 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006Pentax in Peril?
I'm now a committed Canon user, so I don't even know why I've become interested in Pentax. Actually, that's not entirely true... I spent my first 5 years as a photographer using Pentax cameras and (sometimes) glass, and even though I think they've totally botched their DSLR offerings and as a result I've moved on, I'd love to see them succeed on some level. Pentax's decision to release a new, 10MP body is a step in the right direction. Their decision to support old manual focus lenses is another step in the right direction. Their system-wide 2.5" LCD's are a step in the right direction. Still, there's nothing to distinguish the Pentax lineup in such a way that one could justify investing in it without an existing supply of Pentax lenses. I had three Pentax primes and two third-party zooms, and even with all of that Pentax-mount glass, I couldn't find justification to invest in a Pentax DSLR. What does Pentax need to do to shape its own place in the market? I've got some ideas... 1. Full-time manual iris: This may be in place already, but I've yet to read about it... if you can use Pentax manual focus lenses, can you use their aperture rings, or must you set the aperture to "A" and select an aperture manually? I think that (if it isn't present) use of the old physical iris rings would appeal to some users. Put a manual shutter speed selector on one of the bodies and you have a compelling reason for "old school" photographers to "go digital" and continue working as they have for 50 years. 2. Include a split-image prism in the groundglass of at least one body. If you support manual focus and go after that market, why not offer the focusing tool so many of us cut our teeth on? I know that sometimes I wish that I could manual focus with this aid as I used to. 3. Finally take advantage of the digital sensor and release alot of digital-optimized glass. Imagine if you will: a set of good-quality Pentax lenses usable only on DSLRs and in focal lengths designed for that format. I've always appreciated the special edition 43mm and 31mm primes because they represent an "actual" normal lens (defined by the diagonal measurement of the imaging area) and a focal length removed from said "normal" by a factor of 1.414, the square root of two. This is the perfect, ideal way to determine the difference between focal lengths in nice even steps that allow each lens to matter in the system. Imagine a new set of Pentax primes, announced together and set for release over 3 years with the following lenses: 10mm f/2.8 fisheye 14mm f/2.8 wide*** 20mm f/2.0 semi-wide 28mm f/1.4 normal (defined by the diagonal measurement of Pentax chips) 40mm f/2.8 long normal *** (could be made into a macro) 56mm f/1.4 medium tele 80mm f/2.8 tele 160mm f/2.8 long tele *** lens already exists Combined with the above options, this line of lenses, especially with manual iris ring and full-time manual focus capability, could really electrify Pentax's status... they'd become the "always trusted" name that would suddenly appeal to a "perhaps small" demographic of olf photographers looking for new options and approaches. Meanwhile, a full-range of DSLR-only primes would alleviate the problems of digital, make good on the promise of smaller, lighter, better-performing lenses optimized for digital. Finally, 4. DNG support in-camera. The photographers that support DNG are photographers that, by-and-large, miss older ways of working. Were such a product line established, Pentax could solve not only the problems of differentiation, they could also gain respect for finally doing domething worthwhile with their DSLRs and glass. Toughts? > I'm now a committed Canon user, so I don't even know why I've become > interested in Pentax. Actually, that's not entirely true... I spent my [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > for "old school" photographers to "go digital" and continue working as > they have for 50 years. Yes you can use any lens that will physically mount, it will meter either manually for "M" lenses or aperture priority if "A" lens, the aperture ring will work as it should. > 2. Include a split-image prism in the groundglass of at least one body. > If you support manual focus and go after that market, why not offer the > focusing tool so many of us cut our teeth on? I know that sometimes I > wish that I could manual focus with this aid as I used to. At least the DS and D models have removable, interchangeable focusing screens, I did have a split screen on my KM and have found that the matte screen works well enough that I have not felt the need to spend more. > 3. Finally take advantage of the digital sensor and release alot of > digital-optimized glass. Imagine if you will: a set of good-quality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > system. Imagine a new set of Pentax primes, announced together and set > for release over 3 years with the following lenses: They are releasing some digital only glass, I have the 16-45mm ED lens and it is a beauty, very sharp, only F4.0 but constant across the range. More good stuff will come I am sure. > 10mm f/2.8 fisheye > 14mm f/2.8 wide*** [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Toughts? The current digital cameras like the DS is better than many would have you believe, if your needs are modest as far as lens needs go then they are a great choice, the metering is first class, the feature set is very good and includes items like MLU that the D70 and the 300D do not have. The latest V2.0 firmware has added selectable continuous focusing in all modes. Have a look at http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/profile.php?section=images&id=190 for some of my shots, there is a couple in that lot that are not from the DS and are from other photographers. I was saddened that Minolta left the camera market because they have always been great innovators in camera design. Alas they became just another me-too brand for the last several years and were fatally late to the dSLR party. Pentax has been just a me-too brand for decades. Minolta sold its intellectual property to Sony and Pentax is in the process of doing this with the Koreans. I don't recall a Pentax innovation since the Spotmatic. Pentax needs to break out from the pack. Just a thought: The manufacturer that superimposes a quality heads-up EVF display on a bright pentaprism viewfinder (the technology to do this is ancient, dating back to the 1970s) will have something more useful and revolutionary than the incremental increases in sensor megapixel counts that constitute dSLR evolution (intelligent design, ahem). Olympus has announced the first iteration of such a system but it is a low res image superimposed on a dark (meaning cheap and lousy, like the otherwise remarkable Nikon D70) direct view optical system. One reason Olympus is willing to try this, and I applaud them for it, is that they have already abandoned the nearly 100 year old 35mm SLR form factor. Unfortunately this means to the cattle minded that Olympus dSLR cameras are not "serious" cameras because they do not look like a 1935 Exacta. If camera design is not constrained to the Exacta form factor model it would be alot easier to innovate. The source for the heads up EVF image can be placed anywhere from the mirror to the view screen itself to an axis of the primsm/mirror viewing system. There are materials whose transmissive and reflective properties can be altered electrically How could it not be useful to have a bright, live preview of an image directly through an optical viewfinder at various f-stops or focusing points? Further if the EVF image is bright enough even if it is superimposed on a junky, cheap Nikon D70 type viewing system manual focusing in dim light might actually become physically possible. > I'm now a committed Canon user, so I don't even know why I've become > interested in Pentax. Actually, that's not entirely true... I spent my [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Toughts? I started SLR photography, with a Pentax Spotmatic II (1972) I bought a Mamiya C220 in 1976 switched to Nikon when my Pentax was stolen in 1978. I have used professionally Mamiya RZ67, Mamiya M645, Hasselblad full system 30-500mm , Nikon F3, Leica M4-2 (and the 50mm f:1.0 Noctilux) Linhof 4x5 Technica, and 4x5 & 8x10" Kardan. I was considering upgrading my Nikon FM to a F3 when I saw the LX. I sold my FM replaced it with my current LX (first of two). My lens line-up was; smc-Pentax-m 20mm f:4(a gem), smc-Pentax-m 35mm f:2.8, smc-Pentax-m 50mm f:4 Macro, smc-Pentax-m 85mm f:2 smc-Pentax-M* 300mm f:4 (amazing lens) ATX Tokina 60~120mm f:2.8 (only non OEM glass, decent lens) I was resisting digital as I would have missed my 20mm too much, until I went to a trade show and the Pentax rep put the then new DA 14mm f:2.8 in my hand. I shortly afterwards bought the Pentax *ist D with the D-BG1 grip and the DA 14mm f:2.8 ED (IF) a fantastic lens! For Christmas I bought a smc-Pentax FA 50mm f:1.4 Pentax marketing people have always been their worst enemies. Pentax introduced the LX in 1980, and did less marketing of it than Alpa did for their odd cameras. Pentax did the same thing with the MZ-S. They did offer big fast lenses http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/cameras/lenses/digital_35mm/index.jsp like 300mm f:2.8 70~200 f:2.8 but these are not listed on the http://www.pentaxslr.com website, but are on Pentax USA and Japan http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens websites. I think Pentax should support OpenRAW, and offer a SDK to make them more unique. Now if Pentax want's me to field test either the 10 megapixel or the Digital 645 ;) Darrell Larose Ottawa, Canada http://DarrellLarose.ca > Still, there's nothing to distinguish the Pentax > lineup in such a way that one could justify investing in it without an > existing supply of Pentax lenses. As someone who is doing precisely this, I would disagree. Granted, the advantages Pentax offers are rather specialized, and really much of it came down to a mdoel-by-model comparison that favored the Pentax *istDs for me rather than a decision to go with Pentax as a whole. But some of the features that interested me were ergonomics - how the camera felt in my (fairly small) hand, the size and brightness of the viewfinder and responsiveness of the kit lens for manual focus, mirror lockup capability, the performance of ISO 800-1600 availability of ISO 3200, as well as use of AA's rather than proprietary (read: will become impossible to find in a few years after the mdels that use them are discontinued) batteries. > 1. Full-time manual iris: This may be in place already, but I've yet > to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an > aperture manually? If the lens has an "A" position, you can use it and let the camera set the aperture as it would for a fully automatic lens. If the lens has no "A" position, or if you choose not to use it, then it works more or less exactly as you'd expect in manual exposure mode. Lens remains open while focusing, depth of field preview enables metering to function at selected aperture so you can choose shutter speed with accurate feedback. In aperture priority mode, the ring setting is ignored and the lens is basically forced wide open, with shutter speed set correctly in accordance with a wide open lens (which, although it sounds like a bug, actually can be a somewhat useful feature). The other exposure modes end up turning into aperture priority with such lenses. The ability to deal with old lenses is normally considered one of Pentax's strongest selling points. > 2. Include a split-image prism in the groundglass of at least one > body. FWIW, this is available as an option. But even without it, the viewfinder performance is already better than the competition. > 3. Finally take advantage of the digital sensor and release alot of > digital-optimized glass. They are definitely moving in this direction, with the recent announcement of several new "digital" primes and zooms. Eg, the 16-50 and 50-135 2.8's I mentioned elsewhere. It will be a while before the prime range catches up, though. I think the fact that they are clearly skipping the full-frame DSLR is a good sign in this respect - it means all of their lens development investment will be in the area of digitally optimized lenses (except of course for any new medium format lenses, of which one has already been announced). --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ I'm surprised to hear that the Pentax DSLRs respond to iris rings as you'd like and have such perfect manual focus lens support... and I also didn't know they had such bright viewfinders... or interchangable screens... these are huge selling points for a certain kind of photographer used to working in a certain kind of way. For a company whose survival relies on rising above being such a "me too" brand, you'd think that someone over at Pentax would realize that these features are worth advertising. When I bought my first DSLR, I looked for features like this, researched the options (not terribly deeply) and I simply never saw these things mentioned about the Pentax line. If I had, I might not own my 20d. Will > I'm surprised to hear that the Pentax DSLRs respond to iris rings as > you'd like and have such perfect manual focus lens support... and I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Will While the 20D is a very good camera and will certainly take better pictures than the Pentax 6MP cameras the feature set on even the lowest Pentaxes is excellent and the price does not reflect what is in the "box" and that is why I stayed with Pentax, the addition of continuous focusing in all modes just makes things better. > FWIW, this is available as an option. But even without it, the > viewfinder performance is already better than the competition. I've peeked through at least _some_ DSLR viewfinders, including my wife's *istDS and my brother's Nikons (D2H and D2X), but none of them is a match for my Oly E-1. Ton >> FWIW, this is available as an option. But even without it, the >> viewfinder performance is already better than the competition. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ton Your'e kidding. LOL. Depends on what he is talking about. There are supporters who seem to think the E-1 produces the most "filmic" digital images of any DSLR or digicam out there. One review I read actually said that the Canon 1DS Mk2 was the first DSLR that matched the E-1 for this "effect." Obviously, on the technical side, the 1DS specs blow the E-1 away. "Filmic" is a vague and (IMO) personal term to use, so to pin it down to specifics that could be measured would probably take some doing. However, I have a feeling for part of what they are referring to. I shot identical images with the E-1 and C-8080 and although the C-8080 easily bested it for resolution (8Meg versus 5.5) there was something about the E-1 shots that the C-8080 couldn't duplicate. Anyway, the E-1 is being dumped by retailers for under $800 so people interested can buy it and experiment without much of a financial outlay. Plus, for a weather sealed DSLR, its a good deal. -Rich my thoughts is that you should find a Pentax group on Yahoo! and post there. KM, Pentax, and others are dead as far as DSLRs go. Nikon and Canon are the only ones worth spending $1K+ on. > 3. Finally take advantage of the digital sensor and release alot of > digital-optimized glass. Imagine if you will: a set of good-quality [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > make good on the promise of smaller, lighter, better-performing lenses > optimized for digital. Pentax should support Olympus' 4/3 mount and make some good prime lenses for 4/3. And it should focus on full frame when available, and discontinue APS. Olympus should support Pentax' full frame mount. With Pentax' and Olympus' combined lens support, they might be able to compete against Canon. Hopefully others would join in later, e.g., Minolta/Sony. When Pentax, Olympus, and Minolta/Sony have interchangeable lenses for Olympus 4/3 mount and Pentax' 35mm mount, Nikon might be pushed into the position of supporting the common standards, too. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > Pentax should support Olympus' 4/3 mount and make some good prime > lenses for 4/3. While I agree that having multiple manufacturers using a single mount can be a good thing, it seems to me that Pentax has more invested in their existing lenses than Olympus does, and APS is inherently a superior format. So if anyone is going to change direction at this point, I think it should be Olympus. There would be other advantages for Olympus too, such as being more attractive for Sigma, Tamron, Tokina et al. > And it should focus on full frame when available, and discontinue APS. I think Pentax is making a smart move here by keeping APS at the entry level and going for medium format at the high end. If Pentax *were* to go with 4/3 for some reason, then full frame would make a more logical intermediate step than APS would between 4/3 and medium format, agreed. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > Imagine a new set of Pentax primes, announced together and set > for release over 3 years with the following lenses: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > *** lens already exists Current Pentax wide to medium telephoto autofocus primes in-production, where D denotes lenses only for DSLR's: 14mm f/2.8 (D) 20mm f/2.8 24mm f/2.0 28mm f/2.8 (also a "soft" version) 31mm f/1.8 35mm f/2.0 40mm f/2.8 (D, pancake) 43mm f/1.9 50mm f/1.4 50mm f/2.8 macro (D and non-D versions) 77mm f/1.8 85mm f/1.4 100mm f/2.8 macro (D and non-D versions) 100mm f/3.5 macro 135mm f/2.8 Two new D pancakes have been announced and should be available later this year, the 21/3.2 and the 70/2.4, so if you like tiny primes these three could be your walkabout set. Someone explain to me how this is a lineup deficient in fast primes over a range of focal lengths. Sid > Current Pentax wide to medium telephoto autofocus primes in-production, > where D denotes lenses only for DSLR's: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Someone explain to me how this is a lineup deficient in fast primes > over a range of focal lengths. Of course, if you insist upon all the primes being digital specific, then there are some gaps to fill. I hope Pentax keeps filling these holes with pancakes. But I'm not sure that the APS-C sensors are really living up to the promise of smaller lenses for any brand. Yes, Pentax has the pancakes, but Nikon had them for 35mm too. I'm actually interested in this... what design constraint is stopping designers from making, say, a 50mm lens for APS-C substantially smaller than a 50mm for 35mm? Is it the mount size? Or the register? Or what? S saddhartha: > I'm actually interested in this... what design constraint is stopping > designers from making, say, a 50mm lens for APS-C substantially smaller > than a 50mm for 35mm? Is it the mount size? Or the register? Or what? I think you have to ask the question the other way round: what design constraint would require 35mm lenses to be larger than digital lenses? And the answer is that the sensor format is not really all that relevant for the normal and telephoto range. The size of the lense is mostly determined by the speed, or rather the absolute aperture size. If you look that the lense core of a 50/1.4, you will find that it has a significant size and weight. The 50/1.8 is already a lot smaller and lighter. If you are happy with 50/2.8 or even 45/2.8, it is almost trivial to make a very small lense assembly. The other problem is the lense housing. With all the automatic function build into the lense these days, fitting everything into a smaller housing can be a serious challenge. So I think the main way to smaller lenses would be to put all those motors into the camera. Minolta has done that, and the lenses are typicall slightly smaller than the Canon equivalent. However, I would take the 50/1.7 any time over a 45/2.8. The speed can really make your day. Thomas > saddhartha: > > I'm actually interested in this... what design constraint is stopping [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > done that, and the lenses are typicall slightly smaller than the Canon > equivalent. Thomas, Thank you for the detailed reply. If I understand you correctly, the diameter of the pupil of a 50/1.4 lens at maximum aperture is 50mm/1.4 = 36mm, or double that of a 50/2.8. So the lens body itself must be at least 36mm in diameter, regardless of what the sensor size is. To take this further, from a composition point of view, an APS-C lens and a 35mm lens with the same FOV and the same DOF wide open require identical pupil diameters. Is that right? Since a lens of focal length F and widest aperture N on a APS-C sensor corresponds (approximately, and non-macro) to a lens of focal length 1.5F and widest aperture 1.5N on 35mm, the pupil diameters of both lenses wide open works out to the same quantity: F/N. So, naively, there seems to be no advantage at all with smaller sensors (except, of course, for the fact that to get back 35mm DOFs on APS-C you need 1.5x faster lenses, which do correspond to better light-gathering capabilities in absolute terms.) Now since we've been hearing about "lighter, smaller" digital lenses for a long time, what else is involved or is this just a lot of BS? Consider a 50/1.4 and its APS-C equivalent, a 33/0.9 (yipes!). As above, both need to be at least 36mm thick. But there are also corrective optics, relative image circle sizes etc to be considered. Is there any way, even if only theoretically, that these bias the lens sizes one way or the other? > However, I would take the 50/1.7 any time over a 45/2.8. The speed can > really make your day. I agree. At the moment I have exactly two lenses, an old manual 50/1.8 and a new AF 50/1.4 :). Cheers Sid Hi Sid > Thank you for the detailed reply. If I understand you correctly, the > diameter of the pupil of a 50/1.4 lens at maximum aperture is 50mm/1.4 > = 36mm, or double that of a 50/2.8. So the lens body itself must be at > least 36mm in diameter, regardless of what the sensor size is. Exactly, you can't argue with the diameter. As for length, this can be a complicated issue. In general, twice the lense diameter means four times the thickness, with glass and diopter being the same. So you can make a razorthin 50/2.8, but certainly not a thin 50/1.4. > Now since we've been hearing about "lighter, smaller" digital lenses > for a long time, what else is involved or is this just a lot of BS? It is mostly "marketing speak". In the wide angle range, there are a few advantages due to the smaller sensor field and maybe a smaller mirror. But for normal focal lenses, there is just no difference. Of course I also heard the argument that you don't need wide aperture anymore, because you can blur the background in Photoshop. Yeah well, or I could just paint in watercolor. > Consider a 50/1.4 and its APS-C equivalent, a 33/0.9 (yipes!). As > above, both need to be at least 36mm thick. Yes, the diameter would be the same. However, anything that goes beyond an aperture ratio of about 1.4 gets very tricky. So the 33/0.9 would be quite an engineering challenge, while the 50/1.4 is just a solid construction. In this case, 35mm actually beats APS. Thomas > I'm not sure that the APS-C sensors are really > living up to the promise of smaller lenses for any brand. I think is is more true with respect to zooms. Does anyone make an 18-55 or 50-200 for 35mm as small as the Pentax DA's, or the equivalents on other brands? Of course, no one probably would try - they make 28-80 's and 75-300's instead. So we get smaller lenses in part because it is actually possible to get the same focal lengths in a smaller size, but also in part because we don't need such large focal lengths or as much absolute range in the zoom to get the same results. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >Two new D pancakes have been announced and should be available later >this year, the 21/3.2 and the 70/2.4, so if you like tiny primes these >three could be your walkabout set. I think you'll find the 70mm is for the 645D, not a K-mount lens. > >Two new D pancakes have been announced and should be available later > >this year, the 21/3.2 and the 70/2.4, so if you like tiny primes these > >three could be your walkabout set. > > I think you'll find the 70mm is for the 645D, not a K-mount lens. No it's K-mount all right. This is from the Pentax website (http://www.pentax.co.jp/english/news/2006/200615.html). <quote> Model name ( tentative ) : smc PENTAX-DA 70mm F2.4 Limited Product information : * Compact, lightweight telephoto lens designed for exclusive use with PENTAX digital SLR cameras * Wide-perspective coverage with a 23-degree angle of view ( equivalent in focal length to 107mm in the 35mm format, when mounted on a PENTAX *istD-series digital SLR camera body ) * PENTAX-original KAF lens mount * Market launch tentatively scheduled for October 2006 </quote> Cheers Sid >>Two new D pancakes have been announced and should be available later >>this year, the 21/3.2 and the 70/2.4, so if you like tiny primes these >>three could be your walkabout set. > >I think you'll find the 70mm is for the 645D, not a K-mount lens. No, it is a KAF mount lens in the "Limited" series. An f/2.4 maximum aperture seems an odd choice, given the availability of the 77mm f/1.8 Limited. However, the 77mm f/1.8 may well be out of production, although not yet discontinued as stocks remain. . > An f/2.4 maximum aperture seems an odd choice, given the availability > of the 77mm f/1.8 Limited. That's probably as fast as they could get it with the pancake thickness (see Thomas's last post above), which is its USP. It's a size vs speed tradeoff. >>>Two new D pancakes have been announced and should be available later >>>this year, the 21/3.2 and the 70/2.4, so if you like tiny primes these [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >No, it is a KAF mount lens in the "Limited" series. Ah. I missed that. Thanks. >An f/2.4 maximum aperture seems an odd choice, given the availability >of the 77mm f/1.8 Limited. However, the 77mm f/1.8 may well be out of >production, although not yet discontinued as stocks remain. There's also the ruour that Pentax may be introducing USM with their new DSLR body. If so, then the new 70mm may incorporate that (as well as dropping the aperture ring). >Current Pentax wide to medium telephoto autofocus primes in-production, >where D denotes lenses only for DSLR's: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >100mm f/3.5 macro >135mm f/2.8 From memory, the 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.0, 28mm f/2.8 (both versions), 35mm f/2.0, 85mm f/1.4, 100mm f/3.5 macro (Cosina-made) and 135mm f/2.8 are all discontinued. I am not sure about the 50mm f/1.4. None of the lenses I listed has been "in-production" since 2004. > From memory, the 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.0, 28mm f/2.8 (both versions), > 35mm f/2.0, 85mm f/1.4, 100mm f/3.5 macro (Cosina-made) and 135mm > f/2.8 are all discontinued. I am not sure about the 50mm f/1.4. Tony, I took the list straight off the Pentax site (http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/cameras/lenses/digital_35mm/index.jsp). The list has been updated recently because it lists, e.g., the 40/2.8. So I now went and looked up Pentax's Japan site (http://www.pentax.co.jp/english/products/filmcamera/lens) and some of those lenses are indeed listed as discontinued in Japan (any chance they might still be in production for other markets?). The ones listed there are the 24/2, 28/2.8, 85/1.4 and the 135/2.8 -- the 100/3.5 is not listed at all. However, the 35/2, 20/2.8 and 50/1.4 are still on the list of current models, so I'm assuming they still make those. Cheers Sid I suspect Pentax is hedging on the availability of these lenses, not currently making more but hoping they have enough existing stock to cover demand for lenses in these ranges while gearing up to put out new DA lenses to serve the same needs, and that's why it seems we get conflicting answers about the status of these lenses. If they do manage to come out with DA equivalents quickly enough, no one will be able to call them on this. If they don't, then perhaps they'd consider manufacturing more. Just speculating, though. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >> From memory, the 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.0, 28mm f/2.8 (both versions), >> 35mm f/2.0, 85mm f/1.4, 100mm f/3.5 macro (Cosina-made) and 135mm [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >not listed at all. However, the 35/2, 20/2.8 and 50/1.4 are still on >the list of current models, so I'm assuming they still make those. You are confusing two different things - manufacture and availability. Camera makers discontinue items only when they are no longer available, in other words when stocks are exhausted. An item might not have been manufactured for several years, but if stocks exist, it is still "available". A classic example is the Nikon F3 body, which was listed as "available" on the 20th anniversary of its introduction (and "discontinued" shortly after) but none had been made for about two years. Nikon extracted some value from the "fact" that the camera was available for 20 years but it was manufactured for only 18. The fact that the Pentax 35/2, 20/2.8 and 50/1.4 are still "available" does not mean that they are still being manufactured. However, if sufficient demand exists, another batch or batches might be manufactured. It is a mistake to believe that lenses are in continuous production. That is true only of the top-selling "kit" lenses. All other lenses are made to order in batches. Slow-selling lenses might only be manufactured every couple of years. A new batch will only be ordered if sufficient demand exists to justify the cost of a production run. > You are confusing two different things - manufacture and availability. Hmmm... I get the point. Thanks for the clarification. Cheers Sid > Current Pentax wide to medium telephoto autofocus primes in-production, > where D denotes lenses only for DSLR's: Ho do you know the lenses in production? + 14mm f/2.8 (D) > 20mm f/2.8 > 24mm f/2.0 > 28mm f/2.8 (also a "soft" version) + 31mm f/1.8 [limited] + 35mm f/2.0 + 40mm f/2.8 (D, pancake) + 43mm f/1.9 [limited] + 50mm f/1.4 + 50mm f/2.8 macro [DFA] + 77mm f/1.8 > 85mm f/1.4 + 100mm f/2.8 macro [DFA] > 100mm f/3.5 macro > 135mm f/2.8 20/24/28 are no longer available. 50/1.4 is discontinued 85 is no longer available US sources name the smc-K Bellows 100mm f/4 as available. The 100/3.5 can be obtained from Cosina, although I'm not sure about SMC-coating. It was not built by Pentax. 135 is no longer available. But you did not mention 300/2.8 (A* and FA*), 400/5.6, 600/4 (FA*) or 600/5.6 (A*) which are still listed on Pentax sites. 20/24/28/85/135 where excellent lenses which where discontinued without matching replacements. - Martin They appear to be retooling for the APS-C digital world. While Pentax does not appear to be in any trouble financially, they did need to take on Samsung as a partner -- to improve both development and production. Sort of like Honda, being a stable company, did partner with GM -- Saturn Vue V6 is a Honda engine and the Acura can have OnStar. Trades can be useful. Collin KC8TKA > They appear to be retooling for the APS-C digital world. ... which seems to be a rather clear signal that they have no ambitions for the former analog market, as well as a digital full frame. So it's either DA (with the exception of two DFA macros, suitable for 35mm) or 645. - Martin They're being consistent with their past. In firm ... 35 was for the enthusiast. 6x7 & 645 were for the pros. The forthcoming and announced "medium format" digital is for the pro target. And, like the DSLRs, it will take the film camera lenses, auto and manual focus. Should be a nice outfit. But I'll stick with my 4x5. Collin > 50/1.4 is discontinued But as was mentioned earlier, it seems Pentax is still actively marketing and selling these - indeed, as of this week, they are even offering rebate on them. It seems they believe they have enough to last them until whatever replacement they have in mind comes out. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >> 50/1.4 is discontinued > >But as was mentioned earlier, it seems Pentax is still actively >marketing and selling these - indeed, as of this week, they are even >offering rebate on them. It seems they believe they have enough to >last them until whatever replacement they have in mind comes out. There won't be a replacement, so you had better buy one while you still can. All future Pentax designs will be DA lenses to cover the APS-C sensors. [ re: 50/1.4 ] > There won't be a replacement, so you had better buy one while you > still can. All future Pentax designs will be DA lenses to cover the > APS-C sensors. Well, that's what I was considering a replacement. I'm assuming there will be a comparable DA lens coming out some time in the not distant future. True, if you need it to also work with 35mm, you'll be out of luck. So in that sense, Pentax discontinuing the 50/1.4 is a bad sign. But in the sense of it showing a commitment to the future, I don't think it is. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >Well, that's what I was considering a replacement. I'm assuming there >will be a comparable DA lens coming out some time in the not distant >future. If you look at the Pentax DA lens roadmap, you will see that no such replacement is planned. >True, if you need it to also work with 35mm, you'll be out of >luck. So in that sense, Pentax discontinuing the 50/1.4 is a bad sign. >But in the sense of it showing a commitment to the future, I don't think >it is. That depends whether you consider a DA-only future to be a good thing. But that may be short-sighted. Pentax is not stuck in vestigal 35mm hardware mode or forgetting about larger sensors. They always considered 35 as their amateur market and medium format as their pro market. And the recent digital announcements that will employ the *old* 645 lenses maintain that patters. Collin >>Well, that's what I was considering a replacement. I'm assuming there >>will be a comparable DA lens coming out some time in the not distant >>future. > > If you look at the Pentax DA lens roadmap, you will see that no such > replacement is planned. Well, I see that none is on the horizon for as far as the roadmap goes, which is just a year or two. This suggests to me that Pentax thinks they have enough 50/1.4's to last that long - and the rebate they are currently offering suggets they think they have *more* than enough. >>True, if you need it to also work with 35mm, you'll be out of >>luck. So in that sense, Pentax discontinuing the 50/1.4 is a bad [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That depends whether you consider a DA-only future to be a good thing. Right. But I think that much is a given right now. It seems quite clear Pentax has decided standardize on APS and 645 as their formats, with no plans to continue to support 35mm. I figure this much was understood, and we were just talking about to best achieve this. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >Well, I see that none is on the horizon for as far as the roadmap goes, >which is just a year or two. This suggests to me that Pentax thinks >they have enough 50/1.4's to last that long - and the rebate they are >currently offering suggets they think they have *more* than enough. You may be right. Who knows? >>>True, if you need it to also work with 35mm, you'll be out of >>>luck. So in that sense, Pentax discontinuing the 50/1.4 is a bad [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >with no plans to continue to support 35mm. I figure this much was >understood, and we were just talking about to best achieve this. DA-only support seems somewhat at odds with the idea that another batch of FA 50mm f/1.4 lenses will ever be made. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.