[TwoUptons]

It makes sense to me. The hopelessness is in the lenses being a proper, organized lineup.

They aren’t, frankly... they are a cobbled-together mess. The opposite of Fuji’s organized, recent list.

But that’s fine... since the lenses themselves are anything but hopeless...

-Eric

[Dericali]

As far as "New FF lenses", a majority of photographers will always suggest the 3 f2.8 amigos (the14mm-35mm range, 24-70, 70-200 lenses) for almost everything, in Pentax's case they got covered pretty much out the gate with the K-1.

Yes but unfortunately the 24-70mm 'Pentax' is not that good. It's there, but it would be lovely if there was a Pentax 24-70mm that a star performer. The other two are good/great. (the only issue being their weight)

[bkpix]

Me, I think Mike's statement is affectionately highlighting Pentax's unconventional focal lengths. It drives a lot of people crazy that they have 21, 31, 43 and 77mm lenses when the whole world knows that God intended for photographers to use only 24, 35, 50 and 85 mm lenses.

[monochrome]

To an outsider, the K-mount lens nomenclature, semi-backward-compatible Mount capabilities and coating evolution is a sort of cultish dialect, impenetrable to all but the most informed cognoscenti, yet charming and entertaining in its Nerdiness.

Impossible and for the most part, wonderful, classic lenses.

[c.a.m]

Imagine introducing Pentax to one of your friends who is becoming interested in photography. You are asked about your kit...


Friend: You use Pentax? I don’t know that brand - is it new?
You: No, not really, Pentax has been around for decades.
F: You seem to have a rather large collection of lenses. Impressive. Quiet voice: Does your wife know you have this many?
Y: I’ve acquired them since my early days with film. Pentax has made millions of them.
F: Are they modern?
Y: Some are; others are from the 1950s. Several of these were first made in the 1990s. But all of them work on my K-1 and K-3.
F: Tell me about them.
Y: Well, here are my most recent zoom lenses – they’re made especially for the ‘full frame’ K-1, but I like them on my K-3 also.
F: They’re called “D-FA” lenses – what does the gold ‘star’ mean?
Y: Oh, that’s Pentax’s new series. They are big, heavy, and really, really good. The optics are amazing.
F: And this one – it says “D-FA” but no star. I guess it’s a telephoto zoom, right? Why no star?
Y: I’m not sure. Optics are not as good, I guess.
F: And what about this other one – it only says “DA.” Is this an older model, before the D-FA?
Y: You can still buy the DAs new. They’re made especially for ‘crop sensor’ cameras.
F: So you need to buy separate lenses for your K-1 and K-3?
Y: Not really. All of the lenses will work on the K-3. But only some of them work well on the K-1.
F: So this one – a DA... DA 300, I see... it’s only for your K-3?
Y: No, it works perfectly on the K-1 also.
F: But you said the DA lenses were made for the smaller camera – the crop one.
Y: Indeed. But the 300 is great on the big camera, too.
F: So, some DAs are only for the crop camera, but others are also good on the K-1?
Y: Sort of. The K-1 has a ‘crop mode’, so I can use all of the DAs.
F: Seems complicated. I like this one though – it’s beautiful.
Y: Me too. The FA 31 Limited is a jewel.
F: Limited? You mean they only produced a small batch?
Y: I think they’re still produced. You can still buy them new.
F: Are there other ‘limiteds’?
Y: Oh yes... Here’s a great little 15mm.
F: DA Limited? Not just “DA?” Seems smaller than your FA Limited.
Y: Yeah.
F: So, let me get this straight... Pentax has DAs, DA Limiteds, D-FAs, FAs, FA Limiteds. Some with ‘stars’, some without. Some DAs are for the small camera, other DAs will work on the K-1. And Limiteds are widely available. Hmmm.
F: Why does this one have a different thing on the back?
Y: That’s a screw mount.
F: Screw-what?
Y: You screw it into the camera rather than twisting like a bayonet mount.
F: But I thought your cameras only take the bayonet thingy...
Y: You see this little metal ring – it’s called a mount adapter. Pentax designed it to allow you to use these really old lenses on the new cameras. These Takumars are wonderful.
F: Tak-u-mar? Not Pentax?
Y: That’s correct. The Takumar series was made from the 1950s until the mid-70s.
F: And you still use them, these Tak-a-murs?
Y: Tak-u-mar. Oh yes. I love this little Auto-Tak.
F: Auto focus?
Y: No, the aperture stops down with a push of this little button.
F: This one doesn’t say “Auto.” It’s Super...Multi...Coated. No button. Must be another series.
F: I think I’ll be taking pictures outdoors. Are any of these lenses waterproof like your camera?
Y: Want a beer?

[pinholecam]

2017 (end of it) and is TOP really still relevant to Pentax users?

Personally, I think not.
He has not been using a Pentax for a long long time, the picts on the site are not the best wrt many others (not to mention the Youtube ones) nor does the writing really stir much excitement (photographically speaking) (most of the time anyway....)

Edit: This is not an attack on MJ or the site, just my critique of it wrt the "competition"

[motorhead9999]

As a recent Pentax convert, let me chime in on my opinion on the lens situation.

Initially, yes, I perceived the lens situation to suck. And frankly, in terms of variety, it still does. Yes, I understand that I have access to all the vintage Pentax lenses for my K1, but quite frankly, I'm not necessarily a fan or interested in shopping garage sales or ebay for vintage lenses and all the hassles that go with buying vintage used gear.

When you're looking at buying lenses for the first time, it's frustrating. When I was with Canon, I had access to all the great quality Canon lenses, but also the vast variety of cheaper Sigma/Tamron versions and (to me, more importantly) fast primes like the various 1.4 Art lenses. So as a new buyer, I was in essence limited to a choice of 4 "new in box" lenses: the 15-30, 24-70, 70-200 and 150-450, along with a single full frame Sigma prime, and a handful of Rokinon lenses. And lets face it...none of the Pentax holy trinity are exactly cheap, and not having the Sigma/Tamron alternative to save some money isn't great (and yes, I understand some of the tradeoffs of that, as well as the fact that some of the Pentax lineup are simply rebranded Tamron lenses)

That having been said, after biting the bullet on the 15-30 and then the 24-70, I really can't complain. Perhaps I haven't hit a point where I've rationalized that "this lens just can't handle this task", but I've been very happy with the performance of those two lenses, and I should be getting my 15-450 tomorrow to play around with. So aside from how much they've eaten out of my wallet, the lack of lenses doesn't really bother me anymore, simply because the current Pentax range just works as is.

Again though, if you're looking for fast primes (again, new), it's a frustrating thing, especially when a brand announces a new lens that you have an interest in, only to find that you can't (and probably never will) get it. And certainly, if you're looking for specialty lenses like fish eyes or tilt shift, your already limited options are even more narrowed down thanks to our preferred brand.

So yeah, it's a mixed bag situation right now. Yes, there are lens limitations, but for the majority of what IS covered, it's done well.

[luftfluss]

2017 (end of it) and is TOP really still relevant to Pentax users?

Personally, I think not.
He has not been using a Pentax for a long long time, the picts on the site are not the best wrt many others (not to mention the Youtube ones) nor does the writing really stir much excitement (photographically speaking) (most of the time anyway....)

Edit: This is not an attack on MJ or the site, just my critique of it wrt the "competition"

Actually, Mr. Johnston's writing is the most "Pentax" of any photography site I've come across... except he's far more open-minded about photography gear than most Pentaxians. But Mr. Johnston writes to (and for) his existing audience, primarily, and folks who are not regular readers may not "get it" - kinda like folks who don't shoot Pentax.

[Alex645]

if you're looking for fast primes (again, new), it's a frustrating thing, especially when a brand announces a new lens that you have an interest in, only to find that you can't (and probably never will) get it.
So yeah, it's a mixed bag situation right now. Yes, there are lens limitations, but for the majority of what IS covered, it's done well.

+1 @motorhead9999 and just to add, Pentax probably exists today because they offer something that is different than the competition. IBIS, pixel shift, astro tracer, as well as a lens line up that is unique.

For example:
Canikon: DFA 50mm f/1.4 (which Pentax will probably be released in 2018); Pentax: the pseudo-pancake 43mm f/1.9 Limited.
Canikon: 85mm f/1.8; Pentax: again smaller 77mm f/1.8 Limited.

To me the weakest link is a modern FF 20mm f/1.8 prime, but your 15-30mm f/2.8 zoom covers that. And because of IBIS (and the wide focal length), the need for speed is less of an issue, unless your goal is uber bokeh which is rarely a wide angle possibility unless your foreground subject is at minimum distance.

[motorhead9999]

+1 @motorhead9999 and just to add, Pentax probably exists today because they offer something that is different than the competition. IBIS, pixel shift, astro tracer, as well as a lens line up that is unique.

For example:
Canikon: DFA 50mm f/1.4 (which Pentax will probably be released in 2018); Pentax: the pseudo-pancake 43mm f/1.9 Limited.
Canikon: 85mm f/1.8; Pentax: again smaller 77mm f/1.8 Limited.

To me the weakest link is a modern FF 20mm f/1.8 prime, but your 15-30mm f/2.8 zoom covers that. And because of IBIS (and the wide focal length), the need for speed is less of an issue, unless your goal is uber bokeh which is rarely a wide angle possibility unless your foreground subject is at minimum distance.

I tend to do a lot of night/astrophotography, so faster lenses are appealing to me from that regard.

I love the camera body. There are very few issues I have with it and truly feel as if it's an upgrade from my Canon 6D.

I made this analogy to my friend the other day: Pentax is like the Mac of Cameras. When it's working fine, and doing everything you like, it's the greatest thing on earth. But the second you need something additional, or something isn't exactly how you like it, its an incredibly frustrating experience, especially since you're pretty much locked into their ecosystem, which (like Mac computers and upgrades) are only provided first party at a substantial premium.

But man, when it's working it's great.

[Winder]

A bit off-topic but not really! what is it mean when he said:
"Pentax's lenses are hopeless as a lineup—it's the anti-Fuji in terms of the lineup making internal sense."

Can somebody elaborate? I am not familiar with another brand enough to understand it.
Pentax's lens line up is really that bad? I mean.."Hopeless", really? And by say Anti-Fuji, he means Fuji lenes' lineup made more sense for photographer?
I don't have an issue at all seeing people saying something about Pentax. I could be one of the last person to be branded as a fanboy of anything, but I really wonder about Pentax lense's lineup because this is not the first time I see a comment like this.

Fuji has done a great job bringing high quality prime lenses to market at a good price. Where Ricoh is bringing 1 maybe 2 lenses to market a year, Fuji has been bring 5-6 lenses per year and Fuji hits all the key points in the lens line-up. Ricoh seems to still be trying to figure out who they are and where they are in the market.

[Alex645]

Fuji has done a great job bringing high quality prime lenses to market at a good price. Where Ricoh is bringing 1 maybe 2 lenses to market a year, Fuji has been bring 5-6 lenses per year and Fuji hits all the key points in the lens line-up. Ricoh seems to still be trying to figure out who they are and where they are in the market.

Last time I checked, Pentax currently has 110 new SLR lenses available of which 46 are Pentax branded. Fujifilm has 93 new mirrorless lenses of which 34 are Fujifilm branded. Yes, Fujifilm is being more aggressive in catching up, and although there are always going to be the wish for a lens that isn't made, I think Ricoh knows exactly who they are and are just conservative in making sure they can continue to sustain themselves.

How many lenses do any of us really need and use relative to the number of lenses new or discontinued on the market?

[stevebrot]

Actually, Mr. Johnston's writing is the most "Pentax" of any photography site I've come across...

Indeed...he has the reputation of being sort of a Pentax fanboy.

FWIW, I do believe that this whole thing about the "hopeless" lens lineup quote was discussed at length some time ago. Did anyone also notice that OP (@dms) seems to have popped out the back door without providing a link to the context of the original post?


Steve

[johnkrumm]

Mike has been a long-time Pentax fan, and counts at least a couple of its lenses among his all-time favorites (he specifically calls out any of the 50 1.4 models, and the 35 macro for ASPC. Pentax was a sponsor of his site until Ricoh bought them out. But he's a prime shooter, and loves lenses, and when you look at the K1 (which I have) the lack of new primes is disappointing. At the current rate we might see the rest of the prime lensmap by the time the K1 is five or six years old, if they decide to keep developing the mount.

[dms]

Indeed...he has the reputation of being sort of a Pentax fanboy.

FWIW, I do believe that this whole thing about the "hopeless" lens lineup quote was discussed at length some time ago. Did anyone also notice that OP (@dms) seems to have popped out the back door without providing a link to the context of the original post?


Steve

Sorry, I didn't think to provide a link.

But as far as the discussion--yes I chose not to take part in the subsequent discussion. It was disheartening how it became rather ugly, w/o any real effort to see what Mike Johnston's site is about, and thus I think it is probably fair to say "I popped out the back door," although maybe now I have explained why. (Lesson learned I guess.)