Would you buy modern releases of legacy MF classic glass from Pentax?

[Skip py]

Yes too for specialty lenses :

1. +1 for a lightweight shift lens. But I'll wait first for the expected Pentax FF "arlesienne"
   This lens is not wide enough for me on APS-C, and not as easy to use on the Canon 5D classic. Really a clever ergonomy for such a lens ! Shifting fast to where you want it is a no brainer ! Not sure Pentax/Ricoh will do it : with the competition of the Samyang 24mm Tilt-Shift, they have to really add something special, especilly for that price !
2. Add a lightweight version of the A* 200 macro with AF and WR but with the same ergonomy, and matching well with the new TC : probably higher on my list, especially since we can't find the Sigma 180 macro for PKA, and I don't know if the Sigma performs as well wide open !
3. Maybe an update of the A* f/1.2 to achieve perfect focus wide open with selected AF point and WR to keep it on the body anytime ?

One can dream ! If it could be made, I'm not sure I could afford it

Well, maybe selling a few legacy lenses ? That would be heart breaking but with these 3 lenses, I'm sure I should do most of my shooting ...

Regards, fredg

PS:

Though I'd like to see a reborn of the 400mm f/2.8 or F/FA 250-600mm f/5.6, I'm sure I won't be able to afford it Anyway, I guess they should rethink the whole design in order to get close to Canikon long lenses regarding weight and optical qualities ... Let's hope the next Pentax tele-zoom will be a good surprise for most of us !

 

[justin23]

Or was a couple of years ago at least.

I think they could probably sell a few legendary lenses with no AF equivalent , Nikon still sells 50mm 1.2 new manual focus.

 

[KentG]

The term "MF" capitalized means Medium Format not manual focus. And no I personally would have little or no interest in legacy manual glass updated with HD coatings and such. For one thing Pentax no longer has the tooling for that old glass so your question is basically a fantasy one. And I have plenty of that in my Spotmatic and early K-mount collection. The only manual focus lens I still use with any regularity is my Vivitar (Kiron) S1 105/2.5 Macro.

Kent Gittings

 

[smafdy]

If the good legacy glass gets much more expensive, I'd go for new MF primes, if the cost reduction, compared to AF versions, was low enough.

 

[smafdy]

Where I come from, the term "MF" has nothing, whatsoever, to do with photography.

In this thread, MF means Manual Focus.

 

[brecklundin]

If the good legacy glass gets much more expensive, I'd go for new MF primes, if the cost reduction, compared to AF versions, was low enough.

That's what I had in mind. Pentax can ramp up production of any of those lenses at anytime. Well, there is the whole most of the techs who built that glass have died off issue, but still it could be done.

I was thinking releasing them in limited runs might actually attract many buyers who want to try them but can't justify the collector premium on the price.

No matter the results might be interesting.

 

[brecklundin]

My idea was that given the interest in legacy glass amongst pentax shooters that modern versions of some of the more sought after lenses might be attractive. I still think there would be a market, granted not huge but a market worth considering.

My interest would be tempered by the small viewfinders in the APS-C bodies. The lenses would have to be "A" type lenses for sure. Still I doubt I would buy more than 2-3 specific lenses.

 

[justin23]

My idea was that given the interest in legacy glass amongst pentax shooters that modern versions of some of the more sought after lenses might be attractive. I still think there would be a market, granted not huge but a market worth considering.

My interest would be tempered by the small viewfinders in the APS-C bodies. The lenses would have to be "A" type lenses for sure. Still I doubt I would buy more than 2-3 specific lenses.

I think the actualt cost to remanufacture these is still soo expensive that savings just would not be great enough. I'd think the A50 f1.2 would be a lot more expensive than the DA*55 1.4, because the economy of scale to manufacture these just would not add up thus making them much more expensive then mass produced AF lenses.

--

Justin
--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/justinwatson

 

[petreluk]

I just thought of something, would you buy NEW model MF glass from Pentax? I mean that seriously. I think as long as there is an "A" setting I might for some wider glass. Not sure my eyes can reliably let me Mf anymore. I've tried a few different focusing screens and either I've totally forgotten how to quickly focus or I just can't see right anymore...or, and here is the most likely, AF made me a lazy, lazy guy!!

But I think some retro MF glass updated from Pentax might be a lot of fun to buy...think of some of the old classics which are so far out of my budget I'll never own one before croaking but a new version with a reasonable price, perhaps that could change. And I don't mean a dozen 50mm lenses but some of the neat old glass like an 85/1.8 or a 14/1.8 or even 14/1.4....if Samyang can make them and keep the price reasonable why could Pentax not leverage the fact existing shooters love old MF glass and pay good money...and would likely gobble up modern versions of those old keeper lenses we can't afford at collector prices.

No. Ricoh didn't buy Pentax in order to service a twentieth of one per cent of the camera market, so it is never going to happen. Zeiss can do it because they are Zeiss; professionals who like MF want them and high-rollers have to have them. And they will pay what it takes, because no one else does it better (unless you are a Leica person). Pentax is simply not in the same ballgame, or even close to it. They may no longer even have the engineers. We need to look forwards now, not backwards. It's the season of strange imaginings, because Pentax are not giving us the lead we need towards the future. That's the challenge for them at the moment, if they want to stay in the mainstream camera business anyway.

That said, some new and really kick-ass lenses would do Pentax a world of good for their rep as a leading photography brand. It's been far too long since they produced any.

 

[smafdy]

Pentax is the Subaru of cameras (actually, Oly would be closer). Great when compared to the rest, but restrained by market perception/branding to a small market share.

They are what they are. Buy their products, or don't. It's not like you're paying a premium.

 

[brecklundin]

My idea was that given the interest in legacy glass amongst pentax shooters that modern versions of some of the more sought after lenses might be attractive. I still think there would be a market, granted not huge but a market worth considering.

My interest would be tempered by the small viewfinders in the APS-C bodies. The lenses would have to be "A" type lenses for sure. Still I doubt I would buy more than 2-3 specific lenses.

I think the actualt cost to remanufacture these is still soo expensive that savings just would not be great enough. I'd think the A50 f1.2 would be a lot more expensive than the DA*55 1.4, because the economy of scale to manufacture these just would not add up thus making them much more expensive then mass produced AF lenses.

--

Justin

You could be right on that part. I'm sure that it's been considered more than a few times over the years and compared to the production & retooling costs vs. demand it's likely just as well to build them w/AF...I still think it might be fun but like I wrote I doubt I would buy more than 2-3 lenses tops.

 

[KentG]

Yes but remember Pentax does make MF cameras so it would confuse a number of people on your title.

Kent

 

[miles green]

Hmmm, old Pentax glass can be very cheap to very expensive....

The cheap ones, Pentax would have to sell them at a huge loss to compete with its own lens sold on ebay. It's never going to happen, just buy used...

The expensive ones... well yes, i would certainly like some to be made again, some preferably with modern coatings, WR, and AF in some cases...

I regularly shoot with legacy and manual focus lens mixed with my modern lens:

Here are the ones i use without longing for a modern AF-Zoom-WR-HD replacement:

Samyang 8mm fish-eye (mf, not legacy. AF is almost useless here, the thing is always in focus thanks to its huge dof)

Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2 (very soft wide open compared to 43 limited, with PF and horrible magenta tint everywhere. But shooting b&w at f/1.2, it's still a superb lens with tons of character)

Pentacon 135mm f/2.8 "bokeh-monster" (superb portrait lens. but if they made a new A* 135 f/1.8..... with AF please for portraits)

Pentax-A * 200mm f/4 macro (simply perfect)

I also use a manual Sigma 400 f/5.6... but that's because i haven't been able to acquire its modern replacement... yet...

Imho, the lens most prominently missing from the Pentax lineup is a fast 28-to-35mm equivalent. I'd like a DA* 21 f/1.4. And yes I have the 21 f/3.2 limited and i love it. I'm keeping my hopes up, because the last 2-3 years, they have filled all the other "gaps" i could think of.

The other one I'd like would be a DA*16-135

 

[Petroglyph]

Yes but remember Pentax does make MF cameras so it would confuse a number of people on your title.

Kent

+1 I was even confused in this thread until I read the context. I've always used MF to mean Medium Format and don't have an acronym for manual focus (how about lower case mf?).

 

[BobORama]

Nope. Its a waste of $$$.


-- Bob
http://bob-o-rama.smugmug.com -- Photos
http://www.vimeo.com/boborama/videos -- Videos
http://blog.trafficshaper.com -- Blog