for primary- to high-school projects.
Not for serious photography. Pentax users have no idea what a good 35mm or 50mm may produce because they never had a really good one. When folks come and say, "we have Takumars, we have 6-blade FA50, cheapo DA50", that is for kids today. For example, today's Tamron 35/1.8 and 45/1.8 lenses are miles ahead of Pentax offer. Tamron 45/1.8 dwarfs FA 43/1.9 in all respects. Simply because Tamron never stopped improving and always positively reacted to feedback. I won't even write about even more serious Zeiss and Leica stuff, Nikkor 35/1.4, etc. because it's embarrassing.

Pentax has always been very open about their lens design philosophy. They do not aim to win technical tests. Their goal is to render images in a way similar to how the mind remembers the scene. Certain optical corrections are purposefully omitted. That is why the three FA Limited lenses garner such praise. If you want superior edge to edge sharpness then go to u4/3 land. The lenses are very, very sharp. They will break resolution records. Unfortunately, the feel of the images is very sterile.

No, Pentax had a goal with their lens design and they achieved the goal. It was done right the first time. No need for an update. Maybe a tweak. Maybe a new focusing mechanism. But a replacement or redesign? No thanks.

[BigMackCam]

• Some time later (post 94), back comes Uluru with more wisdom, though the follow-up comments also lack originality and substance. Same song, though different key, but same none-the-less and neither lyrics nor tune are cogent or on-topic

Mods (@BigMackCam??), is there any chance we might close this thread? It has been several pages since anything related to the topic has been posted.

We won't be seeing any more of that wisdom.

I'll leave the thread as is for now, with a request to everyone to keep the discussion on-topic, reasonable (ie. not inflammatory) and friendly.

[Kunzite]

I did not need to interpolate anything — there were no data in the last 18 years, so the picture is clear.

Interpretation. Interpolation. Different words, different meanings.

New roadmap also says nothing. Those two lenses better be four lenses, f1.4 pair and f1.8 pair, and overall all kick-ass modern primes worth talking about.

The new roadmap says that 4 primes (from ultra wide to medium telephoto) and a fisheye zoom are to be expected in "2017 or later" (might change without notice). It's an apology for not having such modern primes already, and a promise to fix the situation.

Because DA35 and DA50 are optically good for kids

Hmm...

Low end 35mm lens by Pentax must match or better this at least: Tamron SP 35/1.8. It must be no worse than that.

Higher end 35mm lens, say 35/1.4, must be comparable to Nikkor AF-S G 35/1.4 at least.

Oh, really? Then I assume the low end 35mm lens by Pentax must also match or better Tamron's 599$ price? It surely must be no cheaper than that!
Or you were saying that it must match that lens' quality at $147? (the B&H price for the DA 35)

[Na Horuk]

Before this thread gets locked, I'd just like to pipe in that even the plastic DA 35mm is very durable. Sure, it has no aperture ring and it is not WR, but beyond that, it is pretty great. It is super light. I once dropped mine on hard concrete sidewalk, it bounced and survived without any problems, barely a scratch. No problem in optics or focusing. I dropped a metal lens from a smaller distance and it got bent so badly it needed repairs to be used at all. Not to mention the fact that the Pentax DA plastic primes are higher tier than the Canikon low-end primes (check reviews of those lenses). And with Pentax you still have choice of HD DA 35mm macro, FA 35mm f2, and FA 31mm; and third parties like Samyang, Sigma, Tamron, and all the many legacy lenses. There are plenty of legitimate complaints that could be made about the current Pentax lineup, but "plastic" is not one of them. Not in 2016, not for lenses that cost under 300, 200 euro and deliver sharp photos, with decent bokeh, with decent contrast, with great flare resistance.

[ogl]

. Tamron 45/1.8 dwarfs FA 43/1.9 in all respects. Simply because Tamron never stopped improving and always positively reacted to feedback.

Nonsense. FA43 is superior lens. Tamron has rather dull bokeh.

[lytrytyr]

The new roadmap says that 4 primes (from ultra wide to medium telephoto) and a fisheye zoom are to be expected in "2017 or later" (might change without notice). It's an apology for not having such modern primes already, and a promise to fix the situation.

For those of us who've been waiting patiently for the Q mount macro, promises like that mean virtually nothing.