On 4/5/05 9:59 PM, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2005 at 10:15, Joseph Tainter wrote: > >> Pentax lost money on both the FA 50 f2.8 and FA 100 f2.8 macros. So they >> were redesigned to be less expensive to build. The D FA is reported to >> keep the same optical design as the F/FA 50 -- and that formula is near >> legendary. The D FA 100 is a new formula. > > I can't help thinking that something got lost in translation here. I can > believe that they didn't make the profit margin that their other lenses did, > but making at least two popular lenses at a loss for years? I'm sure the > construction of the new macro lenses will provide a big margin and along with > a weight/size advantage for the user. The statement by Pentax person that they lost the money for every macro lenses they sold was true, and nothing was lost in translation. It was indeed a "loss" but not a matter of "reduced profit". But my speculation is that they of course did not start out as a losing proposition (that would be stupid), but at some point in the history of the sales of these particular lenses, the cost started creeping up (or suddenly increased for some reason) and crossed the breakeven point. But they could not jack up the price for the competitive and other reasons. Let's hope this was rather a recent phenomenon and the magnitude of the loss was not that big (otherwise, they would have either stopped selling them, or increased the price). They jumped on the opportunity to make some of the lenses "digital compatible", and redesigned these lenses so that they become profitable again. Besides the material changes, I hope that those new macros are better lenses in various aspects. BTW, as I understand it, the triggering reason for redesigning these macros came from an innocent and casual report from a user of FA50/2.8 macro/*istD who experienced a flare in the centre when used with a flash at close range at near minimum aperture. This was apparently repeatable but never happened on film cameras. So, Pentax immediately decided to eliminate this flare by minor changes in optical design. Along the way, they also decided that they might as well redesign them for another reason (cost). I understand that FDA100mm/2.8 macro is a brand new optical formula. Since they reassured that the optical design was never compromised, I hope they changed them for the better, i.e., lighter and more compact. I do not doubt the performance of these lenses and they look good too. I am going to pick up an FDA100/2.8 macro, replacing my current tank. Anyway..... Cheers, Ken
