[house]

I’m kind a thinking that people does get it wrong when someone(head of design group actually) say that it has been designed in the way that there is compromise. That should not sound that it leads to less work = cheaper to build. It is compromising the size and best optical solution in order to get pleasing photos, with good pop and characteristics. Now let us put that in different perspective, than let us say compromise with size and prize and optical performance, like DFA 28-105 is. Do not judge book by it’s covers. Same goes for Chinese aluminium what ever.

The question isn't if its compromised as in bad but just that the manufacturing costs should be lower. We all know that "compromised" lenses can be masterpieces. But what sets the price is manufacturing cost and branding not actual performance. Just consider the DA 35 f2.4

[Serkevan]

I’m kind a thinking that people does get it wrong when someone(head of design group actually) say that it has been designed in the way that there is compromise. That should not sound that it leads to less work = cheaper to build. It is compromising the size and best optical solution in order to get pleasing photos, with good pop and characteristics. Now let us put that in different perspective, than let us say compromise with size and prize and optical performance, like DFA 28-105 is. Do not judge book by it’s covers. Same goes for Chinese aluminium what ever.

As I explained in the previous post, the lenses are great and built to a high standard but the optical design contains smaller, less complicated elements. The FA Limiteds, by definition, are cheaper to build (which is why they all released at a much cheaper price than the D FA* 85).


The D FA* 70-200/2.8 or 150-450 AW lenses are extremely well built lenses with incredible optical performance. No Limited is more expensive to build than either of those.

---------- Post added 05-29-20 at 05:40 AM ----------

The question isn't if its compromised as in bad but just that the manufacturing costs should be lower. We all know that "compromised" lenses can be masterpieces. But what sets the price is manufacturing cost and branding not actual performance. Just consider the DA 35 f2.4

Exactly. IQ has no bearing on price (but it affects the perceived value and that can influence the price, leading to different profit margins).


The Canon EF 85/1.2L is ridiculously expensive and I would say, based on samples alone, that it doesn't hold a candle to the D FA* 85. One could argue that the F or FA50/1.7 lenses have the best highest IQ/price ratio hands down.

[Riddler]

Too expensive for a niche brand
I hoped about euro 1500. Dont buy that lense

[Serkevan]

Too expensive for a niche brand
I hoped about euro 1500. Dont buy that lense

Precisely because it's a niche brand the price is what it is.
You're welcome to not buy it - but if the samples are anything to go by, the D FA* 85mm f/1.4 is one of - if not *the* - finest 85mm lenses ever made.
And for the record; I won't buy it - not in the foreseeable future, at least. It's more money than all my gear together, and far too heavy for my needs and uses.

[Sandy Hancock]

I made a post about where Pentax is heading, sharing some concerns, wanting to get a friendly discussing going and Sandy tells me to get out

Actually, my post (in this thread at least) made no reference to you at all.

[robbiec]

@Bruce, your examples are all dpr users. Very different breed of photographer. By in large they are all about the kit first and foremost.

K-1 replacement needs the K-new first as it has the architectural improvements which will feed into the K-1 replacement and perhaps the 645Z replacement. Reason No 1 for the oversized OVF in the K-new will be to fit a wider AF array suitable for FF.

The 'Pro' argument, deep breath Robbie, 1001, 1002, 1003...Pentax sees the 645Z as the more professionally focused line not FF, not APSC. End of.

Tune down a lens for 36MP? I saw that, shook my head and moved on. Darren can go get a K85/1.8, it is probably there or thereabouts on 36MP. Or the 77.

I can only speak for myself but I have been expecting the 85 and I am getting one. So that is one buyer I won't offload my Limiteds as they are a separate photographic experience, these DFA's are to me Pentax giving K mount users like me access to absolute top of the line optics that go toe to toe with anything and will remain that way for this generation. Sometimes I feel a little sorry for the other brands, they won't get to experience what we have , just as they feel confused for the poor Pentax users with our cameras that don't get replaced with an improved model every year. What is the cadence of Sony & Fuji camera body replacements? Reason I ask is because these are the systems called out most on DPR. It does seem to be quite regular, like every 18months, rinse repeat...

[beholder3]

But what sets the price is manufacturing cost and branding not actual performance.

That's a fairy tale. Cost in luxury goods such as camera toys and lenses may in a few cases limit the lower limit to price, but it is generally not a defining factor.

And "manufacturing cost" is just a part of cost, think of R&D, marketing, etc.

They all jack up prices as high as they can get away with. And they should from a business perspective.

[repaap]

As I explained in the previous post, the lenses are great and built to a high standard but the optical design contains smaller, less complicated elements. The FA Limiteds, by definition, are cheaper to build (which is why they all released at a much cheaper price than the D FA* 85).


The D FA* 70-200/2.8 or 150-450 AW lenses are extremely well built lenses with incredible optical performance. No Limited is more expensive to build than either of those.

---------- Post added 05-29-20 at 05:40 AM ----------



Exactly. IQ has no bearing on price (but it affects the perceived value and that can influence the price, leading to different profit margins).


The Canon EF 85/1.2L is ridiculously expensive and I would say, based on samples alone, that it doesn't hold a candle to the D FA* 85. One could argue that the F or FA50/1.7 lenses have the best highest IQ/price ratio hands down.

These things are hard to judge, especially when we have not seen pictures taken with 21 ltd. one thing which does build the price is also emotional side. It plays a big role in this too. There is not really Kg/€ or amount of work/€ or let alone bang for a buck what is there. Part of lot of this is that what is enough. Regardless, some lenses are more easy to get ‘right’ and if that is all, then that should be enough to get 35/2,4 and get on with it. How ever 50/1,8 is not as good. And could not hold the candle for my DA*55(we made head to head test with my friend) but it still is good enough. Want to have best bargain? Get a set of 2.8 zooms and you are done. Problem for now is that there is not actually ‘cheapo’ alternative for this 85/1,4. Other than 77/1,8, which is cheaper, and is actually very good also. Not everyone has a budget for lenses like this. The thing is, they don’t have to.this will be made in low patch, and price is what it is. I’d say that wealthy ‘hobbyists’ and Pro who has gigs and needs this will buy this. I would think that ‘they’ have been waiting very much to get it, like my self. Not wealthy, but I earn some €€ from this too and it will eventually pay for it self.

I’ve tried Samyang& Sigma. Not working for me. I know what I want(now especially so). And FA 77 limited is great, small and not really 85/1,4.

Long waited lens, which is not for everyone still. Some way similar to DFA21limited. More cheap versions are out there. And some may even get to you similar result. Not the same, but similar. Depends what one wish for.

---------- Post added 05-29-20 at 16:42 ----------

That's a fairy tale. Cost in luxury goods such as camera toys and lenses may in a few cases limit the lower limit to price, but it is generally not a defining factor.

And "manufacturing cost" is just a part of cost, think of R&D, marketing, etc.

They all jack up prices as high as they can get away with. And they should from a business perspective.

And of course, this

[Kunzite]

I haven't attacked anyone!

Preemptive attacks I said, and they were emphasized in that quote.

It's not the fact that they produced the DFA 85, or that it will be an awesome lens, it's the fact it costs $2kUSD/2k quid (prolly $2.5-3kAUD). It's now the most 'new' expensive 85/1.4 on any modern brand? Yet can only be used on a 2016 FF K-1, not a recent FF offering like how the other brands release.

That's wrong, too - and Ricoh Imaging spelled it out. This lens is made with the future generations of DSLRs in mind. So what if for now there's only the K-1? Yes, we can use it with this camera, and upgrade to a new FF DSLR when it will be available and guess what, it will still be great!
What's your "better" idea, to wait making modern optics until the new FF DSLR is available? Then people would complain, "wait, there's no modern 85mm, no 35, no 24..." . Does that make any sense to you?

We'll see how many will buy this lens, I think we'll have a few owners here; but think in perspective - not stuck in the past.
My most expensive lens - the D FA 150-450 - wasn't cheaper, by the way.

Anyway, it's fine for you to see flaws in my logic, I'm just sharing my thoughts is all. I'm not alone, a few comments from others;

Why not going all out and quote dpthoughts? He claims there's no lens development department at Ricoh Imaging.
Intentionally making the lens less sharp so it would look bad on a higher-than-36MP sensor is no smarter than that.

[normhead]

Long waited lens, which is not for everyone still.

There is no lens for which everyone waits.

If I look at my own polling, I'd guess 65% of Pentax shooters won't even prefer the images to the FA* 85 1.4 or 77 1.8. Appreciation of these types of lenses really require that you know what to look for (out of focus areas and transitions) with not so much attention payed to subkject resolution. The vast majority of shooters think subject sharpness is all that matters. It's possible even my 18-135 will match this lens for subject sharpness, once you get into CA control, transitions and the smoothness of the out of focus areas, you will see differences. But, many do not look at those things.

When the DFA* 50 came out I bought an on sale DA*55 1.4. I could see the difference, it wasn't important to me. But I don't shoot portraits and rarely shoot under ƒ5.6. SO for me the extra money for the 50 was a no go. And there are lots of lenses for people like me. What is with all these people who think every new lens released should be for them?

There are a lot of people who just don't seem to understand, their shooting style doesn't require premium lenses. That's not a slight or anything, it's just an observation.

This is a professional portrait lens. Not a professional portrait photographer or studio product photographer? Then it's probably overkill for what you shoot. And there's nothing wrong with that.

[ffking]

Anyway, it's fine for you to see flaws in my logic, I'm just sharing my thoughts is all.

I've just highlighted that rather than a whole bunch of text - but what I would say is that I wouldn't take people's given reasons for not buying Pentax too seriously -most of them never really look inti Pentax in the first place - a problem in itself, but not the same one. This is especially true of the K-1 because guess what? The sample images we are seeing were taken on a K-1 (or K-1ii, same sensor) - people can either go with the assumption that a 10 yer old sensor can't be any good or look at the evidence, that there are some incredibly fine detailed shots using K-1 & D-FA* 85. This will be better still with the next FF Pentax - but it doesn't need to be for almost any real world purpose.

So, people don't buy into Pentax mostly because it never occurs to them to do so. The answer is to produce a system that gives a look you can't get another way, and in a world where people are striving to stand out, that could be enough - people aren't actually that rational, if something is desirable enough, they'll get it. Leica aren't exactly leaders in camera tech these days, and they're extremely expensive, but people buy their cameras for the exclusivity, to be seen, for the experience, for the look of the images - who'd have thought?

Just my contribution to the discussion.

Quality never comes cheap.

When Pentax asked their Japanese customer base (largest by a long way) what their priorities were, the answer was was star quality primes. We had the 50, now the 85. I think Pentax is doing the right thing by giving the customers what they want.

Quality used to come from Japan. Do not think that Ricoh is doing the right thing: They do not give you what you want, but the customer gives Ricoh what they want, money. "When I was young" Pentax was the camera that was more affordable than any other brand. Ricoh/Pentax is not that affordable anymore, although I can afford it now. It seems that I have to use up the equipment I now have and either look elsewhere or just find another pastime with or without good company.

[HarisF1]

Quality used to come from Japan. Do not think that Ricoh is doing the right thing: They do not give you what you want, but the customer gives Ricoh what they want, money. "When I was young" Pentax was the camera that was more affordable than any other brand. Ricoh/Pentax is not that affordable anymore, although I can afford it now. It seems that I have to use up the equipment I now have and either look elsewhere or just find another pastime with or without good company.

This kind of attitude I really don't understand.

30 years ago you had Pentax cameras and lenses that could be used to create beautiful images.
20 years ago you had Pentax cameras and lenses that could be used to create beautiful images.
10 years ago you had Pentax cameras and lenses that could be used to create beautiful images.
Today you have Pentax cameras and lenses that could be used to create beautiful images, with further pro-grade equipment being released for the people that require the highest levels of image quality.


What changed?

[normhead]

Quality used to come from Japan. Do not think that Ricoh is doing the right thing: They do not give you what you want, but the customer gives Ricoh what they want, money. "When I was young" Pentax was the camera that was more affordable than any other brand. Ricoh/Pentax is not that affordable anymore, although I can afford it now. It seems that I have to use up the equipment I now have and either look elsewhere or just find another pastime with or without good company.

Pentax has always made top quality lenses. And they still make affordable lenses. You can buy an 18-50 and 50-200 for almost peanuts.

Your statements leave me incredulous.

It seems that I have to use up the equipment I now

Because you own every piece of Pentax gear you'd like to shoot with and now can only turn to newly released product to fulfill your needs?

Some of us are happy using the equipment we have now. And the DFA 21 is pretty much all I'm waiting for. Because we are interested in taking images, more than owning lenses as a goal in itself.

For APS_c I have 8mm to 600mm covered.
For FF I have 14mm to 600mm covered.

I have 2.8 lenses 1.4 lenses 1.8 lenses ƒ4 lenses and variable aperture lenses.

I am unclear as to why your need for cheap lenses would be put ahead of those seeking modern premium lenses. Do you really think there isn't enough legacy glass for all but the most niche purposes? The catalogue is full of glass that can be purchased new, but that's not good enough for some.

Oh right, what you want is a lens like the 85 for not much money. Because Pentax is the company that produces premium quality product at bargain basement prices?.. Never was, never will be, nothing has changed.

If I sell my FAJ 18-35, FA 35-80 and F 70-210 someone could cover the whole 18-210 range in FF for $300, all AF lenses and they would all benefit from shake reduction. What kind of bargains are you looking for? What other company offers that?

[cmohr]

It will boost second hand market for FA* 85 and Sigma 85 EX !

Nope.... Never sell my FA*85. Once lost one, on a day out....devastated. Managed to get another. Timeless lens.
I'm positive the new D FA*85/1.4 will be, truly a wonderful lens, but it will never replace the FA*85/1.4. Because of the totally different optical differences. I will purchase the new D FA 85/1.4, because it will have a certain something.