Mister Roboto: While the photo is good, I don't think it is worth that money. Not even close to 1/1000th of the price. It is ridiculous and most likely bogus that someone in the right mind will buy a photo at that price. A worthless homo sapien IMHO.
In regards to the comment by "Mister Roboto"...any object is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.
Why would anyone want the Leica X when the Fuji X100S is on the market?
retro76: I hate when company's do this. Basically they are saying; you know how our 1.2 lens has crappy bokeh, well here we fixed it by adding a filter, all you need to do is give us $500 more and your good to go. Shame on you Fuji.
No, I disagree completely! All things change...nothing stays the same....technology advances and improvements are made. Now buyers will have the option of two different 56mm lens options for their system! $500 does seem like a steep price in my opinion...but that is merely my opinion. If Fuji or any other company thinks that the market would support a price of $3,000 for this lens...they would sell it for that.
EHDesigns: Hmm, Could it be a repackaged/re-branded PIXPRO Kodak SD1 from JK Imaging?
No it is not.
George Veltchev: amazing tastelessness ... but some kids from Ordos ( Inna Mongolia ) will love it !
If you don't like it...don't buy it. This would really be a boring world if everybody liked the same thing. I don't care for it either...but if Pentax can expand its market share...so much the better.
Looks like a fantastic lens1
This is a ridiculous story. On the surface, it certainly appears that Walmart is being greedy...trying to steal the photos from the copyright holder. But perhaps it would be better to hear the rest of the story prior to judgement. What if the photographer is trying to get $1 billion from WalMart for the photos or some other overbloated price? Is the photographic studio violating any previous agreements on photo reproduction? However, it is quite likely that WalMart is trying to taking advantage over the photo studio simply because they have the power...and that is wrong!
RolliPoli: Please check a Pentax lens 'road map'. Their range of lenses is one of the best. Pentax has a stunningly good 31mm f1.8 lens. I'm sure you won't be able to tell the difference between its field of view and that of a 35mm lens.Their 35mm f2.0 is great and there isn't a meaningful difference between its f2.0 and f1.8 As for "cheap" , when it comes to buying lenses, smarter people than I have said that there are just three main features to select from and the photographer can only ever have two of those. They are: 'Cheap', 'Fast' and 'Sharp' Now, select any two!
There is no such thing as a "reasonable" price. Items are priced at the value the market will bear. They must be selling enough of them at that price to make the lens profitable.
alexzn: A useless feature if I ever saw one...
This feature is only useless to someone that finds it useless. A good feature does not have to be useful to all.
maksa: > infrared photo from 2009
From August 2008, please correct.
Why...does it really matter for the purposes of this article?
Zoron: where's the body flash?
I don't understand...do you seriously think it is hidden somewhere on the body?
Wonderful design...showing a great sense of imagination!
Dave Oddie: Pentax seem to have forgotten the K-5 is an aps-c camera when designing the 40mm lens.
On a full frame camera that focal length is great (I owned an Zuiko 40mm F2 in film days) but on aps-c with a f.o.v equal to 60mm I can't think of a more useless specification for a prime lens.
Pentax are not the only one to do this. Sony brought out a 50mm "portrait" lens when that is really too short to be a classic portrait lens with a f.o.v of a 75mm.
They are both far too conservative and seem to think they should stick to focal lengths that are really for full frame rather than develop specifically for aps-c. A 28mm prime which is approx 42mm f.o.v would have been much better.
I doubt if Pentax forgot anything. They designed exactly the lens they wished to build and sell. It really comes down to a matter of preference by the photographer.