[Wheatfield]

Well, Ricoh Imaging can think of what's best for their Pentax business. When the customer base has a mentality to block any progress, I hope that Ricoh Imaging don't listen too much to the nay-sayers. If they had listen to Pentax customers, we'd still be shooting with M42 lenses. Thank god , Ricoh didn't ask Pentaxians if they should move to electronic aperture, the answer would have been "No", they just did it, and I'm glad to report that I love using my KAF4 70-210, it's not M42, it's not screw drive, it's not manual focus, doesn't have an aperture ring, but it's silent , sharp, light weight, one of the best lenses I own, it's a pleasure to use.

Again, you are moving into the ridiculous.

---------- Post added Nov 11th, 2021 at 08:46 AM ----------

but how many units of one of these special lenses do they sell???
According to that other thread, they sell fewer than two lenses total per body.
There is a reason why Pentax stopped manufacturing one special lens recently {was it the 560mm?}

That’s probably true of other manufacturers, specifically the ones that own the entry level market, I’m not so sure every manufacturer can be painted with the same brush.

[Rondec]

but how many units of one of these special lenses do they sell???
According to that other thread, they sell fewer than two lenses total per body.
There is a reason why Pentax stopped manufacturing one special lens recently {was it the 560mm?}

I don't know how much they make on a lens body or a high end piece of glass. Per unit probably more on the glass. The one thing to remember is that life span of the glass is a long time. So there is a single investment in the development of the glass and then they can continue to market it for the next twenty years, maybe with a tweak, like improved coatings. This is as compared to camera bodies which sell well for the first year at most and then have sales taper off considerably.

[Kunzite]

Again, you are moving into the ridiculous.

Out of curiosity, I had a look at his post. So... we're holding Pentax back by buying KAF4 lenses to add to our KAF3, KAF2 and older generation lenses.
I plan to get the D FA 21mm, of course (that would be my second KAF4 lens after the D FA* 50mm), but without throwing my D FA 150-450mm and all my other lenses away.

I wonder how much of that has in common to the Pentax revival plans

[Wheatfield]

Out of curiosity, I had a look at his post. So... we're holding Pentax back by buying KAF4 lenses to add to our KAF3, KAF2 and older generation lenses.
I plan to get the D FA 21mm, of course (that would be my second KAF4 lens after the D FA* 50mm), but without throwing my D FA 150-450mm and all my other lenses away.

I wonder how much of that has in common to the Pentax revival plans

I think his point is that by continuing to support legacy glass like the 31mm, 43mm and 77mm, they are hampering sales of K-AF4 lenses.

We just have to look at reality to see how wrong this is. Canon didn't really hurt their sales by continuing support for pre digital EF glass when digital came along, but they killed sales of EF equipment entirely to people who had made a significant investment in FD glass by kicking those users to the curb.

Nikon didn't kill sales of new D lenses by continuing to support old glass.

I can only speak for myself, but since 2003 when I bought my *istD, I have gone on to purchase 22 new lenses from Pentax, most of which I already had similar focal lengths in legacy glass.

I'm not seeing how support for A series and older lenses has hurt Pentax in my case, but I am certain that had Pentax dropped support for older lenses with the advent of digital we wouldn't be having this conversation as I would be shooting with a different brand.

In my case, Pentax would have lost all of those lens sales plus the sales of 7 camera bodies. My personal example may be on the extreme end, but my guess is it's more common than not.

---

Last edited by Wheatfield; 11-11-2021 at 12:02 PM.

[redrockcoulee]

Why would i buy a new Pentax if my existing Pentax lenses would not work with it?r

If Pentax changes mount just to sell.more lenses, then Fuji, Nikon etc become more likely to get my business than Pentax would. I mean they woyld be needing a new line of lenses only available new.

If they did that let them go under as far as i care. They would not deserve to remain in business if they did that

[Pål Jensen]

One case in point is Pentax medium format line-up. There are currently about 800(!) Pentax 645 film bodies on ebay! God only knows how many Pentax 645 lenses. The lenses can be had dirt cheap from about $100. They were all very expensive new.
If Pentax makes a new digital 645, and I believe they will, it means that someone can acquire a new body (expensive) and a full set of lenses (incredibly cheap) at a very competitive total price. You can easily end up paying more for a pro quality FF system bought new. This means that MF digital can be within reach for people who otherwise couldn't afford to buy several lenses costing thousands of dollars along with the camera. They can then upgrade the lenses after awhile as they see fit. Pentax may sell fewer lenses but it makes the system much more viable in the market.

[jslifoaw]

I think his point is that by continuing to support legacy glass like the 31mm, 43mm and 77mm, they are hampering sales of K-AF4 lenses.

We just have to look at reality to see how wrong this is. Canon didn't really hurt their sales by continuing support for pre digital EF glass when digital came along, but they killed sales of EF equipment entirely to people who had made a significant investment in FD glass by kicking those users to the curb.

Nikon didn't kill sales of new D lenses by continuing to support old glass.

I can only speak for myself, but since 2003 when I bought my *istD, I have gone on to purchase 22 new lenses from Pentax, most of which I already had similar focal lengths in legacy glass.

I'm not seeing how support for A series and older lenses has hurt Pentax in my case, but I am certain that had Pentax dropped support for older lenses with the advent of digital we wouldn't be having this conversation as I would be shooting with a different brand.

In my case, Pentax would have list all of those lens sales plus the sales of 7 camera bodies. My personal example may be on the extreme end, but my guess is it's more common than not.

All it took was one old film body and two lenses for me. May sound nuts to some, but my entire stake in Pentax was initiated by borrowing/taking my dad's MX, 50/1.4, and 28/2.8 for a film photography class in high school nearly 20 years ago. If it was an FM instead of an MX, I'd probably be using Nikon and if it was an AE-1, who knows...

Pentax has (wisely IMHO) chosen to be a bit different. It's likely (but not certain) that competing on tech specs will continue to be challenging for Pentax, and that their existing ecosystem plus unique design for their new products is their best shot at a sustainable existence, provided the tech gap does not widen too much. We are lucky that Pentax had a path to FF unlike Olympus, because for whatever reason, the 35mm FF format had enough inertia (or marketing) to make it a desirable feature and partially make up for other perceived shortcomings of Pentax ("They may not have a mirrorless and their AF isn't the best, but at least they have FF and IBIS").

[Kunzite]

I think his point is that by continuing to support legacy glass like the 31mm, 43mm and 77mm, they are hampering sales of K-AF4 lenses.

Sales of non-existent KAF4 lenses, to be precise.

I'm curious if he has at least one KAF4 lens. Well, not really. But let's keep in mind that us "resisting technological change" folks do have KAF4 lenses, and will continue to get more.

[LXNights]

Let me just say something about Canon and the FD mount: Canon didn't create their AF lenses for FD because FD wasn't viable, the limited capacity of the mount itself wouldn't easily the tech needed to make it work. Minolta felt the same way. Only Pentax and Nikon were able to maintain a connection with their legacy glass to a highly sustainable level. Can't speak for anyone else, but that was a HUGE factor in my staying with Pentax. My legacy MF FF glass and FA (AF) glass were able to keep up with all the new cameras right up to today. I have a 17mm F/4 SMC-M fisheye and 18mm f/3.5 SMC wide angle that lack the "A" on the aperture ring but I can still use on every digital camera I have. Being able to use old lenses saved me a ton of money, saving me from the expensive chore of switching systems, while I gradually brought in new glass. There are no negatives about Pentax supporting old lenses. If they can make a mirrorless with the K mount, it could put them back in the game.

[reh321]

I think his point is that by continuing to support legacy glass like the 31mm, 43mm and 77mm, they are hampering sales of K-AF4 lenses.

We just have to look at reality to see how wrong this is. Canon didn't really hurt their sales by continuing support for pre digital EF glass when digital came along, but they killed sales of EF equipment entirely to people who had made a significant investment in FD glass by kicking those users to the curb.

Nikon didn't kill sales of new D lenses by continuing to support old glass.

I can only speak for myself, but since 2003 when I bought my *istD, I have gone on to purchase 22 new lenses from Pentax, most of which I already had similar focal lengths in legacy glass.

I'm not seeing how support for A series and older lenses has hurt Pentax in my case, but I am certain that had Pentax dropped support for older lenses with the advent of digital we wouldn't be having this conversation as I would be shooting with a different brand.

In my case, Pentax would have list all of those lens sales plus the sales of 7 camera bodies. My personal example may be on the extreme end, but my guess is it's more common than not.

I purchase old lenses now, which may free up the seller’s ability to afford new lenses that I would never purchase.

In the future I may still purchase some KAF4 lenses, because I do personally prefer AF.
Whether or not I purchase new KAF4 lenses depends partly on whether Pentax sells a low-tier body I want, so Pentax will always make more money making a camera body I want than by selling me new lenses.

[Wheatfield]

Let me just say something about Canon and the FD mount: Canon didn't create their AF lenses for FD because FD wasn't viable, the limited capacity of the mount itself wouldn't easily the tech needed to make it work. Minolta felt the same way. Only Pentax and Nikon were able to maintain a connection with their legacy glass to a highly sustainable level. Can't speak for anyone else, but that was a HUGE factor in my staying with Pentax. My legacy MF FF glass and FA (AF) glass were able to keep up with all the new cameras right up to today. I have a 17mm F/4 SMC-M fisheye and 18mm f/3.5 SMC wide angle that lack the "A" on the aperture ring but I can still use on every digital camera I have. Being able to use old lenses saved me a ton of money, saving me from the expensive chore of switching systems, while I gradually brought in new glass. There are no negatives about Pentax supporting old lenses. If they can make a mirrorless with the K mount, it could put them back in the game.

The problem with Canon at the time was that they stopped any kind of support for FD within a matter of a couple of years. Where I live in Canada, real support was gone by 1990.
Minolta did, at least, continue to support the MD mount until Konica took over the camera division in 2003.

[reh321]

The problem with Canon at the time was that they stopped any kind of support for FD within a matter of a couple of years. Where I live in Canada, real support was gone by 1990.
Minolta did, at least, continue to support the MD mount until Konica took over the camera division in 2003.

We’ve discussed this subject multiple times.

Their actions resulted in my switching from Pentax to Canon {for 20 years} because I so much loved the Canon solution, which was similar to my switching from the FD-Mount to the EF-Mount. Today, Canon users can switch seamlessly from EF-Mount to their R-mount or their M-Mount; I don’t know what the long-term effects will be. Pentax ‘dug in’ with their mount, and today their switching away from K-Mount would still be a major project unless they would ‘write off’ all KAF-KAF2 lenses. Pentax was a major ‘player’ when I left them in 1995 …. not so much when I returned in 2015. I believe that the Canon company benefitted from their decisions …. I don’t know what the true view is of Canon FD-Mount users nor of M-Mount users over the long run. Personally, since I am now over 70, I wouldn’t worry about the long-run if I had stayed with Canon and the purchased a M-Mount system.


added: When I purchased my KP, I expected that it was my last camera body; if I stayed with Canon, I might have had the same expectation as I purchased a M50 or similar camera body {and I likely would have been completely aware of any progress made by Pentax - they aren’t national news these days}. After being let down by two Rebel bodies in a row, I ‘stumbled across’ this place while deciding where to go next … but I just as easily could have remained uninformed.

[RobA_Oz]

Sales of non-existent KAF4 lenses, to be precise.

I'm curious if he has at least one KAF4 lens. Well, not really. But let's keep in mind that us "resisting technological change" folks do have KAF4 lenses, and will continue to get more.

He said that he has the D FA 70-210. So do I (in spite of already having an FA*80-200), and a D FA*50 as well. I also plan on getting the D FA 21, in spite of the fact that I also have an FA 20 and an FA*24. After that, who knows?

I baulked at the price of the D FA*85, but I may not have if I hadn’t already owned the FA 77 (and the FA*28-70). I also rejected the D FA 15-30, partly because of its price, but mainly because of its bulk, and bought a used copy of the Irix 15 instead. There’s no indication of a Pentax offering around this focal length (the roadmap indicates a FL greater than the 21), so I guess that one will remain.

I do wonder what the strategy for future lenses is, assuming they have one. I have no doubt they do have one, but I doubt the recent concentration on high-end (and hefty, except for the FA Limited refreshes) fixed focal lengths will last much longer. Perhaps a smaller-aperture Limited D FA zoom in the 35FF range?

One thing stands out from a system point of view, though, and that is the lack of longer focal length lenses to match the AF capabilities of the K-3iii. The D FA 70-210 is a start, but wildlife and some sports shooters need longer focal lengths.

[Rondec]

Pentax has always had good backward compatibility -- new cameras can mount very old lenses. Not all old cameras support the newest lenses.

I don't think KAF 4 really matters one way or another. It probably makes the lenses work better with video, but unless you are shooting really old bodies, I don't suppose it really matters to you if your lens is KAF4 or earlier. I certainly don't care. The reason I got the DFA *85 over my FA 77 wasn't because of the aperture lever or screw drive noise, but better performance from the 85mm lens.

[Kunzite]

I baulked at the price of the D FA*85

Oh, yeah. That lens is amazing, maybe the best Pentax prime ever made - and for me overkill in every possible sense. I don't even shoot portraits.
I'd be tempted by a "D FA 77mm Limited" (new optics), though. Pentax just have to make them, and some will find their place in my bag.