[Serkevan]

Any info on weight? I did not find it on Ricoh release page.

About 450 g! It's roughly the weight and size of the 28-105.

[Wheatfield]

There seems to be a lot a push back toward those concerned about the price. This lens looks to be be Pentax's third most expensive Prime behind the fast 85mm and a super telephoto. And maybe $500 more than the most expensive Limited lens. To me that makes the criticism very valid.

Sure it might be an amazing lens, but it still pushes the envelope of price.

It's not 1984 any more. What's happened is that the price envelope has gotten much larger than many Pentax users are comfortable with, and now they are unhappy and feeling betrayed because Pentax was the cheap and cheerful brand. The critism is valid if one is living in the past. Ricoh is looking to the future, and for better or worse, the future is camera gear getting more expensive. Twenty or more year old lens designs are not comparable to modern made for digital ones. Comparing the FA50/1.4 to the D FA* 50/1.4 is testament to that.

As an aside, it's very expensive to design and build a really good ultra wide angle lens, much more so than a medium wide. Comparing the price of the 21mm to the 31mm is not valid. If Pentax had decided to make a 21mm LTD in 2001 to release concurrently with the 31LTD, it would probably have cost twice as much as the 31.

[gatorguy]

About 450 g! It's roughly the weight and size of the 28-105.

Relatively light then for a recent Pentax lens release.

Seriously, it's not a lens I'd consider to be in the least "heavy"

[house]

Ricoh has "promised" to get on with the mid and low tier lenses after this batch. I think it was at the online cp event thing.

[Wheatfield]

Relatively light then for a recent Pentax lens release.

Only because it's a smallish package. They can only cram so much glass into a barrel that size.

[tncasual]

The critism is valid if one is living in the past.

Wow.

I have only owned Pentax equipment for less than a year, so...

Yes, the unfortunate reality is that dedicated photography equipment is growing more and more a luxury. But that still doesn't make price criticisms invalid.

[gatorguy]

Wow.

I have only owned Pentax equipment for less than a year, so...

Yes, the unfortunate reality is that dedicated photography equipment is growing more and more a luxury. But that still doesn't make price criticisms invalid.

As the sales volumes across the board decrease, it should be no surprise that the cost of newly developed gear will go up. "Make it up in volume" isn't applicable to DSLR/MILC photography anymore.

[Mistral75]

Any info on weight? I did not find it on Ricoh release page.

About 450 g! It's roughly the weight and size of the 28-105.

'approx. 416g
(approx. 14.7oz.)'

HD PENTAX-D FA 21mmF2.4ED Limited DC WR

[jslifoaw]

Wow.

I have only owned Pentax equipment for less than a year, so...

Yes, the unfortunate reality is that dedicated photography equipment is growing more and more a luxury. But that still doesn't make price criticisms invalid.

There are at least alternatives if people are willing to compromise:

If the comparison is APS-C, then there's the DA21 and various older 20mm lenses going all the way back to Takumars - all are broadly available for CAD $500 or less (give or take)

If the comparison is a similar AOV, then the DA14/15 on APS-C (or FF in crop mode), or various older 20mm lenses on FF are all possible - I think CAD $500 is also doable. Under various conditions, you could get fairly indistinguishable (or at least more than satisfactory) results vs the new 21mm.

And for those who are prepared to "compromise" by spending an extra $1000 or so, you get what is likely to be better optical quality, wider max aperture, modern in-lens quiet AF, and WR. Hard to put a price on the combination of all those factors! Pentax is expecting that the combination of these features will be deemed worthwhile for enough people to consider paying the premium over the aforementioned alternatives. There's nothing wrong with being happy with "75% of the performance for 25% of the price", but there's also nothing wrong with accepting paying a premium for something with no equivalent.

[Wheatfield]

Wow.

I have only owned Pentax equipment for less than a year, so...

Yes, the unfortunate reality is that dedicated photography equipment is growing more and more a luxury. But that still doesn't make price criticisms invalid.

If you follow the market forces and what is driving prices, you will find that price critisism isn't particularly valid. Criticizing the price implies that somewhere along the line the price is unfair or not representative of the investment in resources that have gone into the product.
You can rest assured that if Ricoh thought they could get a decent ROI on it by selling it cheaper, they would.

I was at a photography business seminar a number of years ago. The guy giving the seminar was both a talented photographer and a successful businessman in that his studio was always booked up. One of the things he said that was one of the more important takeaways of the event was that if you drop your price 10%, you need 40% more sales to make that money back.

I strongly doubt that if Pentax discounts the lens 10% over whatever price they attach to it, they will make 40% more sales. That would be quite a reach in today's market.

---------- Post added Oct 15th, 2021 at 12:29 PM ----------

There are at least alternatives if people are willing to compromise:

If the comparison is APS-C, then there's the DA21 and various older 20mm lenses going all the way back to Takumars - all are broadly available for CAD $500 or less (give or take)

If the comparison is a similar AOV, then the DA14/15 on APS-C (or FF in crop mode), or various older 20mm lenses on FF are all possible - I think CAD $500 is also doable. Under various conditions, you could get fairly indistinguishable (or at least more than satisfactory) results vs the new 21mm.

And for those who are prepared to "compromise" by spending an extra $1000 or so, you get what is likely to be better optical quality, wider max aperture, modern in-lens quiet AF, and WR. Hard to put a price on the combination of all those factors! Pentax is expecting that the combination of these features will be deemed worthwhile for enough people to consider paying the premium over the aforementioned alternatives. There's nothing wrong with being happy with "75% of the performance for 25% of the price", but there's also nothing wrong with accepting paying a premium for something with no equivalent.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Rondec]

There are at least alternatives if people are willing to compromise:

If the comparison is APS-C, then there's the DA21 and various older 20mm lenses going all the way back to Takumars - all are broadly available for CAD $500 or less (give or take)

If the comparison is a similar AOV, then the DA14/15 on APS-C (or FF in crop mode), or various older 20mm lenses on FF are all possible - I think CAD $500 is also doable. Under various conditions, you could get fairly indistinguishable (or at least more than satisfactory) results vs the new 21mm.

And for those who are prepared to "compromise" by spending an extra $1000 or so, you get what is likely to be better optical quality, wider max aperture, modern in-lens quiet AF, and WR. Hard to put a price on the combination of all those factors! Pentax is expecting that the combination of these features will be deemed worthwhile for enough people to consider paying the premium over the aforementioned alternatives. There's nothing wrong with being happy with "75% of the performance for 25% of the price", but there's also nothing wrong with accepting paying a premium for something with no equivalent.

Very much so. The point is not that you have to buy this lens to shoot wide angles, even if you are shooting with a K-1. There are a lot of options out there -- manual focus and auto focus -- particularly on the used market -- for quite a bit less.

At the same time, it is nice to have a tier of lens above the current lenses that are available in this focal length in the K mount. It is a bit akin for when Pentax was looking at releasing a new 50 mm lens. The already had a the FA 43, FA 50, FA 50 macro, and the DA *55 will work on full frame too. Clearly what was needed was not another low or mid level lens, but something special that is sharp wide open and highly corrected. Just as clearly that sort of lens comes at a price -- expensive and larger size.

I think it looks like a nice lens and am going to be saving up for it.

[repaap]

You can literally buy the 43 and 77 for less money than the 21.

Yes,


but they are not DFA 21/2,4 limited, either of them.


There is a reason why my first limiteds were 77 and then 43. they were cheapest. FA 31 followed after I got good deal from PF. FA 77 I did buy new from a shop.



this one I'll buy new. But only after I will get money for DA*16-50PLM and then save up for 21.

[repaap]

I can't get hold of a hi res version and I tend to be able to coax hi-res version from cms's even when they don't intend to.

map times now as well

?PENTAX???????????????HD D FA 21mm F2.4 ED DC WR Limited? | THE MAP TIMES

My goodness it looks mean in combo with the K-3 III

Not endorsing using it on crop though

It does look beautiful!...also nice size, about the same size as FA 31! just a tad bigger.

[Serkevan]

It is a bit akin for when Pentax was looking at releasing a new 50 mm lens. The already had a the FA 43, FA 50, FA 50 macro, and the DA *55 will work on full frame too. Clearly what was needed was not another low or mid level lens, but something special that is sharp wide open and highly corrected. Just as clearly that sort of lens comes at a price -- expensive and larger size.

I think it looks like a nice lens and am going to be saving up for it.

Interestingly enough, the DFA* 50 is a fair bit cheaper than the Limited despite being a chunk of glass twice the size - and the DA* 16-50/2.8 is the same price as the DFA 21 despite being arguably more complex and "higher quality" (AW vs WR, PLM vs DC, etc.). Heck, the DFA* 85 is a veritable monster in terms of glass used, it had to be designed twice, and is not twice as expensive. I guess that's what people are miffed about - it absolutely is a jump in price.

I'm pretty sure that the specifics of the DFA 21's design made R&D a very laborious and costly endeavor... they've made an UWA with good OOF rendering after all, and that's no small feat. Who knows how many prototypes they went through.

This lens is gonna cost me an arm and a leg but there's literally nothing else that I look forward to gear-wise, so... hopefully there won't be a K-1iii out by the time I'm done saving up

[PocketPixels]

It's not 1984 any more. What's happened is that the price envelope has gotten much larger than many Pentax users are comfortable with, and now they are unhappy and feeling betrayed because Pentax was the cheap and cheerful brand. The critism is valid if one is living in the past.

Wow.

I have only owned Pentax equipment for less than a year, so...

Yes, the unfortunate reality is that dedicated photography equipment is growing more and more a luxury. But that still doesn't make price criticisms invalid.

This has little hope of resolving itself into a useful dialog. tncasual has bought into Pentax recently (welcome!) because it offers some economical options, both new and on the used market. Wheatfield has embraced the notion that, since market forces don't care about tncasual's feelings, he (Wheatfield) is likewise free of such obligations. One of you is coming here with perceptions and feelings, and one of you is coming here with cold capitalism. That particular lens will never mount on that particular camera.