[MMVIII]

... and I don't understand intentionally slow production when the competition is galloping

And I still fail to see the reasoning behind complaints here. if I would have the feeling I bet on the wrong horse I would not hesitate to just jump the ship and go to the land of milk and honey where the grass is greener and the girls are pretty... whatever

[zbrueningsen]

so Pentax is right where it is due to competition kanicosofuj because it is unable to keep up with market needs, let's be realistic with the slowdown of new dslr bodies - left alone - no more competition, to stay in the game would have to show a noticeable struggle to release new lenses that can to attract new users and make old ones happy, and then with great desire to buy ff bodies that are "short-lived" versus lenses that last (my FA and after 20 years I work on K1 4 years), of the 4 lenses you mentioned is only one for ff format and I don't understand intentionally slow production when the competition is galloping

I’m confused… Pentax has released 15-30, 24-70, 70-200 2.8, 70-210 4, 28-105 since 2015 or 2016.
They have released DFA primes: 21 Limited, 50, and 85. Those are all full frame lenses they have released since the k1 (or released right before). And tell me what company makes primes better than those 3? Like really?
11-18, 16-50 for APS-C.

Pentax has a far more deliberate plan than they did previously. When they release a new camera body it out performs everything else. The K3III has vastly improved AF and narrowed the gap with Canon and Nikon. When they released the KP is was a pure masterpiece and was far superior on ISO levels and using pixel shift. The K1, the 645Z, the k70 (for budget line).

The whole camera industry is trying (or has successfully) mimic the pixel shift. We may disagree at the speed of Pentax’s model, but there is nothing I’ve just posted that is untrue.

[MMVIII]

I’m confused… Pentax has released 15-30, 24-70, 70-200 2.8, 70-210 4, 28-105 since 2015 or 2016.
They have released DFA primes: 21 Limited, 50, and 85. Those are all full frame lenses they have released since the k1 (or released right before). And tell me what company makes primes better than those 3? Like really?
11-18, 16-50 for APS-C.

Pentax has a far more deliberate plan than they did previously. When they release a new camera body it out performs everything else. The K3III has vastly improved AF and narrowed the gap with Canon and Nikon. When they released the KP is was a pure masterpiece and was far superior on ISO levels and using pixel shift. The K1, the 645Z, the k70 (for budget line).

The whole camera industry is trying (or has successfully) mimic the pixel shift. We may disagree at the speed of Pentax’s model, but there is nothing I’ve just posted that is untrue.

I think the gap between the list of "absolutely necessary lenses that should be developed and brought to the market" and "high class modern lenses that have been brought to the market but not bought by the complainer" just says it all

[Rondec]

- for this professional class there should be a choice: DFA * xx-35 / 2.8 + DFA * 24-70 / 2.8 + DFA * 70-200 / 2.8 + DFA * 50 / 1.4 + DFA + 85 / 1,4 + DFA * ... specifically DFA * lenses - Pentax's design
- for everything else as desired and possible DFA15-35 / 2,8 + DFA24-70 / 2,8 + DFA28-105 / 3,5-5,6 + DFA70-210 / 4 + DFA70-320 / 4,5- 5.6 + DFA...original Design Pentax or rebrands because Pentax has no alternative selection of autofocus lenses - the competition has

and then Pentax would be recognizable and desirable in such a possibility of selection of lens that would have an unlimited possibility of user combination, of course, all would be justified with the realistically accompanying money for a certain choice of lenses


p.s.
unintentional error/I guess: and 70-210 f2.8 - It does not exist in Pentax

Are you really interested in any of these lenses? Because looking at your list of lenses the only modern one I see is a DFA 28-105. Having Pentax design a DFA * version of the 24-70 probably bumps its price a fair amount. Nikon sells their Z version of their 24-70 f2.8 for 2300 dollars, Canon sells their RF version for 2400 dollars, and Sony sells theirs for 2000 dollars.

I guess I don't see how many more folks would purchase a Pentax designed 16-35 f2.8 for 2000 or a Pentax designed 24-70 f2.8 for 2000 dollars. I probably would consider the 24-70, but the Tamron rebadge is good enough for me that I probably wouldn't bother unless I was certain there was a significant improvement. The 15-30 is plenty good for my purposes and I couldn't see spending an extra thousand dollars on a new version of that lens.

Anyway, just speaking generally, there are a lot of folks who complain about what Pentax doesn't have, but end up buying older, cheaper lenses. That isn't a problem, but I don't really think that releasing a bunch of expensive lenses would change anything either.

[jersey]

I think bigger thing now% is delivering up to date, fast AF lenses to pair with K-3 Mk III and not extending FF range.

I mean Pentax "action" camera has 2 (two) lenses that are able to bring the best out of new flagship, and only one is a pro lens that is relatively short for action shooting. 50-135 DA* and then something like 60-250 DA* or 100-300 or anything in that range with PLM drive makes more sense then next FF consumer lens in range that is at least partially covered by other consumer lenses.

[Serkevan]

And I still fail to see the reasoning behind complaints here. if I would have the feeling I bet on the wrong horse I would not hesitate to just jump the ship and go to the land of milk and honey where the grass is greener and the girls are pretty... whatever

Take me down to the Mirrorless City?

[mbukal]

Are you really interested in any of these lenses? Because looking at your list of lenses the only modern one I see is a DFA 28-105. Having Pentax design a DFA * version of the 24-70 probably bumps its price a fair amount. Nikon sells their Z version of their 24-70 f2.8 for 2300 dollars, Canon sells their RF version for 2400 dollars, and Sony sells theirs for 2000 dollars.

I guess I don't see how many more folks would purchase a Pentax designed 16-35 f2.8 for 2000 or a Pentax designed 24-70 f2.8 for 2000 dollars. I probably would consider the 24-70, but the Tamron rebadge is good enough for me that I probably wouldn't bother unless I was certain there was a significant improvement. The 15-30 is plenty good for my purposes and I couldn't see spending an extra thousand dollars on a new version of that lens.

Anyway, just speaking generally, there are a lot of folks who complain about what Pentax doesn't have, but end up buying older, cheaper lenses. That isn't a problem, but I don't really think that releasing a bunch of expensive lenses would change anything either.

wrong, then the current DFA 15-30 / 2.8 + DFA 24-70 / 2.8 lenses would be cheaper because they are not a DFA * league anyway and would have an alternative to the "holy trinity with DFA * features" (with the current DFA * 70- 200 / 2.8), DFA should be cheaper than DFA *, after testing DFA70-210 / 4 I kept FA80-320 / 4.5-5.6 and you really think I'm not interested in DFA70-300 / 4.5-5.6 or an alternative to the current Tokina but at a realistic price

---

Last edited by mbukal; 04-16-2022 at 04:29 AM.

[Serkevan]

wrong, then the current DFA 15-30 / 2.8 + DFA 24-70 / 2.8 lenses would be cheaper because they are not a DFA * league anyway and would have an alternative to the "holy trinity with DFA * features" (with the current DFA * 70- 200 / 2.8)

Yeah, no, that's not how it works lol.

[Rondec]

wrong, then the current DFA 15-30 / 2.8 + DFA 24-70 / 2.8 lenses would be cheaper because they are not a DFA * league anyway and would have an alternative to the "holy trinity with DFA * features" (with the current DFA * 70- 200 / 2.8)

What are you saying? I agree with you that Pentax designed 15-30 and 24-70 f2.8 lenses would be better, I just don't think they would be better enough to warrant a 700 or 800 dollar increase in price.

The enemy of better is "good enough." I'm sure that's how you ended up with the lenses you ended up with. It is why people end up with a FA 77 limited and not the DFA *85 or the FA 50 f1.4 and not the DFA *50.

[mbukal]

What are you saying? I agree with you that Pentax designed 15-30 and 24-70 f2.8 lenses would be better, I just don't think they would be better enough to warrant a 700 or 800 dollar increase in price.

The enemy of better is "good enough." I'm sure that's how you ended up with the lenses you ended up with. It is why people end up with a FA 77 limited and not the DFA *85 or the FA 50 f1.4 and not the DFA *50.

current DFA prices go down by $ 250 and new DFA * prices go up by $ 450 and here is the difference of $ 700 + DFA 70-300 / 4.5-5.6 and current DFA 28-105 / 3.5-5,6 would have an alternative to an enemy better in "good enough" under the Pentax name lenses not older than a decade

[JPT]

When I think about what lenses I think Pentax should make, I end up with a long list of lenses to fill in the perceived gaps in the line-up. But really, given what I have, I wouldn’t buy them myself, so I can’t in all honestly advise Pentax to make them.

When I ask what would I actually buy without question, there is one lens that comes to mind. I’ve never even heard the slightest rumor that Pentax is thinking of it.

It’s a DA* 25mm f1.4. If it were not too huge like a DFA lens and had good control of CA for night shooting, I’d pay $800 for that in a heartbeat. They’d probably charge $1,000+ and I’d grumble for a while and pay it.

[Serkevan]

It is why people end up with a FA 77 limited and not the DFA *85 or the FA 50 f1.4 and not the DFA *50.

Well, to be honest, with those particular examples there *is* a point to be made about the size - not necessarily only about the price. I purposefully try to keep my lens loadout light and compact, for example, since I like bringing a couple primes in a purse, or minimizing weight while hiking. The DFA* 50 is one less bottle of water than the FA 43.

[TwoUptons]

I think bigger thing now% is delivering up to date, fast AF lenses to pair with K-3 Mk III and not extending FF range.

I mean Pentax "action" camera has 2 (two) lenses that are able to bring the best out of new flagship, and only one is a pro lens that is relatively short for action shooting. 50-135 DA* and then something like 60-250 DA* or 100-300 or anything in that range with PLM drive makes more sense then next FF consumer lens in range that is at least partially covered by other consumer lenses.

I'm a little confused by this...
While I've certainly heard the calls for a revised 50-135 f2.8, and I think it's a good idea, particularly for the wedding/event folks, I often wonder how much overlap there would be between those customers and those for the DFA* 70-200 f2.8...

The recent DFA 70-210 f4 in many ways replaces the DA* 60-250 f4 (and is full-frame compatible without modifications).

I also don't see the difference, functionally, between a 100-300 and a 70-300, unless you're talking about something like a DA 100-300 f4, which you can have now with a 70-200 plus a DA1.4x converter. And I don't really see the point any more of limiting telephotos to APS-C image circles when there aren't really any advantages.

The rumor of the coming DFA 70-300 is that it will include PLM and optical stabilization. That means it won't be super cheap, but it does imply fast autofocus.

-Eric

[zbrueningsen]

I will readily admit, it seems like the full frame intent was maintaining their legacy of stellar primes. I don’t own any of the zooms, although I will buy the 70-200 2.8 DFA*. I currently own the Tamron 70-200 which is stellar for its price point.
I personally prefer primes, and just recently bought the FA 31 (and just fell in love). Landscape stills with that and pixel shift, I’m not sure anyone makes anything better.
But to the original topic, I think the partnership they got with Tamron to get 15-30 and 24-70 was wise. Their new stuff is as a good as anyone’s!
You have to attack where there is market share.

[Rondec]

Well, to be honest, with those particular examples there *is* a point to be made about the size - not necessarily only about the price. I purposefully try to keep my lens loadout light and compact, for example, since I like bringing a couple primes in a purse, or minimizing weight while hiking. The DFA* 50 is one less bottle of water than the FA 43.

True. I think it would be a tougher decision if the prices were exactly the same though. Weather sealing, sharper lens, less fringing, silent auto focus, versus the FA limited build, smaller size. As it is, the FA 77 is 800 dollars on B and H and the DFA *85 is 1800 dollars.

I know that there are people who would still choose the limited over the star lens, even if prices were equal, but certainly having a thousand dollars difference pushes many hobby photographers in the direction of the limited.