[normhead]

People keep saying the Pentax line up is incomplete. How so, who has better? Not one better lens, one better line-up, for APS-c?

Personally, if I can cover everything with zooms I'm happy. And I have enough faster lenses for low light. 35 2.4, 55 1.4, 70 2.8 and 100 2.8 and my 21 for landscape. Those not including many FF lenses , my Rokinon 14 2.8, good in low light and ultra wide, my Sigma 8-16. I have lenses sitting on the shelf I almost never use, just in case.

I'm seriously not understanding this "hole in the APS-c lineup" thing. Someone who thinks there are should maybe be more precise.

There are two parts to this question, where are the holes, and who has better?

I'm not saying people are wrong, but personally, I don't know why they are saying it. I wouldn't say it, so what's up?

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-10-2021 at 07:40 PM.

[RobA_Oz]

People keep saying the Pentax line up is incomplete. How so, who has better? Not one better lens, one better line-up, for APS-c?

Personally, if I can cover everything with zooms I'm happy. And I have enough faster lenses for low light. 35 2.4, 55 1.4, 70 2.8 and 100 2.8 and my 21 for landscape. Those not including many FF lenses , my Rokinon 14 2.8, good in low light and ultra wide, my Sigma 8-16. I have lenses sitting on the shelf I almost never use, just in case.

I'm seriously not understanding this "hole in the APS-c lineup" thing. Someone who thinks there are should maybe be more precise.

There are two parts to this question, where are the holes, and who has better?

You can always find (or is that "create"?) holes if you go looking closely. I wouldn't know about the opposition, but in the Pentax APS-C lineup, I can only think of two, neither of which I need or want, but I might think about if either was available:

1. A long fast-focussing zoom, dedicated to APS-C (the DFA150-450 might suit, but it's heavy and therefore not in the style of the better APS-C lenses, IMO); and
2. A tilt-shift lens, again in the APS-C style.

Like you, I've got the rest pretty much covered, from the DA14 to the DFA 70-210 (full-frame, I know, but light enough to include in my APS-C bag) and the A400/5.6 (as before), not to mention the Sigma 8-16 for non-OEM coverage.

As I said, I don't know if anyone else does better in APS-C, but then I don't much care, either.

[normhead]

As I said, I don't know if anyone else does better in APS-C, but then I don't much care, either.

I care only when someone says the line up is incomplete and I have no clue what they are talking about. Sometimes, either they are mis-informed, or I am mis-informed, and if it's me I'd like to find out. I'm always willing to change my mind when presented with evidence I can check up on.

I'm not interested in researching other brands, so, I just prefer not to say anything at all. But if folks are going to say the Pentax line up is incomplete, that's a pretty vague statement. I doubt anyone knows what the intended meaning was. We are owed an explanation.

[surfar]

I don't know if anyone else does better in APS-C, but then I don't much care, either.

FujiFilm is the only rival in crop camera lenses.It has gaps too.

It has "faults" in having old focus motors in some of its glass like some of the Pentax range.

[house]

FujiFilm is the only rival in crop camera lenses.It has gaps too.

It has "faults" in having old focus motors in some of its glass like some of the Pentax range.

There are a lot of complaints about the slow focusing old Fuji lenses. People seem to like the IQ though and they keep updating the lenses. They also have two lenses covering the same approximate fl so you can choose af speed vs f stop etc. weather sealing vs rendering.

Comparing WR designations, number of lenses and f stop values the Pentax line up looks a lot less complete.

[ThorSanchez]

I care only when someone says the line up is incomplete and I have no clue what they are talking about. Sometimes, either they are mis-informed, or I am mis-informed, and if it's me I'd like to find out. I'm always willing to change my mind when presented with evidence I can check up on.

I'm not interested in researching other brands, so, I just prefer not to say anything at all. But if folks are going to say the Pentax line up is incomplete, that's a pretty vague statement. I doubt anyone knows what the intended meaning was. We are owed an explanation.

There have been a number of posts in this thread discussing how Fuji has a much larger set of WR/silent focusing primes than Pentax. Also how it's somewhat odd that Pentax touts the WR features of their compact camera bodies, but the compact DA LTD primes that are natural matches with those bodies are not WR. Pentax has gone so far as to explicitly state they didn't fit the rugged, sports-oriented K-3iii with a flippy screen to keep size down, but tiny lenses like the DA15, 21, and 40 are not WR.

Yes, Pentax has APS-C lenses covering a wide range of focal lengths. If not completely matching their overall design philosophy.

[normhead]

There have been a number of posts in this thread discussing how Fuji has a much larger set of WR/silent focusing primes than Pentax.

I'd be much more interested in a comparison that didn't compress the field compared by using selective criteria that boost one line up over another. WR is nice to have, not have to have. A plastic shopping bag turns any set up into WR,

If not completely matching their overall design philosophy

Just had to thew in negative didn't you. Now you want to talk about if the lenses match the company's design philosophy. How do you even rate that?

Here do me a favour, go through Pentax's and see there companies and come up with a rating system that will enable us to quantify which has the lenses that most represent their design philosophy. I'm interested in the results. (I don't even know what their design philosophies are.) Or Pentax, the older lenses are "Lenses for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts." and the more current "Modern lenses for modern sensors." There are exactly zero modern Pentax lenses that don't meet one of these design philosophy's so where is the room for another company to be better than that?

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-11-2021 at 07:24 AM.

[Jonathan Mac]

Then why didn't it effect Canon, Nikon and Sony and all the other companies that have an inferior APS-c line-ups? Because you can use FF lenses n APS-c filling in the the missing APS-c lenses with lenses from your FF line up.

APS-c has 11-450 covered in zooms, and a 560 prime.

The perception of design problems as far as I can tell are largely the result of the forum echo chamber. No one has ever proven Pentax is different than any other company in reliability if anything the suggestion have been they might be a little bit better.

Who says it didn't affect Canon, Nikon and Sony? One of the main reasons I went with Pentax was that it was clear that CaNikon didn't offer, and weren't likely to offer, APS-C lenses that I would like. So they lost me as a potential customer by not having a good line-up, and I can't be the only one.

As for the last paragraph I can only ask - are you joking???

It would be nice to have the DA Limiteds updated with weather sealing and silent focusing. It's a little strange that they're emphasizing small size in their rugged, weather-sealed APS-C line but the beautifully small Limited primes are not weather sealed. Could be why they often show the KP with a 20-40.

I know, people will say nobody goes out in bad weather with a prime you'll need to swap out for different focal lengths. But the upcoming FF 21mm is weather sealed...

A 50-135 f/2.8 with modern focusing motors would be good, too.

Exactly.

The da lens lineup is not complete. Most lenses are slow, loud and not weather sealed. Fuji being perhaps the main competitor keeps releasing new lenses as well as improvements like weather sealing to old ones.

Yes, Fujifilm snatched the APS-C baton from Pentax and ran off, leaving them in the dust. Pentax does not seem interested in catching up. Their attitude is admirable, they seem in the market to win.

People keep saying the Pentax line up is incomplete. How so, who has better? Not one better lens, one better line-up, for APS-c?

Personally, if I can cover everything with zooms I'm happy. And I have enough faster lenses for low light. 35 2.4, 55 1.4, 70 2.8 and 100 2.8 and my 21 for landscape. Those not including many FF lenses , my Rokinon 14 2.8, good in low light and ultra wide, my Sigma 8-16. I have lenses sitting on the shelf I almost never use, just in case.

I'm seriously not understanding this "hole in the APS-c lineup" thing. Someone who thinks there are should maybe be more precise.

There are two parts to this question, where are the holes, and who has better?

I'm not saying people are wrong, but personally, I don't know why they are saying it. I wouldn't say it, so what's up?

By my count that's one lens for low light, the 55/1.4, and that's if the focus mechanism hasn't packed in. Anything slower than f/2 is not a low light lens, and it needs to be pretty darn sharp wide open or very close to it.

Who has better? Fujifilm. Even a couple of years ago that would have been less clear, but the gap is widening very quickly.

What are the gaps?

• WR and in-lens focus motors for the Limiteds, DA & FA.
• DA* lenses that live up to their name by being optically excellent, durable, fast and reliable. The whole DA* line might as well not exist because it makes no sense to spend so much on a lens with slow focus that may break at any moment. These are supposed to be the "pro" lenses!!!
• Fast and modern primes at key focal lengths: 18mm, 23mm, 35mm, 55mm.
• High quality high telephoto lenses without the FF size and weight (not a concern for me as I wouldn't use one but I understand others would).
• Significant third-party support providing AF lenses. Of course this isn't Pentax directly but if they worked hard enough to make their system whole then there would be support. "If you build it they will come".

That's a BIG list.

You may ask why don't I just go completely Fujifilm, a reasonable question. Well, I still like DSLRs and I love my DA Limiteds (though I would love them more if they were DA WR STM Limiteds) and, while more complete than Pentax's, the Fujifilm line-up is still not complete and each system covers the weakness of the others.

[normhead]

Who says it didn't affect Canon, Nikon and Sony? One of the main reasons I went with Pentax was that it was clear that CaNikon didn't offer, and weren't likely to offer, APS-C lenses that I would like. So they lost me as a potential customer by not having a good line-up, and I can't be the only one.

As for the last paragraph I can only ask - are you joking???

As for that statement I can only ask... are you?
One of the things I get really tired of on the forum is the constant narrative that says Pentax has a worse record than other companies. At the hieght of the SDM thing I was still reading reports from lens rentals and places like that that said Pentax gear was more reliable than other companies.

Someone claims different, the echo change starts up, the echo never stops. I don't give much credence to echo chambers, I like stats. Good comparative stats.

WR and in-lens focus motors for the Limiteds, DA & FA.

Many of us don't care.

DA* lenses that live up to their name by being optically excellent, durable, fast and reliable. The whole DA* line might as well not exist because it makes no sense to spend so much on a lens with slow focus that may break at any moment. These are supposed to be the "pro" lenses!!!

My DA*s are fantastic... never had a failure. According to lens rentals even $15,000 Canon lenses are subject t breaking at any moment and being failures right out of the box. More echo chamber material.

Fast and modern primes at key focal lengths: 18mm, 23mm, 35mm, 55mm.

You don't get to define what the key focal lengths are for everyone else.

Significant third-party support providing AF lenses. Of course this isn't Pentax directly but if they worked hard enough to make their system whole then there would be support. "If you build it they will come".

Again, I don't care. Many people don't. There is no gaping hole in my line up for which I need third party lenses. The last was my Sigma 8-16 and that's pretty much covered by the DA* 11-18.

That's a BIG list.

Or depending on your viewpoint, it's an echo chamber list.

With Pentax there are fall back options cheaper than the modern designs.

I'm looking at this page, I see 28 Fuji options. I was hoping someone else would do this because I don't know other camera systems well enough that this would seem complete. But it would seem the total is 32 or 33 lens.

Over 140mm I see not one 2.8 lens.
https://alikgriffin.com/a-complete-list-of-fujifilm-x-mount-lenses/

In Pentax land I see 30 dedicated AP-c lenses and 16 35mm/FF lenses. And that's just the current catalogue. When you go back to all the F, FAs etc. that are fully compatible the numbers just get crazy.
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/lens/index_list.html

I guess you like to use those 18mm, 23mm, 35mm, 55mm primes for actions shots (where fast focusing matters, .1 of a second matters not at all to me in focussing speed.) and narrower DoF (although the use of a fast WA lens escapes me and many other people.)

I'm happy you found what you want. But, I'm quite content to have a stable of lenses that are compatible natively with 2 different formats for different uses. Maybe you get the same thing by running two systems, with two different etc of lenses. For me, I just love it that every lens I buy works on two different formats. It's like having double the lenses for the same price, and the cost of lenses far outweighs camera bodies.

But from my perspective, Fuji is an inadequate system. Lenses that work on one format, fewer lenses and not the lenses I want.

I'm getting what I want from my Pentax gear. Clearly you didn't, but that doesn't change my perspective.

The difference between me and you being, I'm not focusing on the inadequacies of the Fuji system and complain it's inadequate, although from the look of it I could. It's not up to me to decide what is adequate and what isn't, what has holes in it and what doesn't. It would be nice to have the same curtesy extended by others.

[Pål Jensen]

[*]High quality high telephoto lenses without the FF size and weight (not a concern for me as I wouldn't use one but I understand others would).

The size and weight for a telephoto lens is decided by its focal length and speed. A 300/2.8 is the same size, weight and cost whether it is made for the 4/3 system or FF.

---------- Post added 02-11-21 at 04:10 PM ----------

23mm a key focal length? How many are there? Today is first time i've heard of one in 50 years!

[luftfluss]

The size and weight for a telephoto lens is decided by its focal length and speed. A 300/2.8 is the same size, weight and cost whether it is made for the 4/3 system or FF.

---------- Post added 02-11-21 at 04:10 PM ----------

23mm a key focal length? How many are there? Today is first time i've heard of one in 50 years!

Fun fact: the Olympus 300/2.8, which was made for the 4/3 mount, is about 900 g heaver and 3 cm longer than the latest version of the Canon 300/2.8.

[ZombieArmy]

My only complaint is the DA lineup lacks WR on most primes. Would love to see the limiteds weather sealed at some point.

But focal length availability is not a problem in the Pentax lineup, nor is speed.

[normhead]

My only complaint is the DA lineup lacks WR on most primes. Would love to see the limiteds weather sealed at some point.

But focal length availability is not a problem in the Pentax lineup, nor is speed.

Bad weather and primes is a bad combination, so I don't fret much about that. If you have to have an umbrella for lens changes, use it to cover your gear while you're shooting. Personally, I'd rather see more completely new lenses than revisits of old designs. It's unlikely we could have both.

The DA 16-85 and DA 55-300 PLM cover an awful lot. Fast focusing and WR. And it seems to me people who've tried that combo love it. I have my 18-135 and DA 55-300 PLM, and a lot of really good lenses that get left home every day. The need for primes for decent images is vastly overstated. I have much more expensive lenses but there's no free lunch. They all have reasons they get left home most of the time.

This is actually pretty funny, because back in the day when Pentax was making all it's new lenses WR (when was the last time Pentax released a lens that isn't WR?) people who used other brands said it was un-important. Now that other brands are releasing WR lenses, all the sudden it's an important thing. You can't win for losing.

Pentax WR primes: 50mm, 55mm, 85mm, 100, 200mm, 300mm and not a shabby bunch at that. I own 3. There are 3 more for me to add if I want more with another on the lens roadmap.

[house]

But focal length availability is not a problem in the Pentax lineup, nor is speed.

I used to agree with you about the speed. Now I find that the flexibility of a fast lens is very useful indeed. By having such a slow *and* apsc line up Pentax becomes unsuitable for quite a few photographers. A line up is a lineup because it covers many bases and use cases. The fewer use cases are catered for the more gaps in the line up. By that metric there is a massive fast lens gap both sides of ~50mm. 50 being short tele the fastest normal is the FA31ltd at f1.8 which is ok but considered slow for a prime.

[ThorSanchez]

I'd be much more interested in a comparison that didn't compress the field compared by using selective criteria that boost one line up over another. WR is nice to have, not have to have. A plastic shopping bag turns any set up into WR,



Just had to thew in negative didn't you. Now you want to talk about if the lenses match the company's design philosophy. How do you even rate that?

Here do me a favour, go through Pentax's and see there companies and come up with a rating system that will enable us to quantify which has the lenses that most represent their design philosophy. I'm interested in the results. (I don't even know what their design philosophies are.) Or Pentax, the older lenses are "Lenses for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts." and the more current "Modern lenses for modern sensors." There are exactly zero modern Pentax lenses that don't meet one of these design philosophy's so where is the room for another company to be better than that?

I think it would be nice to have the DA limiteds updated to weather sealing and perhaps silent focus motors. I know you're fine with them the way they are. It's all good.

---------- Post added 02-11-21 at 12:22 PM ----------

Bad weather and primes is a bad combination, so I don't fret much about that. If you have to have an umbrella for lens changes, use it to cover your gear while you're shooting. Personally, I'd rather see more completely new lenses than revisits of old designs. It's unlikely we could have both.

Pentax did think WR in primes is important enough to include it in the new 21mm.

This is actually pretty funny, because back in the day when Pentax was making all it's new lenses WR (when was the last time Pentax released a lens that isn't WR?) people who used other brands said it was un-important. Now that other brands are releasing WR lenses, all the sudden it's an important thing. You can't win for losing.

I doubt it was the same people saying it was unimportant in other manufacturers and important here. Pentax itself uses weather sealing as a big selling point, so I wouldn't go too far down the road of saying it's not important.

I know that the current APS-C lineup meets all of your needs, so to you it's complete.