Price of K-mount glass?

Only economists are silly enough to think their specialty is a hard science and can have "laws" of anything.

Even gravity, a much more accepted causal factor in our universe, is referred to as the "Universal Theory of Gravity". At least scientists have some humility about what they think they know.

Anyway, getting back to Pentax cameras. I will shortly be acquiring my first (working - the first one arrived damaged) Pentax DSLR (a K-r). I own a number of other digital cameras, both P&S and DSLR of other brands, but I wanted a camera which was small and lightweight, and had in body image stabilization so I could use a few used lenses of somewhat older vintage (I like older glass in my Nikon kit) to save money on lenses.

Anyway, the body comes with the kit 18-55 zoom. I want to add one or two other lenses for this camera, for travel use when I do not want to cart around my large and heavy and costly Nikon body and lenses. I would like lenses which are autofocus. My main interests are macro and telephoto/zoom. I'd like a lens that will provide me with the equivalent of 55-200 or 300mm (35mm equivalent) which will supply about 80-300/450mm with the sensor size factor considered.

My demand (in the supply and demand equation) is that it not cost more than $150-200 used (US or Canadian) in reasonable condition, so I am not expecting a very fast lens (f3.5 or 4 at the smallest zoom would do) nor am I expecting perfect optics, however, I'd like to avoid a dog. Doesn't have to be Pentax brand as long as it fits and interfaces with the mechanics and electronics of the Kr.

Does anyone have a suggestion of one or more lenses that might fit the bill?

Many thanks,

FotoFinder
Quite untrue actually.
Quite true actually. If no one (the consumer) buys then it doesnt matter what the asking price is. If the seller wishes to sell their lenses then they must drop the prices. When it reaches a point that the consumer begins to buy the lenses then the price is set BY THE CONSUMER.

If the consumer begins to buy in such numbers then the lenses become scarce and then the prices will rise. Again, the price is set BY THE CONSUMER.

It is called the Law of Supply and Demand and no matter how you and others try to say otherwise, that Law applies in all cases, no matter the product.

Cheers.

Ron
 
It's a little out of topic, but to answer your question, even if id doesn't cover entirely your needs, you should try to get the :

Pentax SMC F 70-210/4-5.6

It focuses very fast and accurately, has a 9 blades iris, renders very well (colors, contrast and sharpness) for the price. It's a very solid build lens, a bit heavy, and the minimum focus distance is 1,1 meter so it has quite good closeup capabilities, especially that it's not an IF lens. It is rumored to be an ED lens. It can be found quite easily at 100-150$.

Be aware that it also exists in a non SMC version (Takumar version) which is to be avoided.

Good luck ;)
 
On the other hand, I dont want to argue with you.
Sure you do. You're a troll, that's what trolls do.
they are same price; or, pentax is 3$ cheaper than Nikon. But why an inferior product is priced like the superior.
It's not inferior. Prove that it it.
Oh, I "got it." Got it a long time ago.
Actually, about the same number as always. So, while small, not smaller than at any other point in the past 10 or more years. And yet, here they still are.
If the users are as always (and this is not true, in 80s there were way more Pentax users, dont judge the 70s!!), and the prices went up, a bit, than the number of users is already smaller.
You're wrong; prove that the numbers are smaller.
Pentax users number is reducing.
Where is the data for that, please? I think you're wrong.
See above.
Where you were wrong? Yeah, I saw that. Three lines later, you're still wrong.
It has come to a level where very few people are buying Pentax
Again, where is the data for that, please? I think you're wrong.
About 2% market share is the data for you.
Which is no smaller than it has been for years.
I dont want to be a user like this!
Fine, then please go away. Buy a Canon, or a Nikon, and go frequent one of those forums.
You are very unpleasant to speak with.
No, YOU are the unpleasant one. You come into the forum with a name like "PentaxNever" and you expect to be welcomed with open arms? You joined this forum FOUR WEEKS ago, and you have posted nothing but negative stuff.

Here, let's try a little experiment. Change your name to CanonNever, then go post crap about Canon in one of the Canon forums.

Let's see how unpleasant the members of THAT forum will be.

It's simple: You're complaining, unfounded, negative posts have been met with EXACTLY the kind of responses you expected. If you seriously thought you could posts such drivel, and that everyone would be silent, then you are a fool.

--Greg
 
Pentax users number is reducing.
Where is the data for that, please? I think you're wrong.
See above.
It has come to a level where very few people are buying Pentax
Again, where is the data for that, please? I think you're wrong.
About 2% market share is the data for you.
I don't know what the actual % figure is for DSLRs, but it should be around 5%.
Oh, so PentaxNever was wrong? Imagine that.

[FUD snipped]
The future for Pentax DSLRs is anybody's guess.
True. Always has been.
Buying into Pentax system now is hard for any one new to justify.
Wrong. It's no different than for any other camera.
So, it will get worse before it can get better for the DSLR users.
Wrong. As you said above, it's anybody's GUESS. So, you have absolutely no idea if it will get better or worse.
I like to find more positive things to say and end this.
I find that hard to believe. But let's see if it's true. Prove it by stopping all your troll-like FUD posting. Just do it. Prove that you're not a troll.

--Greg
 
LOL
Cool down, man.

All I said are FACTS , You like it or not. I dont like those facts as most Pentax users don't like them. Pentax has to change them!
On the other hand, I dont want to argue with you.
Sure you do. You're a troll, that's what trolls do.
they are same price; or, pentax is 3$ cheaper than Nikon. But why an inferior product is priced like the superior.
It's not inferior. Prove that it it.
Oh, I "got it." Got it a long time ago.
Actually, about the same number as always. So, while small, not smaller than at any other point in the past 10 or more years. And yet, here they still are.
If the users are as always (and this is not true, in 80s there were way more Pentax users, dont judge the 70s!!), and the prices went up, a bit, than the number of users is already smaller.
You're wrong; prove that the numbers are smaller.
Pentax users number is reducing.
Where is the data for that, please? I think you're wrong.
See above.
Where you were wrong? Yeah, I saw that. Three lines later, you're still wrong.
It has come to a level where very few people are buying Pentax
Again, where is the data for that, please? I think you're wrong.
About 2% market share is the data for you.
Which is no smaller than it has been for years.
I dont want to be a user like this!
Fine, then please go away. Buy a Canon, or a Nikon, and go frequent one of those forums.
You are very unpleasant to speak with.
No, YOU are the unpleasant one. You come into the forum with a name like "PentaxNever" and you expect to be welcomed with open arms? You joined this forum FOUR WEEKS ago, and you have posted nothing but negative stuff.

Here, let's try a little experiment. Change your name to CanonNever, then go post crap about Canon in one of the Canon forums.

Let's see how unpleasant the members of THAT forum will be.

It's simple: You're complaining, unfounded, negative posts have been met with EXACTLY the kind of responses you expected. If you seriously thought you could posts such drivel, and that everyone would be silent, then you are a fool.

--Greg
 
My spreadsheet is accurate
Apparently not, as your current best prices are quite a bit different than those another UK poster came up with. Seems like maybe you don't look too hard when it suits your purposes not to. And I suspect the 2008 prices were actually best case scenarios, not prices you'd pay if you onky looked as hard as you are willing to now that you've already written off Pentax.

BTW, are you sure you're not comparing different versions of the 100?
Canon 50mm f1.4 was £215 in 2008 now £298 sharp increase but not as bad as Pentax
Actually, that's almost 40% - about the biggest increase of any of the lenses mentioned, even using your inflated Pentax numbers.

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/
 
Lenses didn't fall in price because people are willing to buy them at the asking price. If the market can bear the price, the manufacturer won't change its mind regarding price. For example, I was observing the price of the DA15 lens; when I bought it a year ago, it was $499. Now the price is already a bit higher.
Actually, that's not a lens that has gone up on avergae. Price has fluctuated around $525 + - $25 pretty much the whole time it's been out. The fluctuation seems to be the normal sort of thing of some dealers temporarily putting it on sale, others matching, then the sale expiring, and everyone else match that too.

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/
 
This is true. This is why I dont buy Pentax (lenses, cameras) anymore: Pentax become more expensive that the CaNikon, and I am not willing to pay that much for a system with no clear future. Why should I buy Pentax if there are CaNikon products, cheaper?
If you are the type of photogrpaher who is satisfied with the limited options Canon and Nikon offer, then indeed, that's the more sensible system. Pentax is more for people who value SR, who value WR, who value lenses designed for APS-C, who value small primes, etc. If you're happy with an unstabilized body, no affordable WR options, and basic consumer zooms, Canon and Nikon indeed have it all over Pentax. There is no possible way a smaller company can compete with them on price in today's consumer electronics market. You might as well give up hoping for that.

Where Pentax can and does beat the others - handily - is in offering the chocies the others won't, not at any price. Canon and Nikon don't offer cheaper equivalents of the DA limiteds; they don't offer equivalents at all. They don't offer cheaper equivalents of the stabilized K-r or K-5; they don't offer equivalents at all.
Pentax thus rises prices to insane level (more expensive than CaNikon, hello?!?!)
As I've been notin, this is a myth. In the cases where both offer similar lenses, Pentax's price on average are very similar to the others. Some Pentax lenses are quite a bit cheaper than the others (like the DA* zooms), others maybe a few bucks more, but on average, it's all about the same. As one should expect. Neither materials nor labor are any cheaper for Pentax than for anyone else. It's crazy to assume they could somehow undercut the big guys.

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/
 
This is true. This is why I dont buy Pentax (lenses, cameras) anymore: Pentax become more expensive that the CaNikon, and I am not willing to pay that much for a system with no clear future. Why should I buy Pentax if there are CaNikon products, cheaper?
If you are the type of photogrpaher who is satisfied with the limited options Canon and Nikon offer, then indeed, that's the more sensible system. Pentax is more for people who value SR, who value WR, who value lenses designed for APS-C, who value small primes, etc. If you're happy with an unstabilized body, no affordable WR options, and basic consumer zooms, Canon and Nikon indeed have it all over Pentax. There is no possible way a smaller company can compete with them on price in today's consumer electronics market. You might as well give up hoping for that.

Where Pentax can and does beat the others - handily - is in offering the chocies the others won't, not at any price. Canon and Nikon don't offer cheaper equivalents of the DA limiteds; they don't offer equivalents at all. They don't offer cheaper equivalents of the stabilized K-r or K-5; they don't offer equivalents at all.
Pentax thus rises prices to insane level (more expensive than CaNikon, hello?!?!)
As I've been notin, this is a myth. In the cases where both offer similar lenses, Pentax's price on average are very similar to the others. Some Pentx lenses are quite a bit cheaper than the others (like the DA* zooms), others maybe a few bucks more, but on average, it's all about the same. As one should expect. Neither materials nor labor are any cheaper for Pentax than for anyone else. It's crazy to assume they could somehow undercut the big guys.
I was on a roll there, agreeing with everything you stated until that last bit.

Materials are likely to be more expensive for Pentax than Nikon and Canon therefore it is reasonable to expect to pay more for Pentax lens.

The fact we don't and actually on the median pay slightly less the Pentax lens must be better value than the other two.

I.e Pentax take less profit for every lens sold = more value to the consumer
--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/
 
Apparently not, as your current best prices are quite a bit different than those another UK poster came up with. Seems like maybe you don't look too hard when it suits your purposes not to. And I suspect the 2008 prices were actually best case scenarios, not prices you'd pay if you onky looked as hard as you are willing to now that you've already written off Pentax.
At this stage I can't even take you slightly seriously the prices are accurate because I verified them at the time and spent quite a bit of time doing so.

The 2008 prices are average price not "best"

I've not written off Pentax but any fool can see they have some serious pricing problems.
BTW, are you sure you're not comparing different versions of the 100?
Canon 50mm f1.4 was £215 in 2008 now £298 sharp increase but not as bad as Pentax
Actually, that's almost 40% - about the biggest increase of any of the lenses mentioned, even using your inflated Pentax numbers.
No it's not you're having trouble with numbers aren't you? If the Pentax 50mm f1.4 was around £175 rising to £309 odd I think you can work out that's a larger increase than any other maker.

Regardless you'll defend Pentax to the last as another poster put it "some folks are trying to protect their lens investment" you'd hate to see folks paying less for lenses.

Look around Pentax can't survive on overpriced or slow primes. Most DSLR users couldn't care less about a few limited lenses if you don't have the basic stuff covered you're in trouble which is why Pentax at the moment are treading water when they should be expanding and bagging a lot of new users.

Hoya were taking Pentax in completely the wrong direction if the new owners try to niche Pentax you'll be in the same situation as Minolta was (sadly)

I wouldn't wish that on anyone
 
Lenses didn't fall in price because people are willing to buy them at the asking price. If the market can bear the price, the manufacturer won't change its mind regarding price. For example, I was observing the price of the DA15 lens; when I bought it a year ago, it was $499. Now the price is already a bit higher.
Actually, that's not a lens that has gone up on avergae. Price has fluctuated around $525 + - $25 pretty much the whole time it's been out. The fluctuation seems to be the normal sort of thing of some dealers temporarily putting it on sale, others matching, then the sale expiring, and everyone else match that too.
I've seen it going up to $550 and then going back to $530. Not much as you say (up to 10% variation), but it's hard to expect the price will stay fixed and forever. If it continues to sell well, it will never be $499 again.

--
http://www.pixart.com.au
 
Look around Pentax can't survive on overpriced or slow primes. Most DSLR users couldn't care less about a few limited lenses if you don't have the basic stuff covered you're in trouble which is why Pentax at the moment are treading water when they should be expanding and bagging a lot of new users.

Hoya were taking Pentax in completely the wrong direction if the new owners try to niche Pentax you'll be in the same situation as Minolta was (sadly)
You are correct there. Pentax can't survive the way it was going, and see what happened. IT JUST GOT SOLD. Many have pointed this high-price strategy problem out for a long time over and over, but they were "trolls". Who cares that Pentax has some nice primes and a sturdy and smaller WR body if prices are higher or as high as other bigger brands that won't be sold every few years? 95% of buyers do not. Without enough volume, cost of goods sold will remain high, profit low if there is any, and funding for R&D limited, ensuring that Pentax will not go anywhere except stay in this vicious cycle of low volume and high costs that lead to uncompetitive products.

The K-5 is also unreasonably priced, if the D7000 is so much lower. Now the Q is also unreasonably priced , by any measure. Pentax may well be in a similar situation as Minolta already. If Ricoh does not do something differently, then Pentax can get even worse. It can no longer just rely on using a significantly improved sensor from Sony for selling cameras. It needs to provide either value or some really significant distinguishing feature.

It will take very serious research, development, time and money before anything significant and distinguishing in Pentax DSLR will be available to be able to make a difference to its tiny market share. Without either low pricing or a real distinguishing feature, there is no hope for Pentax dSLR surving. With Canikon dominating the market so completely, with such outdated Pentax flash and AF systems, such a poor reputation and low consumer confidence, it will take very significant work to turn things around, meaning little ROI for a long time, and the future of DSLR market looking quite uncertain.

Why should Ricoh spend big to try to develop its DSLR business against all odds, when better opporutnies are there in the mirrorless market, a growing market that is still not dominated too much. Significant opportunities are also possible for innovation, unlike the old DSLR cameras. Ricoh is where it is today because it can think business. The business case for Pentax DSLR business is high cost, high risk, low return, slow return. The K-mount is not worth rescuing. Ricoh is not a charity.

Ricoh has got enough from the Pentax purchase in terms of benefits of optical skills and patents, channels for its other businesses, scannera, security surveillance, and mirrorless cameras. It is not worth throwing good money for K-mount.
 
No it's not you're having trouble with numbers aren't you? If the Pentax 50mm f1.4 was around £175 rising to £309 odd I think you can work out that's a larger increase than any other maker.
Hang on, I thought Pentax lenses (and the 50mm f1.4 in particular) were meant to be much more expensive than other makers' equivalents? Now it turns out that this lens is similar to the Canon, Sony and Nikon AFS equivalents in price, you are comparing the change in price rather than the actual price and so the goalposts have been moved.

Now I don't want to pay more for lenses, and if they were cheaper I'd have more of them, but I'm more interested in what the lens prices are now compared with C, N and S than how they have changed over the past few years.
 
Sony, and also Olympus, also have some business sense I suppose. They are not really developing their DSLR business, why? All those independents who no longer produce new lenses for Pentax, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Tamron, and Tokina know something or they also have some business sense and made some assessment regarding the K-mount.

More developments soon, in Nikon's mirrorless and Sony's A77, Pansonic GH3, and I think they will show the way forward, at least for those who are not the dominate DSLR makers.

What would be interesting is this. Will K-mount lenses go sky high if Ricoh should decide to drop the DSLR business and stop their production? or will they go down as owners dump them to switch to other systems?
 
Pentax can't survive the way it was going
Sure it can.
funding for R&D limited
Wrong. You have no idea what Ricoh will do. It may well decide to INVEST money. You're equation that R&D MUST come from profit is totally fallacious, especially in the face of the recent sale.
With Canikon dominating the market
Been that way for years; Pentax is still around.
Why should Ricoh spend big to try to develop its DSLR business
Uh, because they bought the company?
Ricoh is where it is today because it can think business.
OK, so in doing that, Ricoh decided to buy Pentax. Good move, for Ricoh and Pentax.
The business case for Pentax DSLR business is high cost, high risk, low return, slow return. The K-mount is not worth rescuing. Ricoh is not a charity.
OK, so predict when bodies will no longer be made for the K mount. Predict when lenses will no longer be made for the K mount. The K mount has been around for 50 years. Predict, little troll: When will it go away? In a year? Two years? Five years?

Come on, you claim to know so much. Put it out there, and tell us all when the K mount will go away. It's put up or shut up time.

--Greg
 
At this stage I can't even take you slightly seriously the prices are accurate because I verified them at the time and spent quite a bit of time doing so.
And yet you somehow missed the post showing you that in fact the FA50 is available for les than you claim, even in the UK. You didn't even have to look further than this very thread.
Regardless you'll defend Pentax to the last as another poster put it "some folks are trying to protect their lens investment" you'd hate to see folks paying less for lenses.
Not st all. But in the case of this lens, as has been proven to you already, othes are not paying less for their 50/1.4's. They are all around the same price, evem in the UK.

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/
 
Canon 50mm 109$
Pentax 50mm 359$
Are you actually naive enough to not realize these are entirely different lenses, and that the Canon lens that is comparable to the Pentax FA50 is a lot more expensive? Or is it that you are so unprincipled as to try to lie to everyone else on this thread by prsenting these as equivalent when you kow full well they aren't? Either way, it doesn't reflect wellopn you, but I like to know what I am dealing with.
On the other hand, I dont want to argue with you, they are same price; or, pentax is 3$ cheaper than Nikon. But why an inferior product is priced like the superior?!
Good question - why do Nikon and Canon charge as much for their cameras as Pentax does? And what makes you think Nikon's or Canon's lenses are superior?

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/
 
And yet you somehow missed the post showing you that in fact the FA50 is available for les than you claim, even in the UK. You didn't even have to look further than this very thread.
It's down to £299 at warehouse express and jessops it's priced higher in other places too. Of course if I missed some "sale" price well no problems I'm all ears.

Still makes it more expensive than rivals.
Not st all. But in the case of this lens, as has been proven to you already, othes are not paying less for their 50/1.4's. They are all around the same price, evem in the UK.
They're not all the same price many have £309 Amazon UK are charging a stonking £377

If I averaged the prices as I did with the spreadsheet it wouldn't look so great for Pentax. Regardless there might be something good to say if it were an updated design or newer ala expected higher price. As it stands the other point remains very strongly a lack of a new affordable 50mm f1.8 is killing Pentax by turning off new users.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top