Just a thought:
Did it occur to you that maybe these primes are way easier to calculate and produce than the zooms you are asking for and that maybe pentax hands these out so you won't go 'pentax has gone out of business, they did not bring a new lens to market for n weeks now'?
Sam (also grumpy but determined not to go through the roof this time*g*)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 8:58 PM
Subject: Pentax's Lens "Strategy"
I guess that the F 17-28 is out of production. A funs lens.
I don't understand why Pentax is giving priority in its new lens development to specialty lenses that will have low demand. While users are waiting and waiting for a DA 50-200 f4, Pentax brings out a gimmick lens -- the DA 40 f2.8. I'll bet they'd sell a lot more of a DA telezoom with the same optical quality as the DA 16-45.
Then there are the new D FA macros. Did anyone notice anything wrong with the FA macros? I have used my FA 100 f2.8 on the *ist D quite a bit, and the image quality is stunning, even at F22. I don't see how a "digital" lens could improve on what I already have. I haven't heard anyone complain about the FA 50 either (which Boz considers the best in its class). The new D FA macros will apparently be more expensive than the FAs they replace. I guess they are lighter, but that strikes me as a poor justification for allocating design and production resources in this way. They are claimed to be shorter too -- that is true, when the lenses are focused to infinity. In macro mode, their barrels extend quite a bit, probably to about the same length as the FA models. I don't like extending barrel designs.
We have been too complimentary here lately. It is time to return to lambasting Pentax.
Joe (grumpy this morning)
