Pentax lens lineup, is it incomplete?

[steve_t.1]

<p>From time to time we read of opinions (which could have valid concerns to some level) that Pentax's lens lineup is incomplete, that there are holes in the lens family that need to be plugged. But how much of a concern, or problem, is this, really? Let's take a look, here's the lens family from the Pentax website- http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses# 34 lenses that will fit my Pentax DSLR.</p>

<p>For funzies, here is the Nikon lens web page. Look at all those lenses... http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/index.page 104 lenses if my count was right, but they may overlap between categories. Wow! Kicks the crap out of Pentax.</p>

<p>And Canon- http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup 73 lenses, another beating to the Pentax lineup. But at least we have that legacy glass to depend on, if you can find what you want in the used market.</p>

<p>First of all, Pentax zooms. The focal lengths are covered from the 10mm fish eye and 12mm super wide end all the way to a 300mm telephoto. And it's not a zoom, but that new 560mm prime is on the way, hopefully bird watchers will be pleased with it. With regard to aperture, it seems what is missing is constant fast aperture across the zoom ranges. But let's be honest, look at what Canon and Nikon photogs are spending for F/2.8 zoom lenses. A king's ransom in some instances. And some of those lenses are the size of sewer pipe. Are we really hampered MOST of the time by this? I'd say not, not most of the time. Sure, there will be specialty occasions that make up the rest of the time, but other methods can be used to work around the limitation of not having an F/2.8 range on a zoom, such as Pentax's very strong high ISO capability. (But what about bokeh, some will ask...) And with zooms sure, the zooms are not offering overall quality of a $2-6000+ zoom from those big boys, but how many of us have the funds to lay out for that kind of lens quality? I don't. I'd suspect that most of us don't. And Pentax isn't going to build that kind of a lens and sell it for less than $1000. <em>So we are using the best that we are able to afford to do most of the things that we'd hope to do.</em> If we could afford those higher quality, constantly fast, very expensive zoom lenses, we likely wouldn't be dining at the Pentax table. And what is the market saturation point for those big bang lenses anyway? Is there room in that small, niche market for more high priced lens competition? Canon and Nikon are already thrashing each other in that realm. Does Pentax or another maker really want to put a dog in that fight? These companies are in the business of making MONEY, and lenses and cameras are the way they do it. If they stop making money, they stop making our gear. It's nothing personal, it's just business. Limited demand and more supply don't make for a good business model.</p>

<p>Primes. Dare I say that the Pentax prime family is some of the best lens quality/selection out there? Holes is the lineup? Sure, but quite likely nothing that can't be dealt with by moving your feet a few paces one way or the other. Let's be honest again, why does anyone need a huge selection of prime lenses that are a mere few mm's apart from each other in focal length? My own Pentax prime collection starts at 15mm, then 21, 28, 40, 50, 70, and 135mm (old manual lens), with a 90mm Tamron macro. Heck, I could probably drop a couple of those if it weren't for LBA. But other than LBA, why would I need to fill in those gaps any further? (Time to mount a zoom to avoid constantly changing lenses?) Or have multiple versions of the same focal length? And if I really wanted or needed faster apertures than these lenses offer for the collection of light (but what about bokeh?), well, then they wouldn't be the tiny, light weight, inconspicuous jewels I've discovered and grown to love. (This is the Pentax benefit the other guys don't offer as a family of lenses.) They'd be Campbell's Chunky Soup cans, still with the soup in them, hanging off the front of my camera (there's the creamy, stew-like bokeh coming from that F/1.x soup can). Heck, may as well have a zoom mounted in that case, at least it would be more versatile for focal length for the aperture size/weight penalty. At least I can whip up the wonderful high ISO on my K5 to overcome that "I need more light" problem.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that the lens offering from Pentax is ideal, or the best, but it's pretty darn good at what it does. Filling in all the gaps, or flat out changing a model to have different specs (focal length and aperture) is going to cost money, and you and I pay that price. And at least Sigma is still helping fill in blanks here and there with their soup cans (I own a couple of them), Tamron on the other hand seems to be walking away from Pentax. Too bad for that.</p>

<p>Okay, I'm done with my tale here. I'm sure lots of what I proclaim can be shot full of holes (and the ol' Pentax board has been pretty dull here in recent weeks, let's light up the sky with replies/discussion!), but these are my opinions. I think that Pentax, a very small fish in a small technology pond that continues to be drying up as more photo equipment buyers turn away from cameras of all kinds and depend upon iPhones and the like, is doing pretty well, for the time being. But if they are able to hang on and fine tune where possible without sinking their own precarious financial boat, then we will be the benefactors. Me, I'm happy with what I've got. I'll consider and maybe even buy their new offerings when they come out. Do you want to improve Pentax? Get your friend or relative to set down their camera phone and buy a Pentax. I did.</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>There's no DA equivalent of the 35/2 or 28/2 manual focus lenses. The DA 21 is f/3.2, slow. Could use a DA 24/2 and DA 18/2. Yeah, maybe the high sensitivity of the sensor is making that sort of lens speed moot, but I think there's a place for something there. (Of course, knowing Pentax's affection for strange numbers, it would be a DA 23/1.9 and a DA 17/2.2!)<br>

Pentax doesn't yet have the autofocus speed or frame rate to justify the sports lenses (300/2.8, etc.). That's not their niche. Not that the FA* fast/long lenses were anything but excellent, but they don't have the cameras that justify that today.<br>

Of course, if they do a full-frame DLSR, there's a lot of lenses that need to go back into production...</p>

[ukhov]

<p>What even made 560,can be front tube on 300 and what ever happens,may be the "star"?Design?Who even know at what status company now,not a single call been made,from last weighed WR 18-135.!? Let them may call,in my opinion </p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>It doesn't make sense to me to look at Pentax lens offerings in isolation. There are a lot of 3rd party lenses out there and some are really <em>very</em> good. Pentax is in a pretty competitive environment in that regard so I think they need to pick their shots pretty carefully. I hope they make a point to make quality one of their strong points--they've had some hits and misses in that regard.. </p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>It doesn't make sense to me to look at Pentax lens offerings in isolation. There are a lot of 3rd party lenses out there and some are really <em>very</em> good. Pentax is in a pretty competitive environment in that regard so I think they need to pick their shots pretty carefully. I hope they make a point to make quality one of their strong points--they've had some hits and some misses in that regard.. </p>

[stemked]

Answer: not for me!

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>If we could afford those higher quality, constantly fast, very expensive zoom lenses, we likely wouldn't be dining at the Pentax table.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The problem is that even if Pentax planned to be a cheapo brand, they were going the wrong way about it. It looks like they are finally starting to introduce more affordable f/1.8 prime lenses, but if the K-mount lasts beyond 2020, I will be very surprised.</p>

[stemked]

"but if the K-mount lasts beyond 2020, I will be very surprised."

 

Back around 2000 I could pick up Pentax lenes for a song, good lenses too. I don't think anyone would have bet a

plug nickel that Pentax would be around for more than a few years. They have kept the company going, and to their credit,

have remained adaptable. I wouldn't count out the mount.

[ukhov]

<p>Strongly feels like they bump money from consumer to get a few concepts from Hoya</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Pentax can't produce Canon's lineup. Neither can Leica or Voghtlander, or even Olympus.</p>

<p>The reality is that Pentax is a relatively small player in the market, it's a step above the real niche players, but not significantly. <br /><br />If you need to options that Nikon and Canon offer, you need to go with Nikon and Canon. IMO, Pentax should actually further scale down it's line of lenses. Cutting out duplicate range lenses, focusing on superior quality and price to quality ratio. </p>

<p>The DA* lineup is optically excellent. It gives up nothing to Nikon or Canon. However, Pentax 16-50 had some issues early on with focus motors and focus speed. No one can confirm this was fixed. I'd rather they fix what should be a standard pro lens than release tons of additional lenses. And if you look at the DA* zooms, you have what, IMO, is mostly a complete lineup. 16-50, 50-135, 60-250, 200mm, 300mm. They need a teleconverter and a UWA to complete it. But that's a professional kit plus some. I suppose you could use the 14mm f/2.8 as your UWA (it's basically a DA* minus the sealing) or the 12-24mm. Or just go with Sigma's excellent 10-20mm. </p>

<p>If Pentax made a teleconverter (inexcusable that they don't) you'd have options to get to 600mm with the Pentax system (600mm f/5.6 isn't all that slow of a lens) which I am sure is more than enough for most people besides birders. </p>

<p>What would the system then be missing?</p>

[michellemandat]

<p>Except that we need a good 17/70 mm I think in a DA 24mm f2. I plan to buy the Samyang but I spend a miracle from Pentax.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>Justin wrote:<br>

What would the system then be missing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do I have to come out and say it once again...? :-D</p>

<p><em>A bloody fastish, affordable, normal prime lens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</em></p>

<p>And no, the DA 35mm f/2.4 is NOT that lens.</p>

<p>Please note I am saying this for the kids coming into the brand now; I myself have given up on Pentax ever releasing the #1 lens on most anybody else's lens map:</p>

<ul>

<li>What normal lens did Fuji release with the X-Pro 1? An excellent 35mm f/1.4.</li>

<li>What was the first prime lens Samsung released with its mirrorless NX system?An excellent and affordable 30mm f/2 pancake.</li>

<li>What did Panasonic release with its first μ4/3 camera? An excellent and affordable 20mm f/1.7.</li>

</ul>

[johnw436]

<p>I would love to buy Pentax products. The problem is I had to go to Sigma for a kit-level 70-300. I went to Sigma for the 10-20 because the Pentax offered no more value for twice the price. I went to Tamron for a 28-75 2.8 because Pentax did away with their 24-70.</p>

<p> </p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>Do I have to come out and say it once again...? :-D</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, you know we agree on that. However, from a professional system, where primes are less and less used (though still used, I watched the MLB guys switch to their 24/35mm primes the same time I did), I don't think Pentax gives up much.</p>

<p>But yeah, if there is any bigger hole in the universe than that 21-31mm gap. And really, is it that hard to repackage existing 28mm's into a modern design? Apparently so!</p>

[rparmar]

<blockquote>

<p>Holes is the lineup? Sure, but quite likely nothing that can't be dealt with by moving your feet a few paces one way or the other.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not the same thing at all. Look up "perspective".</p>

<p>Yes, Pentax is inexplicably lacking a normal lens of any stripe. Especially a fast cheap normal.</p>

[nicholas_fiduccia1]

<p>>If Pentax made a teleconverter (inexcusable that they don't) you'd have options to get to 600mm with the Pentax system (600mm f/5.6 isn't all that slow of a lens) which I am sure is more than enough for most people besides birders.</p>

<p>That would be a good (optical) trick Justin! A 300f4 fitted with a 2X teleconverter becomes a 600mm f8 lens. I would be happy with a 1.4X converter producing an equivalent 420mm f5.6. Now, if we had a 400mm f4, then a 1.4X would produce a 560mm f5.6! Hey, do you suppose the new 560mm planned is really a 400mm f4 with a built-in 1.4X teleconverter?</p>