Lens prices... o-really?

[Gazooma]

My mistake, Greg. 3 out of 4. Many lenses costing much less got 3 out of 4. So, it is still not 4 stars or 3 1/2, or what one would expect for a $750 lens. A screw driven lens with this focal length (simple design) and speed and that price ought to have the highest performance.

 

[Gazooma]

The Fa43 Limited is a full metal lens, actually aluminium, and it cost more to produce than ordinary consumer lenses. Production output is limited because the lens is produced with tight manufacturing tolerances.
Build quality is similar to Leica and Zeiss.
There is no reason for it to be less expensive than the competition.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

What good is a full metal lens, aluminium or titanium, if it is going to cost more than many DSLRs but provides just very good performance, not excellent, outstanding or legendary. Why even bother with the aluminium? Except of course there are people willing to believe theories and buy them. Were they made with aluminium to commemorate the last of the full frame film lenses? Does that construction do anything to the quality of images taken with a K-x or K-7. To me, the fact that it will last forever and that it costs so much means only that the owner will probably never buy another such 50mm or so lens again, and therefore denied a better lens, say something that Sigma releases. I will be surprised if there isn't already a better 50mm or so lens already, optically speaking.

 

[laurynas]

looks like a Mac vs PC debate

 

[RogerMexico]

I have noticed that for several months now BH is not listing any prices for Pentax lenses in Pop. Photo. All of the other brands have a price with an occasional CALL but nada for Pentax. Seems odd to me.

 

[taitai]

$750 for what is essentially a standard prime lens. This is the Amazon price for this Pentax 43mm f/1.9. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is $125. Also at Amazon. So, you can buy 6 of the Nikon ones for the same price. Is it really that good? Should be about perfect, right? Not according to this photozone.de review, in the bokeh, in the CA, and in sharpness when wide open. It has a fairly commonplace 3 star rating (out of 5). It is not particularly fast at f/1.9, so have to closi down for sharpness means using f/2.8. That is not so good when cheaper lenses can be sharper at the wider apertures, or in other words, this is not such a good lens for low light either, as most standard lenses often are. It is mechanical driven and therefore not fast in AF. So, is the silver colour the reason for the high cost?

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/125-pentax-smc-fa-43mm-f19-limited-review--test-report?start=2

The SLRGear report confirms all the weaknesses in the other report, and the graph shows the poor corner sharpness at the widest aperture. It shows that my cheap Tamron 28-75mm zoom just as sharp, or sharper at some apertures.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/318/cat/45

It is made for FF cameras but unlike similar Nikon or Canon lenses, there is no such FF camera to use it on. So, is it really such a legendary lens as it is often made out to be on this forum, or is it mainly a silver collector's item? The other Limited lens tested by SLRGear is also not any sharper than my zoom. So, it seems it is the silver colour.

Acording to photozone:
pentax 43 1:1.9
F2.8 center rez 2311.5 corner rez 1993
F4 center rez 2422 corner rez 2244
tamaron 28-75 1:2.8
F2.8 center rez 1919 corner rez 1752
F4 center rez 2131.5 corner rez 2011
so gazooma you miss leading again.
--
Thanks itai.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39871864@N05/

 

[pcarfan]

$750 for what is essentially a standard prime lens. This is the Amazon price for this Pentax 43mm f/1.9. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is $125. Also at Amazon. So, you can buy 6 of the Nikon ones for the same price. Is it really that good? Should be about perfect, right? Not according to this photozone.de review, in the bokeh, in the CA, and in sharpness when wide open. It has a fairly commonplace 3 star rating (out of 5). It is not particularly fast at f/1.9, so have to closi down for sharpness means using f/2.8. That is not so good when cheaper lenses can be sharper at the wider apertures, or in other words, this is not such a good lens for low light either, as most standard lenses often are. It is mechanical driven and therefore not fast in AF. So, is the silver colour the reason for the high cost?

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/125-pentax-smc-fa-43mm-f19-limited-review--test-report?start=2

The SLRGear report confirms all the weaknesses in the other report, and the graph shows the poor corner sharpness at the widest aperture. It shows that my cheap Tamron 28-75mm zoom just as sharp, or sharper at some apertures.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/318/cat/45

It is made for FF cameras but unlike similar Nikon or Canon lenses, there is no such FF camera to use it on. So, is it really such a legendary lens as it is often made out to be on this forum, or is it mainly a silver collector's item? The other Limited lens tested by SLRGear is also not any sharper than my zoom. So, it seems it is the silver colour.

The Pentax FA43/1.9 is not perfect, please don't bring a legend down to such pedestarian concepts.......it belongs in a scale where perfect is the lowest score and the FA 43 occupies the highest score in that scale....It is THE best optical device EVER made, hubble telescope has nothing on it.

"essentialy a standard prime"....I thought I've heard it all, obviosuly I was wrong.

Do you believe in miracles ? The FA43 will make you believe!

--

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=2323984&subSubSection=0&language=EN

K10D, K-7

Pentax: DA15/4, DA21/3.2, FA31/1.8, FA43/1.9, FA77/1.8, F135/2.8, FA*28-70/2.8, FA*80-200/2.8
Sigma Zooms: Sigma 100-300 F4

'Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming... 'Wow! What a ride!'

 

[Marc Sabatella]

I bought my DA 70mm and DA 35mm macro used from the other forum in perfect condition and only paid $400 each, when they are both like $600 new.

Actually, these lenses both go for under $550 from most legit dealers but are fairly commonly sold new by prodigital2000 for around $400, which has a lot to do with why the used prices tend to stay a bit lower for those lenses.

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/

 

[Jorgen E]

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....

 

[awaldram]

Hello Gazooma,I'm guessing you could run rings around me when it comes to theory (you do seem to have alot of spare time though)but I've got a 43 and I don't care what you or any website say it is a great lens,I love it to death.Perhaps if can get your hands on one you might think differently,you don't actually have one do you?

Hi, Peasant. No, I don't have the 43mm, but I can read reviews. You are saying photozone and SLRgear got their tests wrong? There are more reviews than those two I mentioned. They would have to kill me to buy a lens like that for $750. No, I never will have one. Tell me where I got it wrong. Is your 43 not a f/1.9? Not the fastest standard lens (around 50mm), is it? It does not have SDM or any ultra fast or silent motor, does it? What theory did I mention? Those are facts. If you stop down an f/1.9 lens that is soft at that aperture to get more sharpness, then you will be using f/2.8. Is that a theory or fact? Does yours have much better optical performance, like in CA, or wide open sharpness than the reviewers found? Congratulations, you must have been so lucky. You have a lens that is exceptional and much better than the reviewers have tested. I am glad you love it to death and that your love is not based on the theory that if it is silver and expensive, it must be a truly great lens. Tis true I spend a lot of time here. There is so much to clean up, after the half-truths and theories than people have.

You got it wrong by interpreting a limited number of reviews to suit your aims as you say half truths and theories people have, Yourself included.

As you love reviews so much why not quote from Luminous-Landscapes review for the best AF lenses in the world

"Yet the very best AF SLR lenses made today are the Pentax Limiteds"

Makes $750 a bit of a bargain if you ask me.

--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/

 

[burnieb]

Hello Gazooma,I'm guessing you could run rings around me when it comes to theory (you do seem to have alot of spare time though)but I've got a 43 and I don't care what you or any website say it is a great lens,I love it to death.Perhaps if can get your hands on one you might think differently,you don't actually have one do you?

Hi, Peasant. No, I don't have the 43mm, but I can read reviews. You are saying photozone and SLRgear got their tests wrong? There are more reviews than those two I mentioned. They would have to kill me to buy a lens like that for $750. No, I never will have one. Tell me where I got it wrong. Is your 43 not a f/1.9? Not the fastest standard lens (around 50mm), is it? It does not have SDM or any ultra fast or silent motor, does it? What theory did I mention? Those are facts. If you stop down an f/1.9 lens that is soft at that aperture to get more sharpness, then you will be using f/2.8. Is that a theory or fact? Does yours have much better optical performance, like in CA, or wide open sharpness than the reviewers found? Congratulations, you must have been so lucky. You have a lens that is exceptional and much better than the reviewers have tested. I am glad you love it to death and that your love is not based on the theory that if it is silver and expensive, it must be a truly great lens. Tis true I spend a lot of time here. There is so much to clean up, after the half-truths and theories than people have.

Hey

price in cart as bh $569.95... adorama 569.95.. I got one used 3 weeks ago for 450 shipped. This lens and a cheap entry level plastic lens are in a different class- All metal build, 8 blades vs 7. Don't get me wrong the nikon is a good deal for what is is... but come on... really!!
--
scott e burnham
http://snaptphotography.webs.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29075740@N08/

 

[st_martin]

Where did you find 3 out of 5?

Photozone gives it the following:

Optical Quality: 3 (out of 4)
Mechanical Quality: 4 (out of 5)
Price/Performance: 2 (out of 3)

No, you are misquoting Photozone. All three categories go up to five stars. A star not filled in is one-half star. Therefore, as Jorgen has said, for Optical Quality it received three and a half stars (from a possible five stars), for Mechanical Quality it was given four and a half stars (from a possible five stars), and for Price/Performance it was given two and a half stars (from a possible five stars).

 

[jotor]

(always had a hard time paying for something that looked like a filter. )

My theory is that Pentax developed the K-7 because the 40mm looked so dorky on a K10D.

Joe

--



Current Photos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jotor/sets/72157603857531887/show/

'Learn everything, forget everything and play'
Jimi Hendrix

 

[Mark Ransom]

I notice Prodigital2000 has a much higher price for the 60-250 than B&H. Didn't check any others.

 

[Kerusker]

--
][.Kerusker
we don't see that we don't see (eye's blind spot)



my albums: http://picasaweb.google.de/Kerusker

 

[dragra]

The Fa43 Limited is a full metal lens, actually aluminium, and it cost more to produce than ordinary consumer lenses. Production output is limited because the lens is produced with tight manufacturing tolerances.
Build quality is similar to Leica and Zeiss.
There is no reason for it to be less expensive than the competition.

Actually, there is: If Pentax wants more market share, it needs to price things more competitively. Offer stuff that just as good as the competition, but for LESS. That's what brings customers.

If Joe Consumer can buy the same quality, for the same price, from Nikon or Canon, then there is no incentive to go with Pentax.

Greg

Greg,

Pentax is not interested in Joe Consumer, they are aiming more at Bob Photographer.



cheers,
d

 

[dragra]

(always had a hard time paying for something that looked like a filter. )

My theory is that Pentax developed the K-7 because the 40mm looked so dorky on a K10D.

Joe

Joe,

you are right, I read an interview with Pentax designer/manager where he said the K7 was developed to be the perfect match for the Limited series lenses.

cheers,
d

 

[rwl408]

OK, I'm looking to get a new DSLR that has video. Pentax has 'em, let's check them out. I loved my K100D w/ 43mm years ago, so I figure.. "You regret selling that awesome lens.. what's it going to cost to replace it?"

http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-SMCP-FA-43mm-Limited-Black/dp/B000F8YEFO

Seven-hundred-fifty f-r-i-g-g-i-n' dollars? Wow. Apple/BMW/Leica syndrome? Heck, even the perpetually $299 40mm is now $500 to get in the door.

What the h-e-l-l happened to Pentax?

-Dan

Well, a company needs to be profitable. Otherwises there will be no product at all if the company can't survive. Whether the strategy Pentax has taken is good or bad, time will tell. As buyers, we vote with our money. I know it - to stay with Pentax or not - is a hard, even agonizing, decision to make because I had gone through the exercise and cast my vote already. But once I made my decision, I am at peace with the ever-increasing Pentax lens price because I simply don't look at them at all.

--
Rick

 

[istscott]

Amazing isn't worth $570?

Comparing a 43 Limited to a random plastic 50mm "D" version?

Everyone wants an amazing deal for their money, but the Pentax of old would have probably been in deep by now if Hoya didn't want to expand their medical division. I just hope the Pentax of now can keep its photographer's viewpoint and not turn into the next plastic producer.

Sure, it would be nice to have cheap stuff that can produce sharp results. Does Pentax want to devote development resources to make those lenses? Probably not. I'd rather have more metal WR lenses that produce sharp results with that special Pentax look to the images.

I would like for Pentax to give more love to screwmount though. The 100mm WR Macro is a good example of cost/quality balance.

 

[baldeagle21b]

Nice try, but a seat on the Board of Directors doesn't equate to ownership.

 

[neil holmes]

OK, I'm looking to get a new DSLR that has video. Pentax has 'em, let's check them out. I loved my K100D w/ 43mm years ago, so I figure.. "You regret selling that awesome lens.. what's it going to cost to replace it?"

http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-SMCP-FA-43mm-Limited-Black/dp/B000F8YEFO

Seven-hundred-fifty f-r-i-g-g-i-n' dollars? Wow. Apple/BMW/Leica syndrome? Heck, even the perpetually $299 40mm is now $500 to get in the door.

What the h-e-l-l happened to Pentax?

-Dan

Two things happened.

The world crashed because some people decided to lend other peoples money to people who could never pay it back...that had a flow on effect and many things cost more to make, lenses included...that led to pentax putting up the cost quite substantially for new lenses (well that is the gist of it in my opinion)....that and they thought what the hell, these idiots will pay it....camera bodies on the other hand have gone the other way.....my IST*D cost almost 2x my K-x and is nowhere near as good (and I saved almost $1000 Australian buying the IST*D from the US but paid over for the K-x from accross the road...it could have been 4x as much if I paid MRP).

That explains the new prices being much higher.

The other thing is people rediscovered Pentax ...I believe the K-x has sold in huge numbers compared to other Pentaxes....I would not be surprised if it sold as many as all previous Pentax dslrs combined by the time it is discontinued...many of the buyers who got 2 lens kits have since been trying to get other stuff and there is only so much to go around...this is why even lenses like the Bigma go for a little more sometimes in k mount....any half decent or popular lens on ebay is going to have more buyers for it than previously...more exotic ones even worse (but the really expensive ones probably remain about the same or with just a bit more interest).

It is not JUST Pentax as well....try to buy a VR Nikon lens! Even a BROKEN VR KIT lens costs over $100 to get to me and prices climb steeply from there.

I was lucky in the end ...I got a new one in a white box with the warranty in Chinese ( I think) and free postage from Hong Kong for $150... a new one from accross the road at Camera House was over $300! it is a nice lens optically but very cheap construction and a LOT get broken when people turn the focus ring while the lens is set to AF (I bid on a lot of broken ones...or rather was outbid on a lot of broken ones)

Yes, Nikon have put out two reasonably well priced lenses in the 35 1.8 and the 50 1.8....the first is only for DX (yes I know Pentax is only "DX" at the moment) and the second does not af on cameras below the D90...and neither is stabilized. You will find some equivalent lenses for Nikon cheaper than pentax, but that is becaue the numbers have been there before in many cases.

I aint paying that kind of money for a 49mm lens but if i really wanted one it would be tempting...I have enough lenses from 50 to 58mm and am happy with manual focus, stabilization and Pentax.

I will get at least ONE limted lens at some point soonish just to say i have it though.

neil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26884588@N00/