I think Pentax lost a bet...

I personally think, that Pentax lost a bet to Canon, Nikon, and all the other brands many moons ago. This is my humorous take on the situation we "K-mounters" are in. This is just my thoughts playing with me, so please don't take it seriously.

But I really do think, Pentax lost a bet.

Hence, they've had to make their lenses "different" (some may argue, crippled is the word) to the nearest competition. Of course this is my opinion.

But what do I mean?

Well, what are the alternatives to the following in Pentax mount (all lenses still in production):

* Canon has a 28mm 1.8 / Nikon has a 28mm 2.8 / Pentax has ?
* Canon has a 35mm 2.0 / Nikon has a 35mm 1.8 / Pentax has the 35 2.4
* Both Canon & Nikon have 50mm 1.8's for less than £80. Pentax has a 50mm 1.8 for over £200.
* Both Canon & Nikon have 85mm 1.8's for less than £300. Pentax has the 70mm Ltd. 2.4 which is a bit more expensive.

Imagine. Why would they make it different. And NOT different in a good way. But different, in a purposely handicapped way. I mean... why?

And you may think this is a negative post. But it isn't.

Considering all that, we still like Pentax as a brand, and we still love the photos that we take with it. Regardless of losing the bet, Pentax is still in the game! LOL

...and I hope this thread doesn't get deleted

That's exactly my point. It's made me see beyond the equipment. The A50 1.7 is fantastic and I wouldn't let it go. Well done to the previous owner for keeping it in such good shape as well (bought from these forums)!

Carl Zeiss created the Super Quatsch Gigantar although it's unusable. Created to prove a point, that it's not all about speed, or equipment.

Then again, this just makes one wonder "what if". I think my initial post is a valid query. Pentax risked being different, and I think it paid off. Not as well as they would have hoped, but they did create / fill in a particular niche in the photographers' world.

At the very least, there may be other people asking the same question. I'm hoping those thinking of "jumping ship" reconsider after they've read this thread.

That's told him Algi

Ah! My father used to have a Contarex Bullseye!.......
Always buy German he said That's why I bought Pentax

Still doesn't stop the Canon shooters from snapping up SMC-Takumar 85mm f/1.8s for similar prices - for a 40+ year old, all manual lens and then drooling about them...

I'm confused. Where does the bet come in?

Many thanks for entertaining my curiosity everyone.

It may look as if I am critical of Pentax here. I'd prefer to be called inquisitive. I love Pentax as a brand, and am trying to think the reasoning as to how they make their moves compared to the rest of the market.

I can even go and say that the reason I chose Pentax was because of this very point, that Pentax doesn't necessarily follow what is considered to be "popular".

I think many of you can remember when they released the K10D right?

Any experienced photographer knows that at wide apertures what you see in the viewfinder and waht you see in the takwen picture can be two different things.

standard viewfinders can't resolve DOFs shallower than about f/2.0

There's a significant difference between what the viewfinder shows to a pic taken with a 50/1.2 @1.2

It's higher than that.... at least f/2.4.

I'd have to check where the limit is for exposure,
either f/2 or f/1.8 beyond which the aperture makes
no difference.

I still haven't got round to cutting down the Canon Ee-S
screen I bought for my K-5..... must do it shortly

-

You mean on the viewfinder view? Obviously it makes a difference to the DOF in the resulting image... albeit very slight from f1.7 to f2...

Indeed, the problem is judging any difference on a tiny focusing screen. I've always found DOF preview to be totally useless on 35mm cameras, so it won't be any better on APS-C.