[Pål Jensen]

I'll bet Ricoh/Pentax could make a DA 14mm ƒ/4 in plastic, filter size 58mm or so, and at $200 nobody would see it as a rival to the 15mm Limited.

I'll bet they sell more of at $50.....

[Jonathan Mac]

My guess is that they will do the FA35 treatment to the FA50 when/if they run out of stock. It makes sense keeping it as a budget nifty fifty. I suspect that they won't do any more smc's.

Yeah, it might reappear as a reduced-price HD FA 50/1.4. Or... Depending on the inventory of the DA 50/1.8, they might bring back the old 50/1.7 formula and use it for both formats, with the DA* 55/1.4 and DFA* 50/1.4 as the two "increasingly premium" options.

They probably changed all their equipment and/or chemicals as soon as HD coatings became standard. No point in bringing back SMC.

I don't think the price of the FA 35/2 changed when it moved from SMC to HD, in fact it might even have come down as I think the SMC version was quite hard to find for it's last few years, which has not been the case for the HD version. So even an HD version would still be the budget 50/1.4.

Given that the DAL 50/1.8 is FF compatible I think it would make sense to re-label it as DFA and maybe update it to HD. I don't believe it would make it any more costly to produce. Perhaps Ricoh think that will detract from people buying the DFA*.

[TwoUptons]

Thet probaby *could*, but wide angles for DSLRs are complicated - it would either have to be optically terrible or it wouldn't be particularly cheaper than the DA 15, methinks.

I think it would also be competing, not just with the 15mm Limited, but with the 16-85...

If I'm on a budget and want a lens upgrade from my 18-55, that's probably where I'll go first, as I get both ends and an optical upgrade.

But I think the problem really is that trade between cost (number and type of elements) and quality. If it were easy to do, one of the more creative third-party manufacturers would have done it already, even though they would likely have botched it.
"New 14mm f4.0 with all the distortion you remember from those cheap wide-angle adapters, with a beautiful wood and bronze barrel, only $1,495 in Nikon F, Canon EF, and maybe Pentak, if enough people sign up on our Kickstarter... $2,495 in Leica mount because Leica..."

That said, I wish they would do more 'plastic fantastics'. That 14mm f4 would work nicely with, say, a 24mm and 135mm joining the 35mm and 50mm... then you're only missing an 18mm to round out the old-school field of view in APS-C. And if a couple of those happen to cover full frame, even mostly, even better...

-Eric

[Serkevan]

I don't think the price of the FA 35/2 changed when it moved from SMC to HD, in fact it might even have come down as I think the SMC version was quite hard to find for it's last few years, which has not been the case for the HD version. So even an HD version would still be the budget 50/1.4.

Given that the DAL 50/1.8 is FF compatible I think it would make sense to re-label it as DFA and maybe update it to HD. I don't believe it would make it any more costly to produce. Perhaps Ricoh think that will detract from people buying the DFA*.

In Germany, it went down from 599€ for the SMC to 399€ for the HD. That's why I said "reduced-price" - currently the FA 50/1.4 retails for 449€. I'd expect an HD FA 50/1.4 to go down to ~300€

[VictorDA]

In Germany, it went down from 599€ for the SMC to 399€ for the HD. That's why I said "reduced-price" - currently the FA 50/1.4 retails for 449€. I'd expect an HD FA 50/1.4 to go down to ~300€

Yes, the situation was the same in France. That was a nice surprise.
I had the same idea that it would only be logic they apply the same treatment to the veteran FA 50, but now I also see that they could be afraid of cannibalising the D-FA (although clearly the lenses don't punch in the same category, the naming would be very similar and could lead to confusion?).
In the case of the 35, the situation was simpler, Pentax had no other option at this length and no 'starter' lens option.
So maybe a middle-ground solution would be to rehabilitate the FA 50 1.7, or use the DA 50 1.8 design (in a HD dress around 299€?) for clear segmentation. But I'm not even sure that today's Pentax still wants to adress this customer segment...
Indeed, as another poster pointed out, none of this would be visible on a roadmap before release. Time will tell

[house]

In sweden the HDFA35 sells for 4 990 :- and the SMCFA35 for 6 490 :- That's current prices and neither are in stock. They barely keep Pentax in stock. Due to low demand I presume.

FA77
HD 9490 :-
SMC 11190 :-

FA31
HD 12990 :-
SMC 15990 :-

That's not the cheapest price but one for the larger online photo retailers.

I think they basically had to lower the price to have space for more expensive lenses such as the DFA21. I still think the FA ltd's are over priced.

[deus ursus]

I don't think the price of the FA 35/2 changed when it moved from SMC to HD, in fact it might even have come down as I think the SMC version was quite hard to find for it's last few years, which has not been the case for the HD version. So even an HD version would still be the budget 50/1.4.

[...]

On norwegian retailer fovi.no the HD version sells at NOK 5,095.-, while the SMC version goes for NOK 6,895.-.

[PocketPixels]

Thet probaby *could*, but wide angles for DSLRs are complicated - it would either have to be optically terrible or it wouldn't be particularly cheaper than the DA 15, methinks.

Tamron and Sigma made 12–20 or 10–20 zooms with variable apertures for APS-C DSLRs for years, priced around the $400 mark. If Sigma can pay Japanese wages and sell a 10–20mm ƒ/4-5.6 AF lens for $400, then Pentax can pay Vietnamese wages and sell a wide-angle prime for an affordable price. 16mm, 15mm, 14mm—somewhere there is a reasonable balance to be struck. It doesn't need to be ƒ/2, 49mm ø, or distortion-free.

I now—finally, at age 42—have the income and passion to afford Limited lenses and even (used) ★ lenses. But the system needs to have affordable gear to take in a sustainable number of newbies, too. Tamron and Tokina don't do K-mount anymore. Sigma, Laowa, Rokinon, and Irix offer only a handful of lenses for Pentax. Ricoh can't count on third-parties to support photographers on a budget. Pentax has to offer its own budget options.

I got into Pentax because, back then, no other system offered an affordable, modern fisheye lens (The Tokina version of the 10–17 did eventually make it to Nikon and Canon.) I'm still here 12 years later, spending money on Pentax gear. I worry about the 24-year-old realtor who buys a Nikon camera because she can afford the $320 Nikkor DX 10–20mm ƒ4-5.6 with VR. Is she really going to switch over to Pentax once she gets established in her field and can swing the $1300 DA★ 11–18?

[Kunzite]

Tamron and Sigma made 12–20 or 10–20 zooms with variable apertures for APS-C DSLRs for years, priced around the $400 mark. If Sigma can pay Japanese wages and sell a 10–20mm ƒ/4-5.6 AF lens for $400, then Pentax can pay Vietnamese wages and sell a wide-angle prime for an affordable price. 16mm, 15mm, 14mm—somewhere there is a reasonable balance to be struck. It doesn't need to be ƒ/2, 49mm ø, or distortion-free.

It doesn't work like this. First, you're talking about very old lenses, right? Everyone (Sigma included) upped their game in the recent years.
Then, you should not assume Sigma has a cost disadvantage - if anything, they have the advantage of volume. I suspect their production processes are largely automated.
Then, Pentax (more than others) cannot really target bargain prices because that has to be compensated by volume, and they don't have volume.
Last but not least, Sigma has to sell cheaper - that's why people go with the third-party options. You should look at Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm.

[BROO]

I recently acquired a Pentax 67 lens to adapt to my Sigma fp for video. Pentax 55-100mm f4.5. It is big and heavy yes.
It got me thinking though. A DFA*45-100mm f2.0 would be a pretty awesome portrait/landscape zoom lens for K-1? I wonder what the size/weight and cost would be?

[RobA_Oz]

I worry about the 24-year-old realtor who buys a Nikon camera because she can afford the $320 Nikkor DX 10–20mm ƒ4-5.6 wit h VR. Is she really going to switch over to Pentax once she gets established in her field and can swing the $1300 DA★ 11–18?

I’d hazard a guess that a 24-year-old realtor would be happy with her three-camera $1500 smart phone, probably plus a Theta for video walk-through.

On a more serious note, it’s more broadly a matter of how to get young people interested in photography as an art form, rather than just happy snaps. In my case (others may have a different experience) it started out more as a technical challenge, to take, develop and print my own pictures – the interest in the artistic side came later. Unless film photography continues to provide a faux-nostalgic lure to younger people with no experience of it, I doubt the technical challenge I experienced will provide an entree.

I digress, however. For those who do have a spark of interest, there still has to be a relatively inexpensive path into photography that offers more than the smart phone option (0.5x, 1x and 2x on the three-camera iPhone I was looking at recently). Ricoh’s recent pronouncements tell me that they’re interested in more than just making a profit (although they are interested in that, as well), but that they have a social responsibility to their customer cohort. I wonder if that extends to future potential customers.

[PocketPixels]

I think it would also be competing, not just with the 15mm Limited, but with the 16-85...

If I'm on a budget and want a lens upgrade from my 18-55, that's probably where I'll go first, as I get both ends and an optical upgrade.

But I think the problem really is that trade between cost (number and type of elements) and quality. If it were easy to do, one of the more creative third-party manufacturers would have done it already, even though they would likely have botched it.
"New 14mm f4.0 with all the distortion you remember from those cheap wide-angle adapters, with a beautiful wood and bronze barrel, only $1,495 in Nikon F, Canon EF, and maybe Pentak, if enough people sign up on our Kickstarter... $2,495 in Leica mount because Leica..."

That said, I wish they would do more 'plastic fantastics'. That 14mm f4 would work nicely with, say, a 24mm and 135mm joining the 35mm and 50mm... then you're only missing an 18mm to round out the old-school field of view in APS-C. And if a couple of those happen to cover full frame, even mostly, even better...

-Eric

Maybe I'm moving the goalposts, but 16mm isn't all that wide, and $650 isn't all that budget. If money is tight and I want a landscape lens, the 15mm Limited is a better deal, but even $500 is a daunting proposition for students and young professionals. This college student couldn't even come up with $250 to fix the screen on his K-S2, although he jury-rigged an impressive solution.

It doesn't work like this. First, you're talking about very old lenses, right? Everyone (Sigma included) upped their game in the recent years.
Then, you should not assume Sigma has a cost disadvantage - if anything, they have the advantage of volume. I suspect their production processes are largely automated.
Then, Pentax (more than others) cannot really target bargain prices because that has to be compensated by volume, and they don't have volume.
Last but not least, Sigma has to sell cheaper - that's why people go with the third-party options. You should look at Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm.

The most "modern" lenses I have are my HD DA 15mm Limited (2013), my Sigma 17–50mm ƒ/2.8 (2011?), and my DAL 18–50mm WR RE kit lens (2015). None of them appear to use cutting-edge technology, but I don't think Pentax needs to have low-end lenses that beat the market. (I owned the DA 35mm ƒ/2.4 for about five weeks, and I don't think it beat anything. But in my younger, poorer days, I'd have been thrilled to have it.)
I did look at Nikon—one of the examples I gave was a Nikkor DX ultra-wide with VR at $320. If Pentax has limited time, limited resources, and limited volume to develop something comparable, it could contract with Nikon, Sigma, or Tamron for white-label versions of lenses those firms already manufacture at scale. I believe that's how we got the D-FA 70-210 ƒ/4.

[RobA_Oz]

I did look at Nikon—one of the examples I gave was a Nikkor DX ultra-wide with VR at $320. If Pentax has limited time, limited resources, and limited volume to develop something comparable, it could contract with Nikon, Sigma, or Tamron for white-label versions of lenses those firms already manufacture at scale. I believe that's how we got the D-FA 70-210 ƒ/4.

I imagine the Tokina designers are looking for something to do, if their OEM output recently is anything to judge by, but the relationship with Tamron seems to be the best established. How much longer, though, will they continue to design and make DSLR lenses?

On the Nikon you mention, how old is it? If it’s more than five years old, I would think that the development and production setup costs would have been written off in a different market to today’s.

[BROO]

The Tamron SP range of 35mm, 45mm and 85mm f1.8 AW ff prime lens rebranded as Pentax would be a logical move.They would be a great additions for the more budget oriented Pentaxian.

[PocketPixels]

I imagine the Tokina designers are looking for something to do, if their OEM output recently is anything to judge by, but the relationship with Tamron seems to be the best established. How much longer, though, will they continue to design and make DSLR lenses?

On the Nikon you mention, how old is it? If it’s more than five years old, I would think that the development and production setup costs would have been written off in a different market to today’s.

I imagine the Tokina designers are looking for something to do, if their OEM output recently is anything to judge by, but the relationship with Tamron seems to be the best established. How much longer, though, will they continue to design and make DSLR lenses?

On the Nikon you mention, how old is it? If it’s more than five years old, I would think that the development and production setup costs would have been written off in a different market to today’s.

The Nikon 10-20mm DX came out in early 2018. Nikon's APS-C "crop" factor is 1.5x, the same as Pentax's. I think Nikon is far less likely than Tamron/Tokina/Sigma to be game for making products for another company, but I mentioned them because Kunzite asked me to reference what Nikon was doing in this space, price-wise.

I can remember back when Pentax was designing the 10–17 and the 12–24, and Tokina licensed those ultra-wide designs to make 3rd party lenses for Canon and Nikon. So things can come full-circle and it won't trouble me. Remember, I'm advocating for an affordable wide-angle DA lens (under $350, under 17mm) to help guide people into the system. The kind of person interested in/ reassured by such a lens in the lineup isn't going to sniff that it isn't a "real" Pentax.