[normhead]

I'm starting to go with the theory that part of the Pentax strategy is to liquidate the apparently mountiain of 31 ltd, 43 ltd, 77 ltd., FA 50 macro, DFA 100 macro and 200mm ƒ2.8, and other older lenses in the catalogue. Especially the limiteds are probably assembled on demand, and the material costs are covered, just assembly waiting to happen. That is a terrific business model for a business you bought and now have to recover the purchase cost. I'm convinced a large part of the value of pentax was glass blanks lying around in a factory/warehouse somewhere.

They have to have the new lenses, but they'll make money on the FLs not covered by the new lenses. The 85 replaces the older FA*85m the 50 replaces the older 50 1.4. But those are going to be commercial quality lenses. Those looking for consumer quality glass, can look at the used market, there is lots of it.

My FA-J 18-35 will do me until a new 20 prime comes out. If it's 5 years, I don't really care. If I get desperate then an off brand 20mm manual focus lens will do.

For new consumer glass there is the excellent 28-105, and whatever old glass is still around. Assuming that new consumer glass would be better than older high end glass, like the DA*60-250 is probably a big mistake.

With a larger format, everything has to be bigger and more costly. That's just just physics. The Pentax and Tokina 20-35s, the 24-50s the old M and K 20s, eetc.are there for consumer quality glass. The Samyang/Rokinons are there for people who want more. It's not like we don't have options. Just not options people find appealing. My poorly rated 18-35 is so rarely use, because I don't have enough call for the focal length, I probably wouldn't buy a really high end 20. The cost per image taken would be prohibitive. many times my 18-35 doesn't come out of the bag, because it's not needed. The odd shot has too much distortion to be useful, but it's surprising what you can get out of such a lens. For the hobbyist, that's part of the challenge.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-18-2018 at 10:04 AM.

[Kunzite]

Yeah, things are not that bad for many of us, even those wanting the new D FA primes - the first of which should be quite close to its market launch.

[pres589]

Your theory is that they have piles of complete lenses or just parts?

About folks wanting consumer grade glass, honestly most consumers aren't looking for a lot of primes. As long as the DA 50 1.8 stays in production, that slot at least is covered with a decent and cheap option. The DA 70 also helps. It's too bad the optics from the M 85 f2 didn't get reborn at some point into an AF version, having never used the lens, but appreciating sample images from it and the general size/weight of the thing.

[Reed]

Your theory is that they have piles of complete lenses or just parts?

About folks wanting consumer grade glass, honestly most consumers aren't looking for a lot of primes. As long as the DA 50 1.8 stays in production, that slot at least is covered with a decent and cheap option. The DA 70 also helps. It's too bad the optics from the M 85 f2 didn't get reborn at some point into an AF version, having never used the lens, but appreciating sample images from it and the general size/weight of the thing.

In fact- 50mm consumer grade prime is the best selling lens in any system after short kit lens. New Canon 50/1.8STM is the best selling not bundled lens offer in any camera shop.Upgrading clumsy made 50/1.8II was their best move in years. For Pentax I'm pretty sure DA35/50 plays that role, of course in smaller numbers because of much smaller customer base.
Recently I've sold mine trusted DA50/1.8 to one of my friends. She wanted to have a prime as her "first portrait approach" lens, after using DA18-50DC RE kit lens on K-70.
Same day she picked up the parcel I've got a panicked call that the lens is broken because camera got loud as moving train mixed with dentistic drill xD I took me a while to stop laughing and explain that screw drive is a bit noisy. Still she got used to it and is happy with this little gem now. Making modern silent focusing lineup of consumer grade lenses, like they did with 55-300PLM, should be Ricoh top priority after they are done with FF modern lineup.

[pres589]

1. I agree, I like the DA 50 1.8 for taking portraits and such. Great field of view provided on a crop body.

2. You mean that there may be a point in the future where there aren't holes in the Pentax full-frame lens coverage map? I thought this condition will never go away...

That reminds me, I haven't written to Pentax customer relations to ask how they're doing with the 18mm and 26mm primes I suggested...

[normhead]

In fact- 50mm consumer grade prime is the best selling lens in any system after short kit lens. New Canon 50/1.8STM is the best selling not bundled lens offer in any camera shop.Upgrading clumsy made 50/1.8II was their best move in years. For Pentax I'm pretty sure DA35/50 plays that role, of course in smaller numbers because of much smaller customer base.
Recently I've sold mine trusted DA50/1.8 to one of my friends. She wanted to have a prime as her "first portrait approach" lens, after using DA18-50DC RE kit lens on K-70.
Same day she picked up the parcel I've got a panicked call that the lens is broken because camera got loud as moving train mixed with dentistic drill xD I took me a while to stop laughing and explain that screw drive is a bit noisy. Still she got used to it and is happy with this little gem now. Making modern silent focusing lineup of consumer grade lenses, like they did with 55-300PLM, should be Ricoh top priority after they are done with FF modern lineup.

I got my FA 50 1.7, which I still use and travel with fairly often. There's the DA 50. I also have the FA 50 macro 2.8 and there the FA 50 1.4.

It may be the most popular focal length, but there's also a lot more lenses that cover it. Although PLM versions of every consumer grade lens would be awesome. Forget SDM.

I Just don't see any sign that's going to happen. When the 55-300 PLM was released there was a lot of hope. I could see going for a whole PLM line-up. Then nothing. Now I'm completely asleep in terms of paying attention to that issue.

[Rondec]

I'm starting to go with the theory that part of the Pentax strategy is to liquidate the apparently mountiain of 31 ltd, 43 ltd, 77 ltd., FA 50 macro, DFA 100 macro and 200mm ƒ2.8, and other older lenses in the catalogue. Especially the limiteds are probably assembled on demand, and the material costs are covered, just assembly waiting to happen. That is a terrific business model for a business you bought and now have to recover the purchase cost. I'm convinced a large part of the value of pentax was glass blanks lying around in a factory/warehouse somewhere.

They have to have the new lenses, but they'll make money on the FLs not covered by the new lenses. The 85 replaces the older FA*85m the 50 replaces the older 50 1.4. But those are going to be commercial quality lenses. Those looking for consumer quality glass, can look at the used market, there is lots of it.

My FA-J 18-35 will do me until a new 20 prime comes out. If it's 5 years, I don't really care. If I get desperate then an off brand 20mm manual focus lens will do.

For new consumer glass there is the excellent 28-105, and whatever old glass is still around. Assuming that new consumer glass would be better than older high end glass, like the DA*60-250 is probably a big mistake.

With a larger format, everything has to be bigger and more costly. That's just just physics. The Pentax and Tokina 20-35s, the 24-50s the old M and K 20s, eetc.are there for consumer quality glass. The Samyang/Rokinons are there for people who want more. It's not like we don't have options. Just not options people find appealing. My poorly rated 18-35 is so rarely use, because I don't have enough call for the focal length, I probably wouldn't buy a really high end 20. The cost per image taken would be prohibitive. many times my 18-35 doesn't come out of the bag, because it's not needed. The odd shot has too much distortion to be useful, but it's surprising what you can get out of such a lens. For the hobbyist, that's part of the challenge.

I doubt it. I just think it takes longer to getting everything in order to release a lens of this caliber. There were rumors a few years ago that the FA limiteds were on the way out, but then they did another run on them. I don't know how often they do lens manufacturing for a given lens, but it probably depends on the number of sales they have per year. Certainly for the FA limiteds it seems as though they manufacture them every few years.

[normhead]

Your theory is that they have piles of complete lenses or just parts?

Since the limited are all hand assembled, my assumption is that they are assembled in small numbers to meet current demand, as needed. If you aren't doing an all machine production run, there is probably little cost benefit to assembling those lenses before there is a demand for them, and it would certainly mean less money tied up in the warehouse waiting for buyers.

Certainly for the FA limiteds it seems as though they manufacture them every few years.

Manufacture, or assemble? And how would we know?

The current 31 ltd listed at B&H, is SMC, the glass at least was manufactured while pentax was still doing SMC coatings. All the newly manufactured lenses are HD.

As well all the DA*s are SMC. All the DFAs are SMC but the 5 recent ones are HD. My guess is all lenses designed and manufactured after the HD DA 560 have been HD, while all lenses from before that have already been ground and coated, and will remain SMC until current blanks are gone. I really don't see Pentax going back and forth on their production lines producing both SMC and HD lenses on different days. Just a guess, but a guess with evidence to support it.

I'd give it at least a 70% chance all current production runs are with HD coatings. SMC are all being assembled from pre-manufactured glass.

As far as I know there is not even one lens that has been manufactured with both SMC and HD coatings. Another reason to believe the coatings have already been applied, and that new coatings are not being applied to older glass, or older coatings are not being applied to newly manufactured glass.

You can almost say, SMC, manufactured before the HD DA 560, HD, manufactured after the HD DA 560. There is not a shred of evidence that there is a coating facility still doing SMC coating. SO we know all FAs and Das were manufactured before 2013. When they were assembled is the only question.

Since the limiteds are hand assembled. whether or not they are assembled to meet demand or were all assembled at time of production is open to question. assembly line produced models I think you have to assume the entire production was done at time of manufacture, including assembly.

By my count, there are 9 HD lenses released including the 560, which we can round off to 2014, making a little over 2 releases a year. That would seem to be it for Pentax's production lines for APS-c and FF combined. People should temper their expectations with that knowledge.

[Winder]

I suppose. My perception is that most full frame cameras out there are more than usable by wedding photographers. The K-1 is no exception. There are probably folks out there who are shooting weddings with Fuji cameras.

In the end, the big thing is that you are able to get results that match your competition and that please your clients and that make them feel like they are getting good results for the price they pay. The biggest area I would see that the K-1 falls down in wedding shooting isn't really auto focus capability, but rather video, which does seem to be a coming thing in wedding photography.

I have a a lot of wedding with the K-1 and you can get good results. You can get great results. I also shot weddings with film Contax 645 for years and got great results. Both of those cameras have limitations though and it ultimately comes down to what is best. The AF on the K-1 is serviceable, but it is a limitation. The buffer is a limitation. The image quality is awesome, but brides don't want to be able to see how big the pores on the nose really are. That is just for the pixel peepers. Where the K-1 really shines is the posed formal shots and the detail shots of rings and the dress. The 645z is even better.

There are a lot of people shooting weddings with Fuji. There are more people shooting weddings with Fuji than Pentax. I know two people who shoot wedding with Fuji. They say the shoot RAW, but the reality is they only shoot the key shots in RAW. They are probably only processing 100 images. The rest of the wedding is OOC JPEGs. This is why Fuji people are always talking about Fuji colors and skin tones.

Ricoh is really close to having a very competitive wedding camera, but I have been saying that since the K-5.

[Reed]

I have similar feelings about PLM... seems to be loose end as of today, especially when we consider that there is recently released 18-50DC RE kit lens(and its development&release in that form was total loss of resources IMO) that is not going anywhere to be replaced soon. I think Ricoh is aware that if they get a PLM(or whatever they want to call it) new double kit lens offer, and two or three primes(35/50/85 or 100macro), it will kill off any older lenses sales from current lineup for most of non-pro customers no matter of how cheap they will try to get rid of that bad stock. That was probably Canon concern that made them offer worst made lens in the lineup, with all its mechanial flaws-50/1.8ii for way over 20 years. Not so long before STM update, when ordered directly from Canon, shops often received lenses made in early 00's from their stock (brand new, but stored for such a long time).

[Winder]

My cousin, "the photographer" for rich and famous weddings in Seattle, used to have as part of most packages a 36x24 canvas wall mounted image in an expensive frame. I'm sure a 24 MP camera would not be the best for that.

But then most wedding photographers don't have that kind of clientele. It all depends on what kind of wedding photgrapher you are. When they camera out, Nikon D4s low light cameras were the craze for shooting receptions and the mingling before and after the weddings. These phases just come and go. The most used camera for weddings as far as i can tell, are canons and they just keep chugging along despite very few new bells and whistles. Just good solid all around performance in their professional models.

24MP is perfectly fine for 36x24 on canvas. Even a 16MP APS-C camera can produce a great image that size on canvas. The texture of canvas hides a lot.

Sony A9 Review - Image Quality
"ISO 800 images, as expected, show a bit more noise that the previous ISO, and here, a 24 x 36-inch print looks fantastic. However, overall noise is still so low, and fine detail is still visible and sharp that a 30 x 40-inch print is definitely acceptable at this sensitivity, especially given the normal viewing distance for a print of this size."

[rangercarp]

My last wedding I had 3 different video cameras set up, 3 video guys and a stills guy.

And the couple will watch the video once, after which it will gather dust on a shelf or take up space on a drive, never to be viewed again.

[normhead]

And the couple will watch the video once, after which it will gather dust on a shelf or take up space on a drive, never to be viewed again.

The guy did say it was the best wedding video he'd ever seen. I wonder if the next time they want to watch it, the technology will still be there to view the DVD?

I especially like the part where the bridesmaid stepped on the Bride's trail. There was some real slapstick there. Showed from three different angles. I'd watch it again just for that.

The hubby thought it was really funny, the bride, not so much, but she didn't ask to have it removed.

Sometimes I think I'm funnier than everyone else does.

[Mistral75]

(...)

As far as I know there is not even one lens that has been manufactured with both SMC and HD coatings. Another reason to believe the coatings have already been applied, and that new coatings are not being applied to older glass, or older coatings are not being applied to newly manufactured glass.

(...).

Actually there are several of them:

- the DA 55-300mm f/4-5.8, successively smc and HD
- the DA Limited lenses, successively smc and HD
- the 18-50mm f/4-5.6, two versions of which are simultaneously proposed:

1. smc Pentax-DA L 18-50mm f/4-5.6 DC WR RE (kit lens sold together with a camera)
2. HD Pentax-DA 18-50mm f/4-5,6 DC WR RE (sold separately)

[awscreo]

The K-1 still feels great and it feels like the better camera. It has better ergonomics, better build quality, and better menus and I have had it over a year. The A9 feels cheap in comparison. The push to buy the A9 actually comes from my wife who does about 50% of my wedding retouching and LR editing. Her constant complaining about slightly out-of focus images of moving people resulted in me telling her that unless she wanted me to spend about $4,000 switching systems we would just have to live with it.

You seem to think this is just about playing with the latest and greatest technology. I have been shooting with Pentax since the K-7 and I was shooting with a Contax 645 and a Canon 5D (original) for years. There have been plenty of opportunities to jump newer and better technology over the years. I do get a kick out of everyone playing psychologist and telling me what my motives are though.

I hope Ricoh come out with a camera with equivalent AF to the A9 in the near future. I would love to be shooting with it. The new D-FA* glass is going to be excellent and I will be looking forward to the reviews.

---------- Post added 01-18-18 at 08:03 AM ----------



all the Zeiss Batis lenses are AF and have optical image stabilization. It is the Zeiss Loxia lenses that are manual. The Batis lenses are made by Tamron for Zeiss.

OK, the zeiss badge threw me off. I'm just too used to them being manual high quality lenses. We'll get there one way or another in few years, either from Pentax themselves, or with Rokinon that started making af glass recently. For me personally there aren't a lot of issues, I'm covered from 15mm to 200mm with nice ff glass, the only thing I regret is that there was no lighter f4 or slower UWA zoom that I'd rather buy than the 15-30.