Originally posted by Winder The 31mm, 43mm, & 77mm are all full frame lenses that have continued to sell well for APS-C bodies. Ricoh could have launched the K-1 with new versions of those lenses and that would have excited both ASP-C and FF users
That's quite an assumption. At best, an unsupported opinion. Let's never make the mistake of thinking of it as a fact.
Originally posted by Winder The next issues is that the K-1 needs more glass if it is going to sell better. Not have a D-FA* 24mm on a camera that is arguably the best landscape FF camera on the market is pretty big mistake. A D-FA* 24mm would have also been a great lens for APS-C users.
There's a DFA 24-70... and a DFA 15-30 and a DFA 70-200, and a DFA 150-450. Every focal length from 15 to 450 is covered for everyone but the "I only like primes" crowd, and that's a very small (but vocal) crowd. Clients I have taken out with D800- D810s have owned exactly no primes, and just came out with the Nikon versions of the 3 above lenses. It's a lot more common than you might think, and just getting those guys to Pentax would probably up Pentax's market share about 500% percent. You don't have to do a frontal assault on every sector of the market all at once. You select the best strategy to get everyone with a specific need something that will work for them, like all the zooms. You can fill in primes at any point, or never, depending on demand.
Personally I have noticed the people carrying zoom lenses instead of primes has increased as zooms have become better and better, and with the Triumvirate type lenses championed by Nikon, Canon and now Pentax, I'm would need to be convinced primes are even necessary.
I once had a woman approach me, and ask how much my K-3 cost. I said about a gran. And how much did that lens (the DA*200) cost? Also about a grand. What's the zoom range? It's a prime it doesn't zoom. She yells out to her husband "Hey honey, this guy paid $2000 for that camera and it doesn't even zoom."
With the quality of modern zooms it is really hard to make case for primes. I carry my DA*200 instead of the DA* 60-250 because of the weight. And roughly 3 times out of 4, I regret it.
Where are the feet on this Reindeer? Or the tips of his antlers? I had the 200 prime on instead of the 60-250 which I left home. If I back up there's a fence in the way. I can't move forward, there's fence in the way. Oh well, I'll just have to snap a footless Caribou. That's blown opportunity. Honestly, in most of the situations I shoot, primes are not a functional solution. However in controlled situations like my blind, which is really a small bird photography studio, I like the primes. I build the studio to match my primes. Out in the real world, that's not a thing.
And the crazy thing is if you put the 60-250 image beside this image, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference without incredibly close and laborious examination 1:1 pixel peeping on a ,maximum 103 PPI monitor. You'd be looking for very slight differences in micro contrast. WIth a cursory glance they'd both be identical. But anyone who's done top quality zoom to top quality prime comparisons already knows this. Unless you're talking about the new Zeiss lenses, and Pentax isn't likely to invest in that kind of quality anyway. It's cost prohibitive.
So unless you're saying I need 24mm for some kind of studio work, I'm not buying it. I will try and pick up a K 20 F2 however. Just to have something when I want it. Something small, that doesn't take much space in my bag. The new designs are way to big to be carried "in case I need them" and usually not used.
The reason for the DFA 50 1.4 is that 50mm is such a versatile focal length on FF. I often go out with the K-1 and a 50 and nothing else. It can be purchased for an endless number of reasons, many of which I'm sure I can't even imagine. They will sell some. The 85 will be their studio portrait lens. They'll get to the others when more pressing needs have been addressed.