[huqedato]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

rather than putting an add on to the dear pentax thread, i have created a new thread.

Now its solely to do with lenses.

Whilst i applaud pentax for bringing out lenses in da*, which mimic the fa* lenses to an extent, and providing a smaller lens (da*50-135mm being and efov of a 75-200mm and the da*55mm being the "digital" replacement for the mighty fa*85mm) it would be great if pentax could reproduce the fine fa* lenses, and maybe some other primes, to suit both film and aps-c.

So, pentax, please please please, can you recreate the mighty fa* range that will create a so called dfa* sdm range, that will fit both film (with the screw af) and digital (with the sdm)

this of course could include many of the fine primes to be built too. You still have the blueprints for the optics (the most expensive bit of a lens) and can incorporate a wider body to have the sdm included. They can also include the latest smc coatings, to reduce any ca and flare reduction as well, due to part of the build this coating can be applied as with all other lenses.

Now i can already think of a number of lenses, that can be built to a new dfa* spec without much of an issue, such as:-

fa* 85mm f1.4
takumar 135mm f2.5
fa* 300mm f2.8
fa* 600mm f4
fa* 24mm f2
k 8.4mm f2.8
fa 35mm f2
fa 50mm f1.4
a 50mm f1.2
fa* 28-70mm f2.8
a* 135mm f1.8

so pentax, how about it?

I subscribe to!

[nanok]

I have been thinking along the same lines for quite a while. At least the FA* telephoto lenses work very well with digital bodies as well.

Some years ago Pentax obviously made a decission to concentrate on APS-C format, and focus their efforts on this product range. Personally I have always considered APS-C as an interim solution, and the market now seems to be heading that way. It sure has taken longer than I expected, but it seems to be happening.
The decission to go entirely APS-C now appears to have been a miscalculation of strategic proportions.

isn't that overstating it a bit? i am not saying "size doesn't matter", but really, how many people are now shooting "full frame digital" (considering there have been now "affordable" options to do so on the market for a year or so), and how much of a difference does it really make to the end result? i think you will find most of dslr owners own aps-c (i would guess well beyond 90%). it is just more practical from so many points of view.

calling it a "miscalculation of strategic proportions" on the part of pentax seems strange at best.

The big brands did have the resouces and patience to maintain their legacy FF lens range. Updating at least some of the FA* lenses could be a cost-effective way to get back on this stage. At least I would be more than delighted. The ones I miss the most are the FA*70-200/2,8 and the 28-70/2,8.
In the film days I did not have the money to buy them. Now they are very hard to get, and even more expensive than they were as new!

well, we are in the digital days now, and pentax, unlike _any_ other, gives you precisely that option: a 70-200/2.8 equivalent for your digital camera: the da* 50-135/2.8. just get that one. and there is also the great 16-50/2.8. am i missing something here?

Because it will sell very few samples and will be very expensive (the same reason we will not see a new 135/1.8). In adition, many potential buyers already got the FA* version. Reportedly, they only made 900 of it. It is probably a loss item. But it is a faultlessly performig lens...

You either have some inside data from Pentax or, more likely considering your history of posting just can't consider any other opinions but yours. Either way I think that this lens cannot be more complex to manufacture than the DA* 60-250, the design exists and its paied for and the modifications will be minor except for mechanics. And couple of threads down you'll find people willing to pay above 3500 USD not because this is the price Pentax asks but because there are so few on the market. And remember that FA*200/2.8 used to sell at prices above the introductory price of DA* 200/2.8. And as a final point both C and N have in this range macros that are priced above 1400 Euro. And I bet Pentax could sell a lot more than 900-1100 they made the first time at 1400Euro or 2000 USD,

Radu

[Pål Jensen]

Either way I think that this lens cannot be more complex to manufacture than the DA* 60-250, the design exists and its paied for and the modifications will be minor except for mechanics. Radu

It is not about complexity of manufacture but the complexity of selling it. There are at least 100 buyers for a 60-250 for each 200 Macro lens to be generous with the Macros sales potential. This means that developing and all other costs needs to be shared by fewer lens samples. This is why highly complex zoom lenses are so cheap compared to simple primes; they can amortize the cost over 10 000 or even 100 000 samples.
When it comes to the viability of the 135/1.8; I have that from the lens designer. He said in the mid 90's that an new such lens would cost at least $1600. Now probably $2500.......

[Pål Jensen]

And couple of threads down you'll find people willing to pay above 3500 USD not because this is the price Pentax asks but because there are so few on the market.Radu

Pentax did not ask $3500. This is a market price for a discontinued item. In fact, the last samples of the lens was sold by Pentax distributors world-wide at significant rebates; probably because it was a shelfwarmer in spite of its then reasonable price (in light of e-bay used prices nowadays). I believe there are several members on this very forum buying one (I bought the first sample at its release as I was the main whiner for such a lens for years; I was heard).
Only a few (1-2?) people pay $3500 for it. The reason for that is that it is in short supply. This add to its attractiveness...

[Samsungian]

This is f2 and not f1.8 & for a different mount: "$935"

Canon | Telephoto EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Autofocus Lens | 2520A004

Of course Pentax pulls ahead with the Shake Reduction body, but Pentax never gave their 135mm f1.8 Autofocus function.

All Pentax 135mm f1.8 sell for several hundred dollars more than a brand new autofocus function 135mm f2 sells for today. Take this one for example, yours for $1699 delivered anywhere on the planet:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330314871115


Similar aquisition cost comparisions can be said for 200mm f4 Pentax FA Macro purchase price used versus 180mm f3.5 Eos Macro, which new runs $1,300.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/112541-USA/Canon_2539A007_Telephoto_EF_180mm_f_3_5L.html

versus $3,500 for Pentax FA:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260366900172

It is not about complexity of manufacture but the complexity of selling it. There are at least 100 buyers for a 60-250 for each 200 Macro lens to be generous with the Macros sales potential. This means that developing and all other costs needs to be shared by fewer lens samples. This is why highly complex zoom lenses are so cheap compared to simple primes; they can amortize the cost over 10 000 or even 100 000 samples.
When it comes to the viability of the 135/1.8; I have that from the lens designer. He said in the mid 90's that an new such lens would cost at least $1600. Now probably $2500.......

[whatever7]

I would like to see at least one DA version of the cheap 50mm 2.0 or 28mm 2.8.

That would be 35mm f2 or 20mm f2.8 in DA speak. Sell them for under $100, I don't care how ugly the CA and bokeh are.

[kenyee]

Canon | Telephoto EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Autofocus Lens | 2520A004

After I saw this in Canon/Nikon mounts, I didn't bid much on the A*135/1.8 that was on fleabay not long ago :-P
If Canikon 200/2 lenses were down to $1k, that'd be a reason enough to run dual systems if you're into portraits...mmmm...buttery smooth bokeh....

[rvannatta]

Because it will sell very few samples and will be very expensive (the same reason we will not see a new 135/1.8). In adition, many potential buyers already got the FA* version. Reportedly, they only made 900 of it. It is probably a loss item. But it is a faultlessly performig lens...

agreed---some of these lenses are incredibly rare. Just how many 300mm/f2.8's do you suppose have ever been sold----????

[Samsungian]

Heres a Nikon 200mm f2 sold for $1,025. I see these go at $850 sometimes.

Nikon 200mm 200 f/2 f/2.0 2.0 2 Ai-S AIS Nikkor - eBay (item 170309963353 end time Mar-22-09 16:00:00 PDT)

There are benefits to owning more than one brand of gear. Nikon has very desireable prices on abundant & old pro caliber glass. Heck, my 300mm 2.8 AiS was $950, complete with trunk, manual, keys, drop ins, extention hood, strap. Awsome lens, 1/2 the money compared to SMC-A 300mm 2.8:

used vs used aquisition costs.

After I saw this in Canon/Nikon mounts, I didn't bid much on the A*135/1.8 that was on fleabay not long ago :-P
If Canikon 200/2 lenses were down to $1k, that'd be a reason enough to run dual systems if you're into portraits...mmmm...buttery smooth bokeh....

It is not about complexity of manufacture but the complexity of selling it. There are at least 100 buyers for a 60-250 for each 200 Macro lens to be generous with the Macros sales potential. This means that developing and all other costs needs to be shared by fewer lens samples. This is why highly complex zoom lenses are so cheap compared to simple primes; they can amortize the cost over 10 000 or even 100 000 samples.
When it comes to the viability of the 135/1.8; I have that from the lens designer. He said in the mid 90's that an new such lens would cost at least $1600. Now probably $2500.......

In all honesty I don't know how you come up with numbers like this and you write them with a straight face. 100 to 1 for the 60-250 vs 200Macro? I highly doubt that but anyway you didn't seem to read my post although you quoted it. The design is payed for except for mechanical changes that are by no means as important as optical design (so no need to dissipate a huge development cost in a certain number) and by your own admission to manufacture it it would be easier. And yet the introductory price for the 60-250 is 1100 Euro and the only logical conclusion must be that a hypothetical DA* 200/4 would cost less. Now 3500 USD and even 2500 is way beyond what most of us will ever pay for a used copy of the FA* but I guess there are lots of people here who will pay in a second 1500 USD or 1100 Euro for a brand new DA* 200/4 Macro

Pentax did not ask $3500. This is a market price for a discontinued item. In fact, the last samples of the lens was sold by Pentax distributors world-wide at significant rebates; probably because it was a shelfwarmer in spite of its then reasonable price (in light of e-bay used prices nowadays). I believe there are several members on this very forum buying one (I bought the first sample at its release as I was the main whiner for such a lens for years; I was heard).
Only a few (1-2?) people pay $3500 for it. The reason for that is that it is in short supply. This add to its attractiveness...

I already said that this huge price is a supply/demand thing and I agree that few would pay this amount even if there would be more lenses available to buy. But this says nothing about how many would consider this lens at the prices I speculated about above.

Radu

[Pål Jensen]

In all honesty I don't know how you come up with numbers like this and you write them with a straight face. 100 to 1 for the 60-250 vs 200Macro? I highly doubt that but anyway you didn't seem to read my post although you quoted it. The design is payed for except for mechanical changes that are by no means as important as optical design (so no need to dissipate a huge development cost in a certain number) and by your own admission to manufacture it it would be easier. And yet the introductory price for the 60-250 is 1100 Euro and the only logical conclusion must be that a hypothetical DA* 200/4 would cost less.Radu

You conclusion is far from logical. The price you cite is less than the lens costed close to ten years ago when it was certainly sold at a loss. Counting for inflation, higher yen and Hoyas focus on profitability you can double that unrealistic price at least.
Your idea that there are limited developing cost for an "old" design is false. Developing the optics is not what cost money; after all almost all optical designs are already done, and anyway done by a computer program. What cost money is starting remaking and retooling the lens elements and various mechanical parts of the lens. This for a lens that will sell in extremely, possibly unustainable numbers from a profit perspective. The fact that the complex focusing mechanism of this lens is part of its macrocapabilities, means that redesigning it AF system probably demands a complete mechanical and following optical redesign. This is why the A* 200/4 couldn't be used as a basis for the FA* version because the old optical/mechanical construction was not mechanically compatible with AF.
In fact, I believe this very lens is the least likely candidate for DA* treatment for these reasons. Besides, a lens equivalent to the 200 Macro on FF for APS will be a 135/4 macro; in reality this will be a 135/2.8 macro. It will only need to go to 1:1,5 magnification to give the same magnification as the 200/4 was designed for for FF. Such a lens would be a fraction of the price and sell a lot more...

[kenyee]

my 300mm 2.8 AiS was $950, complete with trunk, manual, keys, drop ins, extention hood, strap. Awsome lens, 1/2 the money compared to SMC-A 300mm 2.8:

aggghh....must resisttttt....
I didn't know they made a MF version of that 200/2. Thanks, Lindy

[Pål Jensen]

Heres a Nikon 200mm f2 sold for $1,025. I see these go at $850 sometimes.

Nikon 200mm 200 f/2 f/2.0 2.0 2 Ai-S AIS Nikkor - eBay (item 170309963353 end time Mar-22-09 16:00:00 PDT)

There are benefits to owning more than one brand of gear. Nikon has very desireable prices on abundant & old pro caliber glass. Heck, my 300mm 2.8 AiS was $950, complete with trunk, manual, keys, drop ins, extention hood, strap. Awsome lens, 1/2 the money compared to SMC-A 300mm 2.8:

used vs used aquisition costs.

True, but the used lens prices for Pentax great glass is helping the Pentax myth. The brand value created by this is excellent. It proves that Pentax lenses are fantastic; they are highly desireable and people are willing to pay a fortune for it.

You conclusion is far from logical. The price you cite is less than the lens costed close to ten years ago when it was certainly sold at a loss. Counting for inflation, higher yen and Hoyas focus on profitability you can double that unrealistic price at least.
Your idea that there are limited developing cost for an "old" design is false. Developing the optics is not what cost money; after all almost all optical designs are already done, and anyway done by a computer program. What cost money is starting remaking and retooling the lens elements and various mechanical parts of the lens. This for a lens that will sell in extremely, possibly unustainable numbers from a profit perspective. The fact that the complex focusing mechanism of this lens is part of its macrocapabilities, means that redesigning it AF system probably demands a complete mechanical and following optical redesign. This is why the A* 200/4 couldn't be used as a basis for the FA* version because the old optical/mechanical construction was not mechanically compatible with AF.
In fact, I believe this very lens is the least likely candidate for DA* treatment for these reasons. Besides, a lens equivalent to the 200 Macro on FF for APS will be a 135/4 macro; in reality this will be a 135/2.8 macro. It will only need to go to 1:1,5 magnification to give the same magnification as the 200/4 was designed for for FF. Such a lens would be a fraction of the price and sell a lot more...

Like I said many times you are entitled to whatever opinion you may want and anyway we have few hard facts to sort this debate out. But I feel some of your arguments are very weak and rather than spending all evening on this I guess it's better that we agree to disagree.

Radu