[Rondec]

Pentax isn't going to pay anyone to make and sell a lens in the K mount under another brand's name. They won't stop Sigma and Tamron from doing so, but they certainly aren't going to pay them to do so. If there are gaps in their lens line ups that they are not able to meet then they might contract with Tamron to rebrand a certain number of lenses. Tamron is then selling the rebadged lenses to Pentax who will mark them up a little and sell them to their customers. This has been done with the DA 28-270, DFA 24-70 and DFA 15-30. There is profit in such an arrangement for both Pentax and Tamron. But those sorts of arrangements always come out and are an admission of defeat from Pentax's standpoint that they can't make a cutting edge 50mm/85mm or whatever else they are working on.

But this is a thread about the "new limiteds." My expectation would be that the FA limiteds stick around for awhile longer and that any new limiteds would be additional focal lengths -- probably wider than the FA 31 -- eventually followed by a redesign of the FA limiteds.

[mecrox]

OK, lets take the Tamron 150-600mm as a specific example and imagine Pentax paid Tamron to design and make this lens.

The first (beneficial) effect of this change is that some people who really need a 150-600 will consider buying a Pentax body. There is no gaurantee that they will buy a Pentax body because they can get the 150-600 on Canikony but at least Pentax is not knocked out of consideration. But will the number of added sales be every large? Adding that one lens does not provide any other Tamron, Sigma, Zeiss, etc. third party lens. Pentax pessimists can still say that Pentax has bad 3rd party support. But it does sell a few more bodies so that's good.

But the second (detrimental) effect will be cannibalization of Pentax 150-450 sales. Every existing Pentax owner (not just the new body buyers) who are considering buying a long zoom will suddenly have two choices: the Pentax 150-450 or the Tamron 150-600. The Tamron is both longer and cheaper than the Pentax (although slower and perhaps lower IQ). Surely Pentax would lose a very large percentage of 150-450 sales to Tamron (including all the people who bought a Pentax body to get a Tamron lens). Personally, I'm skeptical that the boost in body sales (to Tamron lovers) would be enough to cover both the payment to Tamron and the loss of 150-450 sales (to all Pentax users looking at long zooms).

The deeper issue is that the gaps in Pentax's current line-up are much smaller than they seem.

An image created by a given focal length lens can be replicated by almost any other lens of nearby focal length through some combination of cropping, zooming with the feet, or panoramic tiling. A 28 mm lens can stand in for a 35 mm lens. And at the level of functionality, the overlap is even larger. There are people doing portraiture with everything from 31mm to 200mm and no consensus that only specific lens X can do portraits (and Pentax does not have that lens).

Sure, extremely picky buyers might insist they will only buy f/1.4 lenses or very compact lenses or lenses designed for APS-C or an extremely specific focal length. Picky buyers do see gaps that only a specific 3rd party lens might fill. But most buyers less picky and they see the overlaps. They may want to buy a wide angle lens and be considering both primes and zooms in any of a range of wide focal lengths. For function-seeking buyers, the Pentax lineup is good and they are bound to find a lens. In that context, the 3rd party lens that fills a gap for the picky buyer dilutes sales among all the non-picky buyers who would never have insisted on the 3rd party lens but if it's available, it's now competing with Pentax.

Finally, all of this "missing lens" discussion ignores what a small percentage of buyers really care. Most camera buyers never by a second lens -- they get the kit lens and that's it. Probably less than half buy a second lens. Probably less than a quarter buy a third lens. Probably less than an eighth buy a fourth lens. Etc. (The actual body-to-lens sales figures suggest that my estimates are too optimistic.) Sure, we all know lots of photographers with LBA (mostly because we all find each other on PF) but in the wider world of the 10 million annual ILC buyers, they are rare beasts indeed. With Pentax, you can cover 15 to 450 in just four high-quality lenses. The percentage of photographers who really face a missing lens issue is much smaller than it appears (although they are vocal!)

You are missing a couple of points.

First, the existence of a given third-party lens may not only encourage new buyers but retain existing customers who would otherwise leave.

Second the perception is that Pentax has a limited choice of lenses. Whether true or not, that is what people seem to think judging by 1001 comments on the internet. It's no good saying they are all plain mistaken. They think they are correct. And these are the high-rolling enthusiasts for the most part, the customers you want to have or to hold on to. These are precisely the people who buy lenses. If something is stopping them from buying in or staying around, then probably you want to deal with it or you risk losing them as customers.

It's easy to explain this all away and then say this just proves that everything is fine exactly as it is. But if Pentax is getting smaller and smaller with each year, that can't really be the case, can it.

I'd still like like 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm equivalent f1.8 or f2 Limited prime lenses with modern motors et al, possibly also WR, for APS-C. Anyway, that's likely more than enough.

[biz-engineer]

Second the perception is that Pentax has a limited choice of lenses. Whether true or not, that is what people seem to think judging by 1001 comments on the internet. It's no good saying they are all plain mistaken. They think they are correct

What matter is what the users think about the brand, regardless if that is true or not. Belief drives decisions.

[Cambo]

Noticed from the interview that the Limited lens line-up will be expanded. Great news!

I'd like a 90mm F2.8 macro, and a 135 F 2.8. And ALL weatherproof, please!

Cheers,
Cameron

[monochrome]

And there is now a time when third party lensmakers don't produce many K-mount lenses. The result? Pentax gets smaller and smaller.

So if this has nothing at all to do with lens choice (which I don't believe, in fact), what would you suggest?

IMO Lens Choice is merely the latest iteration of the generalized GroupThink PentaxIsDoomed (See? There are gaps in the lens catalog. I don’t need them filled personally, but those gaps are certainly causing potential customers to turn away from Pentax. Pentax needs to PAY Sigma to make K-mount Lenses available. Otherwise Pentax Is Doomed).

Question: If Pentax, Tokina and Tamron tomorrow jointly announced a 1P, Joint-Development and Rebadge Roadmap and backed it with details (e.g.more detailed release schedule) but excluded / did not reference Sigma, would that satisfy the issue?

[biz-engineer]

Question: If Pentax, Tamron and Tokina tomorrow jointly announced a 1P, Joint-Development and Rebadge Roadmap and backed it with details (e.g.more detailed release schedule) but excluded / did not reference Sigma, would that satisfy the issue?

Most likely not. That said, ILC market share is hard to bend. Just look at how many years it takes for Fuji and Sony to take some market share even with rather good differentiation on the products. And just look at how hard it is for Canon or Nikon to grab a few percentage of market share to each other. ILC is a tough business. If Ricoh was investing heavily in Pentax, at most they grab something like 10% to 20% of the market i.e some of Canon and Nikon customers who actually have some preferences for the Pentax style. It's just that at below 5% market share they can't break even on some product categories, while with 20% market share they could better break even.

[monochrome]

Most likely not. That said, ILC market share is hard to bend. Just look at how many years it takes for Fuji and Sony to take some market share even with rather good differentiation on the products. And just look at how hard it is for Canon or Nikon to grab a few percentage of market share to each other. ILC is a tough business. If Ricoh was investing heavily in Pentax, at most they grab something like 10% to 20% of the market i.e some of Canon and Nikon customers who actually have some preferences for the Pentax style.

Then I suggest the problem isn’t gaps in the catalog but buyer preference for the Sigma price sleeve expressed as Lens unavailability. IOW, as soon as Pentax does release a lens people will complain that Sigma doesn’t offer a less expensive competitor and Pentax must ‘buy down’ Sigma’s cost. There’s no bargain alternative! PiD.

As soon as people stop expecting Pentax to be Canon and just let Pentax be Pentax this discussion will self-terminate.

Loss of CF from compacts has really destroyed the industry. Maybe some day Theta will be big enough to help?

In Pentax case the SPARX / Hoya asset stripping very nearly makes me consider whether democratic socialism and government protectionism is really such a bad thing. And I’m not kidding.

.:

---

Last edited by monochrome; 03-12-2018 at 02:35 PM.

[normhead]

It's easy to explain this all away and then say this just proves that everything is fine exactly as it is. But if Pentax is getting smaller and smaller with each year, that can't really be the case, can it.

And what if Pentax isn't getting smaller and smaller?

I don't know why you guys don't just come out and state the obvious. People who buy Sigma lenses are usually pretty cheap. They aren't the droids you are looking for. What's the standing joke on the internet about Pentax users? Guys who will pay $2000 for a camera body and put a $50 lens on it.

Meanwhile Pentax is courting the high rollers. People who will start with the K-1, 15,30, 24-50 and 70-200, then start looking for some primes. Those guys will make Pentax some money. How much money will Pentax make from the guys who buy Sigma lenses?

And why would a guy who wants to buy a 150-600 buy a Pentax in any case? For AF a D7200 with a 150-600would be my choice. I look at the system package, not the parts.

I have honestly never heard of a single Pentax user who bought his Pentax to put a Sigma lens on. I have only heard folks making the rather dubious claim that they would buy this or that lens if it was available for Pentax. Because it's cheap.

If I were Pentax I'd consider consider paying Sigma to make no lenses for my cameras, not the other way around.

Honestly, you can get a Nikon D5200 or a Canon TI with kit lens for $400. Them put any Sigma or Tamon lens you want on it. Find the lens you want and buy the body it goes on. Then for $1000 buy a Sigma 150-600 or whatever...

Why do these folks come on the forum and try our patience, for $400. Pentax knows, if you didn't spend $400 for a body that goes with the lens you want, there is simply no money to be made selling camera gear to you.

That's what i find distressing. People arguing that they have to have this or that Sigma lens, who won't lay out $400 bucks for a body it goes on. That is just incredible hypocrisy. With all due respect, no one wants to serve that market, except Sigma. That's why they are Sigma lenses. If Pentax and other OEMs want to try and squeeze money from that market they would be doing it. If Sigma and Tamron were getting rich doing what they are doing they'd have lots of money to invest in glass for Pentax. Their current practice suggests, they are struggling to squeeze money out of the cheapskates. People with the money buy OEM equipment.

So many people pretend like Sigma glass is something to wrote home about, Maybe a few lenses are. Before I bought my DA*60-250 I tried two copies of the 120-400. The Sigma 120-400 does not provide as much detail and clarity at 400mm as my DA* 60-250 does at 250mm.

Someone needs to step in and tell all these Sigma wannabes, "quit spending good money on crap."

There are some decent Sigma lenses out there, but it doesn't matter what the brand is, OEM lenses are preferable. And now that everyone else is making the 1.4 lenses that have been Sigma's bread and butter the last little while, Pentax, Canon, Nikon and Sony are about to eat SIgma's lunch. Sigma is doomed.

It's just so odd all these folks claiming Pentax can increase profits and market share pandering to cheapskates. Cheap customers do not profit margins make. Ask Apple. People who like what they see and will pay for what they want make good profit margins. You don't have to have the most customers to make the largest profits. Ask Apple. A slight increase in functionality commands a large dollar value in asking price. Ask Apple. Making your brand appealing to Sigma, is going down the wrong road.

There is so much camera gear out there in Pentax land, it will be along time before I exhaust all my Pentax options. I don't need Sigma. God knows I tried. My Sigma 70-300, broken, my two Sigma 120-400s returned, my Sigma 70 macro, great macro, but it sure illustrates for me what a joy it is to use my DFA 100 macro. That leaves my Sigma 8-16. Four SIgma's in the case, one occasionally used, and with the DA* 11-18 coming out, even it's days are numbered. At best, they are stop gap lenses, to keep you shooting until you can afford something better. Just my opinion of course.

In so many of these threads with people complaining about the lack of Sigma glass, it should said straight up. Pentax doesn't want you as a customer. They don't want to be the preferred brand for Sigma customers. Like Apple, they are happy to let the other brands appeal to the cheapskates. Why is that so hard to figure out.

I'm not a rich person, but I figure out how to pay for what I want. Apple computers and Pentax camera gear. It's all about personal priorities.

[Sandy Hancock]

At best, they are stop gap lenses, to keep you shooting until you can afford something better. Just my opinion of course.

Not just your opinion Norm. My 35 Art is excellent, but as soon as Pentax releases their fast wide prime I suspect it will be hitting the second hand market. The same applies to my Samyang fisheye.

By the way, the above post gets my "Most Righteous Rant" of the year award. Absolutely brilliant

[Jonathan Mac]

The same path as Canon?
Where does Canon or Nikon provide such prime lenses you are refering to?
Zeiss/Sigma certainly do. But Canon/Nikon?

Then, the first DFA* prime not even out and tested we don't even really how it renders. I personally expect it do render less harsh than the Sigma does.
Those new lenses are needed for current and future sensors anyway...

This doesn't mean that big very bright lenses are the only kind of lenses they need to design. But those are the first that need to be. If this is no priority for someone, older F/FA lenses are just fine so what's the problem?

Big, heavy lenses from Canon and Nikon - just about every prime they make. Have you seen the size of a Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro? It's gigantic, and it's not even super-fast.

I'm undecided over whether the big & heavy copycat lenses should be the first to come out. We can see just from this one thread that there are people that are interested in small, light, unique lenses from Pentax, and they won't wait forever for them. Of course, neither will those wanting the big&heavies, but they can always jump ship to Canikony to get them.

[mecrox]

And what if Pentax isn't getting smaller and smaller?

I don't know why you guys don't just come out and state the obvious. People who buy Sigma lenses are usually pretty cheap. They aren't the droids you are looking for. What's the standing joke on the internet about Pentax users? Guys who will pay $2000 for a camera body and put a $50 lens on it.

Meanwhile Pentax is courting the high rollers. People who will start with the K-1, 15,30, 24-50 and 70-200, then start looking for some primes. Those guys will make Pentax some money. How much money will Pentax make from the guys who buy Sigma lenses?

And why would a guy who wants to buy a 150-600 buy a Pentax in any case? For AF a D7200 with a 150-600would be my choice. I look at the system package, not the parts.

I have honestly never heard of a single Pentax user who bought his Pentax to put a Sigma lens on. I have only heard folks making the rather dubious claim that they would buy this or that lens if it was available for Pentax. Because it's cheap.

If I were Pentax I'd consider consider paying Sigma to make no lenses for my cameras, not the other way around.

[snip for brevity]

Fine words, sir (and they really were)! Though I'm not sure how many parsnips they butter. Look, this is almost all a matter of taste and view. Some like Sigma or Tamron lenses, some don't. Some think Pentax can survive and prosper without third party support, some don't. Some like the big new FF reference lenses, some don't. Some can afford to spend $$$ on their kit, some can afford to spend only $. To me, it's all a pragmatic question of what works and what doesn't. So let's agree to differ and come back in 2020. If Pentax is on the right track with their approach, their overall performance should be better by then than it is today. This might be worth a modest punt in fact, but first I would have to find an edible hat ...

In the meantime, I'll be looking forward to some news of 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm equivalent f1.8 or f2 Limited prime lenses with modern motors et al, possibly also WR, for APS-C.

[normhead]

Look, this is almost all a matter of taste and view.

As stated, an opinion piece.... no facts were involved.

[shiner]

ive daydreamed about such a lens, though a 3x zoom 40-120

Yes, a not-too-large 40-120 f3.5 WR PLM Ltd- is that too much to ask?

[normhead]

Yes, a not-too-large 40-120 f3.5 WR PLM Ltd- is that too much to ask?

The question now is, is there ever going to be another PLM lens? From what I read, keeping that rear focusing element light enough to move with a stepper motor is quite the design limitation.

[BigMackCam]

I don't know why you guys don't just come out and state the obvious. People who buy Sigma lenses are usually pretty cheap. They aren't the droids you are looking for. What's the standing joke on the internet about Pentax users? Guys who will pay $2000 for a camera body and put a $50 lens on it.

But what about the guys who spend $1000 on a KP and put a $150 Pentax lens on it? Maybe a DA35 f/2.4 or DA50 f/1.8... are they cheap too? Not the kind of customers Pentax wants? If that's the case, should Pentax stop making all of its sub-$500 lenses and concentrate only on the premium stuff with bigger profit margins?

Meanwhile Pentax is courting the high rollers. People who will start with the K-1, 15,30, 24-50 and 70-200, then start looking for some primes. Those guys will make Pentax some money. How much money will Pentax make from the guys who buy Sigma lenses?

Aside from the profit on the K-1, not much - I agree. Of course, some people won't buy a K-1 in the first place because of limited third party lens support, and the resulting narrower choice. Then Pentax has made absolutely nothing from them.

And why would a guy who wants to buy a 150-600 buy a Pentax in any case?

I tend to look at it the other way around. Why shouldn't the guy who wants to buy into Pentax wish he could buy a 150-600 for it, when he can for Nikon, Canon, Sony etc. Tamron and Sigma aren't making lenses for Pentax - I get it, and accept it. I certainly don't complain about it, and frankly it doesn't bother me all that much. But if either company were to release a 150-600 in K-mount, I'd be in the queue.

I have honestly never heard of a single Pentax user who bought his Pentax to put a Sigma lens on.

Me neither. But there are plenty of people who own a Pentax camera who've gone looking for a particular type of lens, bought a Sigma (or Tamron) and been absolutely delighted with it. Count me in that group... I really like my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and 30mm f/1.4 Art. And my 18-300, whilst flawed like any superzoom, runs rings around the Pentax 18-270mm I used to own. And I have several Tamrons that I'm overjoyed with. It's all about options.

Why do these folks come on the forum and try our patience, for $400. Pentax knows, if you didn't spend $400 for a body that goes with the lens you want, there is simply no money to be made selling camera gear to you.

That's what i find distressing. People arguing that they have to have this or that Sigma lens, who won't lay out $400 bucks for a body it goes on. That is just incredible hypocrisy.

There's nothing wrong with people wanting access to lenses, and not everyone can afford to spend $400 on an additional body to use with one or two lenses. Not everyone wants to carry an additional body with them either. I see no hypocrisy in that. I don't like the continued negativity around lack of third party support for Pentax, though... It does get a little tiresome. We all know that support is very limited, and I'm sure we all realise that griping about it won't change anything. It just creates a negative atmosphere. So I'm not keen on that, for sure.

There are some decent Sigma lenses out there, but it doesn't matter what the brand is, OEM lenses are preferable

... except when they're not; like when a third party model offers the photographer access to decent (if not earth-shattering) optical performance in a desired focal length and aperture, at a price the user can afford, or at least justify - and when such a lens isn't available from the OEM.

I prefer OEM glass, but I have some great third party lenses for both Pentax and Sony. Would OEM lenses be any better? In some cases, certainly, but then I wouldn't have been able to afford and/or justify them.

In so many of these threads with people complaining about the lack of Sigma glass, it should said straight up. Pentax doesn't want you as a customer.

Ouch. I hope that doesn't include those of us who don't complain, but still really like our Sigma glass?