[2351HD]

I think the problem is that while the K1 is an exceptional camera, the need for a manual aperture lever makes each and every lens more of a hassle to make for the camera. So the third party manufacturers give up, the quantities are low anyway and they can't just convert the electronic lenses from canon and Nikon.

[mikesbike]

I have seen this question come up numerous times over the years. It is true Pentax does has not occupied the status it had during the era of the 1970's, 80's, and before, though even then their volume was well below that of Nikon and Canon for 35mm products. This did not prevent Pentax from producing innovative designs, which is still true today.

The more recent low period for Pentax was about 12 years ago after the *ist-D model run ended. For some years, Pentax made no pro/semi pro oriented model, and no longer made 35mm film bodies at all. They only offered point & shoot cameras and amateur-oriented budget APS-C entry-level DSLR models, while Canon and Nikon were producing the full spectrum from entry level to pro models. During those years, newer lenses for Pentax by 3rd party brands, and even by Pentax as well, trailed off. Even while the *ist-D was offered, a very nice and uniquely compact design for its class, I knew of people who sold off their Pentax gear, including their film bodies, because they found the *ist-D too small for their taste, so they went to Nikon.

Finally came the K-10D. A pro/semi pro, very well designed and built Pentax APS-C DSLR which included weather sealing, at a very reasonable price point for its type. For a time, 3rd party response was still not there. It took a year or so before Pentax even offered a weather-sealed, top-level lens! Then came the K-20D, and also the K-200D, a weather-sealed amateur-oriented design at an even more reasonable price! Who ever heard of that?!! And some very fine weather-sealed lenses to boot! Apparently, Pentax had to shrink into producing quantity at low prices for the point-& shoot crowd, some of whom wanted to have more capable interchangeable lenses, so profits would be there to do what they really wanted to do. But they were also bought out during their weak time by Tokina/Hoya/Kenko to strip off their lucrative medical optical division, then flip the rest of the company for sale. Nasty business.

But the new Pentax products were attracting attention and winning customers, so 3rd party interest came back and so did new lenses by them and by Pentax. Eventually Pentax wound up with Ricoh, who recognized that Pentax offers unique features and higher quality at a good price for all levels of photographic interest. But there was a lag by Pentax as far as developing a full-frame model, which again put them into questionable status and viability for advanced photographers. 3rd party interest again waned. Now we have the very unique and very fine K-1, which has attracted a lot of attention. People new to Pentax are discovering uniqueness that translates into superior functionality, like the exclusive Pentax Hyper System, which Pentax no longer even bothers to fully explain in their owners manuals.

As before, it will likely take time for a positive response by 3rd party producers. We must keep in mind that bean-counters are primary decision-makers in most companies today. It has to be considered what percentage owners of a brand will buy a certain type of lens. If 10% of 300,000 Nikon owners will likely buy a certain 3rd party premium lens because it is less expensive than the Nikkor version, that is 30,000 lenses sold. But 10% of 30,000 owners of a smaller brand like Pentax is only 3,000 lenses, and Pentax may have a similar costing lens, even a better one to offer, maybe for even less. For instance, a Sigma 24-105mm f/4 FF lens seems quite attractive, I could wish for such a lens starting at 24mm, but it costs near twice that of the Pentax 28-105mm f/3.5-5.6, is about twice the size, and nothing about being weather sealed. I know which I would buy. The Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4, Pentax FA 35mm f/2, and Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 are simply better lenses than those by 3rd party offerings, and/or cost less. The very fine D-FA 15-30, and D-FA 24-70mm lenses are slightly upgraded versions of Tamron lenses, so obviously Tamron will not offer their versions of the same lenses. We may see more of that kind of thing coming. There are a few 3rd party offerings that would fill a need Pentax does not, but not very many, and in time the 3rd parties many come around again to offer those in Pentax mounts.

[rawr]

the need for a manual aperture lever

But K-1 and a few other Pentaxes now support KAF-4 - ie no manual aperture lever needed.

[RobA_Oz]

But K-1 and a few other Pentaxes now support KAF-4 - ie no manual aperture lever needed.

Even so, the basic scheme of the aperture lever and the associated electronics had been worked out long ago, so the only new design inputs would be the lens ID data and the specific dimensions of the lever subassembly.

The real problem as I see it, is that they get a better return on their production investment by making more for other mounts, particularly as all of their lines have been expanding into premium territory, lately. Pentax users are a niche market and, deservedly or not, as a group have had a parsimonious reputation in recent times. It's no coincidence that the most expensive maker, Carl Zeiss, was the first to drop the K-mount, and they had never provided AF for it.

If we don't support the remaining makers who support the K-mount in MF, we may well lose them when they shift to AF, as some are starting to do, now.

[clackers]

I think the problem is that while the K1 is an exceptional camera, the need for a manual aperture lever makes each and every lens more of a hassle to make for the camera. So the third party manufacturers give up, the quantities are low anyway and they can't just convert the electronic lenses from canon and Nikon.

Most Nikon lenses have mechanical aperture levers, 2351HD, AFAIK.

[2351HD]

Most Nikon lenses have mechanical aperture levers, 2351HD, AFAIK.

All of the latest lenses are electronic. They caught up some time ago.

I had a K1 for a small time, even the new 15-30 had the lever. No idea why???

My 645z does also. I am not sure why they can't move on from it.

[felixkh]

There are brands like Laowa, Irix and Samyang/Rokinon/Bower/Vivitar/etc that are manual only focus lenses that offer K mount and their quality is often good.

[clackers]

All of the latest lenses are electronic. They caught up some time ago..

"Ever since Nikon introduced the Nikon F film SLR and the F mount way back in 1959, that mount has been on a gradual evolution as technology changes. Most of the current Nikkor lenses are AF-S G lenses, which have a built-in silent-wave auto-focus motor (AF-S) and no aperture ring (G). Aperture control is still via a mechanical connection from the (D)SLR body to lens."

Source: Nikon E Lenses | Photo.net Photography Forums

[FilmORbitz]

Most Nikon lenses have mechanical aperture levers, 2351HD, AFAIK.

In a recent interview, Sigma's president made it clear that the legacy mechanical linkage was not the primary issue impacting K-mount lens production. Rather, it was the changeover production costs for a relatively low-demand item. It just doesn't pay to make a small run of lenses, nor does it make financial sense to overproduce low-demand items. So the new KAF4 mount solves only half of the problem. The other half is users, and Ricoh's marketing (or lack of) gets the blame for that, sooner or later.

[RobA_Oz]

You could say that the very hefty price differentials between the Tamron and Pentax badged versions of the D-FA15-30 and 24-70 are evidence of the low-volume economics issue. I suspect it's a matter of the quantum of profit margin, rather than loss-avoidance, in any normal case, but in those instances, Tamron possibly had Ricoh in a corner with the release of the K-1, so I wouldn't regard that as an indicator of what might normally be the margin added for an acceptable return, and, of course, Ricoh had to add the costs of their small requirements and have their margin, too.

However, the smaller, newer manufacturers who, admittedly, don't have to wrestle with AF (for K-mount, at this stage) don't add a margin for the lower-volume Pentax lines, and I can't see a good reason for them to regard the K-mount as a necessary loss-leader.

I'm left wondering if Ricoh simply priced the 15-30 and 24-70 to align them within the same premium range as the 70-200 and 150-450. Of all of those, the only one I'm likely to buy is the 150-450. If the 15-30 was closer to the Tamron version's price, I'd consider it, but in this instance I reckon I'll pass in favour of my FA20, FA*24, FA31 and maybe a Samyang or Irix at the wide end.

Just the same, I wouldn't be calling on Ricoh to bring out their dead.

[rawr]

Sigma's president made it clear that the legacy mechanical linkage was not the primary issue impacting K-mount lens production. Rather, it was the changeover production costs for a relatively low-demand item.

Makes sense.

I think Sigma take that approach with all their lenses (perhaps excluding Canon mount), producing them in small batches, stopping and starting production according to demand. Some lenses appear in quantity, then disappear for a while, then re-appear again. It's been observed in Sigmas for Nikon, as well as Sigmas for Pentax.

[Winder]

I had a K1 for a small time, even the new 15-30 had the lever. No idea why???

At the time of the 15-30mm release, Ricoh had not introduced the firmware to the K-1 to allow for electronic control of the aperture. Part of the reason that the 15-30 K-mount is more expensive than the others is that it is a limited production run with the manual lever and no OIS.

[Gyroscope]

I have come from Canon as well. I was motivated by wanting a similar 35mm system to the 645z i bought and in the end I have now sold all my canon gear. Yes it is obvious pentax dont have as big a lens range but I am realising lately that they do have enough. I never really needed all the canon lenses I have. I have almost decided to get the 70-200 then I would have the f2.8 holy trinity and there is very little I can't shoot with that basic kit. The new 50 when it is released will round out the kit and then if I ever want to get back into wildlife photography again I have either the 150-450 or 560 available to use with a K3 successor. Sometimes lowering you sights a bit you realise you can do what you want with less gear. IMO the k1 is such a good camera for what I do it was worth the switch from canon.

[boriscleto]

It just doesn't pay to make a small run of lenses, nor does it make financial sense to overproduce low-demand items.

And exactly how many SA mount lenses do they sell? You can still buy long discontinued lenses in SA mount NIB...

[FilmORbitz]

And exactly how many SA mount lenses do they sell? You can still buy long discontinued lenses in SA mount NIB...

He didn't say, but this is probably where they learned a lesson. He seemed truly sorry that the economics of the situation overrode potential customer's desires.