[biz-engineer]

I'm really liking my D FA* 70-200, so much so that I'm finding excuses to shoot subjects in that focal length, and I'm skeptical that the D FA 24-70 or the 15-30 (+ a whole new filter system, ouch) have the same optical quality.

The DFA* 70-200 is perceived too expensive for most (while price of other brands are roughly the same). I don't think Ricoh imaging top management is encouraged to do a lot of this kind of lens. What you have to understand is that Pentax lost a significant number of high budget customers who switched to Canikon when they wanted a full frame camera and Pentax did not offer one. Now, I believe there is max psychologic price threshold of <$1K per product (lens) that the current customer base of Pentax judge affordable. IMO we may see more DFA* primes priced in the range between $400 and $900.

[lithedreamer]

Do the rest of y'all agree with biz-engineer's analysis? I'm really bummed because I love everything else about the Pentax system...

[slip]

I would like to see a FF *50-135 2.8 just for portraits

Randy

[RonHendriks1966]

The DFA* 70-200 is perceived too expensive for most (while price of other brands are roughly the same). I don't think Ricoh imaging top management is encouraged to do a lot of this kind of lens. What you have to understand is that Pentax lost a significant number of high budget customers who switched to Canikon when they wanted a full frame camera and Pentax did not offer one. Now, I believe there is max psychologic price threshold of <$1K per product (lens) that the current customer base of Pentax judge affordable. IMO we may see more DFA* primes priced in the range between $400 and $900.

Do the rest of y'all agree with biz-engineer's analysis? I'm really bummed because I love everything else about the Pentax system...

For some years now there isn't much market for very expensive equipement in k-mount.

[Kunzite]

I believe Pentax lost ground before Nikon had their first FF DSLR (the D3, in 2007). Many of their long FA-series lenses were retired around 2004, according to Bojidar's site. A last attempt at a semi-pro SLR in 2001 (MZ-S), a somewhat late entry in digital (2003, *istD) then being lazy about it until the K-series in 2006, and then Hoya. Things gradually got worse, then hopeless.

However, right now people are buying K-1s and 70-200s and even 150-450s... I was surprised to hear that even the 1900+ euro D FA* is selling, in Romania (just a few units, but even so), because I had the impression that about every high spending customer left Pentax. And we're not a rich country, 1900 euro is quite a lot. Or 2000, for the K-1.
Besides, other systems' users are complaining as loudly about high prices.

I'm also not sure what is a * lens, these days. IMO they diluted somehow its significance, when they released the DA* series (SDM motors, some lenses with so-so optics, extending barrels); but the D FA* was an all-out effort.
So I don't know if a $400 prime could be a D FA*. It depends what they mean by that.

In any case, IMO the new lenses won't be cheap (I expect Ricoh Imaging to mostly continue what they started with the D FA zooms, as a next step).

[narual]

I would like to see a FF *50-135 2.8 just for portraits

Randy

50-135 is the 70-200 analog for crop sensor. The 70-200 is available for purchase. Or are you saying you want an actual 50-135 for the k1? I guess that would be a roughly similar experience to using a 28-75 on crop sensor, so a pretty good lens for parties and general walking around. Maybe throw a teleconverter on the 24-70 or use the 28-105? Not exactly what you want, but approximately. Or just use your 50-135 on the k1? Dunno how much it vignettes. I don't think it looked too terrible on my film body, but I can't recall

[Rondec]

I really do doubt that there will be any DFA * zooms in the not too distant future. The thing is that Pentax has to fill out the rest of their lens line up before considering designing their own replacements for the other DFA zooms. I think it means a lot of primes and a couple of non * zooms. They certainly have a fish eye zoom on the road map.

As to the quality of the Tamron rebrands, they probably aren't quite at the DFA * level, but they are awfully good and I have been pleased with their performance. I do wonder what their cost would have been and how long it would have taken to get them to market if Pentax had designed them in-house rather than out sourcing them to Tamron. It felt like the DFA * 70-200 took a couple of years to come out, although maybe it wasn't quite that long.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 11-17-2016 at 05:59 AM.

[Kunzite]

Perhaps quite a lot. Looking at the D FA* 70-200, I can't help but think that a Pentax-made D FA* 24-70 would be almost as expensive than a brand new Canikon. IMO the decision was made due to price (i.e. they thought they needed a more affordable 24-70 as their "standard pro" lens).

But that's not all. Looking at the initial production volume, for the D FA* 70-200mm - a very expensive lens - we have 1,000 units/month; same for the D FA 150-450mm. Of course, that's probably not very reliable, however: while the D FA 24-70 has the same 1,000 units per month for the D FA 15-30 the number is just 200.
I'm guessing they anticipated sales so low that designing their own version wasn't even an option.

Of course, I'm just guessing here - trying to make it an educated guess; but if I'm correct, I cannot fault their decision. However, I'd rather have/buy Pentax-made lenses... because otherwise, one of the reasons for staying with Pentax disappears.

[lithedreamer]

50-135 is the 70-200 analog for crop sensor. The 70-200 is available for purchase. Or are you saying you want an actual 50-135 for the k1? I guess that would be a roughly similar experience to using a 28-75 on crop sensor, so a pretty good lens for parties and general walking around. Maybe throw a teleconverter on the 24-70 or use the 28-105? Not exactly what you want, but approximately. Or just use your 50-135 on the k1? Dunno how much it vignettes. I don't think it looked too terrible on my film body, but I can't recall

The 28-105 is missing some wide aperture capability for low-light shots, and the 50-135 vignettes pretty badly on the K-1 from what I've read, people tend to go for square (1:1) crop mode if they do shoot with it. Adding a teleconverter to the 24-70 means sacrificing a stop of light but still carrying around a really heavy lens, which would just kind of suck as a walk around in my opinion. On the other hand, I wouldn't be in the market for a 50-135 FF, so...

[Rondec]

Perhaps quite a lot. Looking at the D FA* 70-200, I can't help but think that a Pentax-made D FA* 24-70 would be almost as expensive than a brand new Canikon. IMO the decision was made due to price (i.e. they thought they needed a more affordable 24-70 as their "standard pro" lens).

But that's not all. Looking at the initial production volume, for the D FA* 70-200mm - a very expensive lens - we have 1,000 units/month; same for the D FA 150-450mm. Of course, that's probably not very reliable, however: while the D FA 24-70 has the same 1,000 units per month for the D FA 15-30 the number is just 200.
I'm guessing they anticipated sales so low that designing their own version wasn't even an option.

Of course, I'm just guessing here - trying to make it an educated guess; but if I'm correct, I cannot fault their decision. However, I'd rather have/buy Pentax-made lenses... because otherwise, one of the reasons for staying with Pentax disappears.

I would think eventually they would design their own versions of these lenses -- regardless of numbers sold, it is a reason to go with Pentax for Pentax designed glass. I just think it isn't high on their priority and so it may be several years before they turn their attention to that.

Give us a DFA *85mm f1.4, DFA *20mm f1.8 and two or three DFA limited primes as well and then figure out where they are at.

[normhead]

The 28-105 is missing some wide aperture capability for low-light shots, and the 50-135 vignettes pretty badly on the K-1 from what I've read, people tend to go for square (1:1) crop mode if they do shoot with it. Adding a teleconverter to the 24-70 means sacrificing a stop of light but still carrying around a really heavy lens, which would just kind of suck as a walk around in my opinion. On the other hand, I wouldn't be in the market for a 50-135 FF, so...

Wide aperture ability is always a trade off against portability. For those of us who want to carry a full range of gear, 20-500 for the FF, for up to 15 km(10 miles) on a hike, the lack of portability of those wide aperture lenses makes them functionally useless... as in at home on the shelf, instead of in the field on the camera. Currently the 28-105 is the only lens I'm considering, same size as my 18-135, but much shorter zoom range.

Pentax has done the wide Aperture for low light thing. Now maybe they should pay some attention to their core market. Us out doorsey type who don't like to own anything we can't carry, want WR because we are out shooting in the weather, and who need rugged designs, because camera bag shake on long hikes can mess up a poorly constructed lens.

Especially since you're looking at shooting ƒ8 for landscape on the FF in any case, a constant 4-5.6 lens would be all I need. My 35 2.4 50 1.7, 90 2.8 and 200 2.8 will be fine for picking up th fast aperture slack.

I Have nothing against the dude who want fast aperture everything, but at time they forget, that isn't most of us. Especially when so many primes, the 31, 43, 50, 55 and 77, put 2.8 to shame, for wide aperture.

It's fine and dandy they'e reached out to new market, more power to them but, hey, what about us guys over here? I'd like to buy a new lens for my K-1 too.

Right now my rickety old plastic 35-80 is my walk around lens, and the 28-105 is my only option as an upgrade. 24-135 would have made me happy.

I find it hard to want to pay $700 for a lens that leaves me still wanting to buy another lens. I guess the 18-135 just spoiled me.

So in response to the OPs question, there's a lot of other lenses I'd like to see first.

It's like Pentax decided the K-1 was there big bucks option with lenses for the big spenders. For me it isn't at all, it's my K-1000.

[bilybianca]

I hope in the middle term, if Pentax achieve more user base, we could see some f4* zooms.

That's what I'm hoping for too. I think the f2.8 zooms are too bulky (and honestly, too pricey), and if I need faster than f4 I go prime.

Kjell

[asahi man]

In the next 6 month we get 3 till 5 new primes,next *Zoom is possible to be a medium telezoom 4.0 .
Also a wide 4.0 is possible in the next 12 month.
Both made and patented by Pentax Ricoh.
I also asked an oem for next converter,fullframe in this case,but I got no concrete answer.
The APS-C converter was produced in 400 pieces at first production run and was sold out in a couple of hours.
It was Pentax patented.

[Kunzite]

Where did you get the "400 pieces at first production run" information?
In the Japanese announcement, they say 1000 units, as the initial monthly production volume:
K????????????????????????HD PENTAX-DA AF REAR CONVERTER 1.4X AW?????RICOH IMAGING

[asahi man]

After 400 was the first sale in the shops,1000 could be the standard production run.
But the first step for shipping was only approximately 400 pieces.
Best regards

P.S. :I got this from the producer.