You were exaggerating, as you have continued to do in this latest post.

They haven't decided any such thing. Stop making things up.

You are certaily a comedy writer. On Ebay, you simply set up a search, then request an email to be sent to you when the item comes up. I have bought several things that way, most recently an as-new AF500FTZ flash for £36.00. There is no need to "trawl endlessly", though that does suggest seriousness.

I know it's frustrating at the moment, but I think you are going a little bit over the top.

G

Calm down, Zaphod.

The lens road-map shows a DA* 200mm and DA* 300mm for imminent release. Pentax haven't given up on long(ish) glass, they've simply recognised that they can't do everything at once, and have prioritised production to cater for the greatest demand.

And if Pentax HAD decided not to produce such lenses, that would make it more likely, not less, that the independents would step in to fill the hole.

Serious buyers can find long lenses if they take the trouble to look. There's an A* 1:4 300mm on Ebay at the moment, and an A* 200mm macro (one of the finest lenses ever produced by anybody).

G

Yes. At the moment. Pentax are not in a position to cater to every niche, given their current market share.

I do however agree that it would be good to have a 200mm in the range again. Pity your weren't around when I sold mine a couple of months ago.

Cheers

G

Really? I think that is most unlikely. Very few people want or need or can afford long prime lenses. Indeed, few people are interested in primes at all, these days. Zooms outsell primes by a ratio of 100:1 I would guess.

People who really need long lenses are professional sports and wildlife photographers, and they would not look at Pentax anyway. Furthermore, there are very few of them, and certainly not enough to justify the investment required to produce a range of long primes that would tempt them to consider Pentax.

If you need a long prime, then a Pentax-M 400mm can be picked up fairly cheaply on Ebay, and Sigma probably make one or two.

But it would be wrong for Pentax to start producing long primes at this stage of their resurgence. They first need to be able to supply the lenses that people DO want.

G

Kim,

I have a 280T in pieces. It worked before I took it apart, for reasons I can't recall.

G

Each to his own. His ponderous sarcasm grates with me. I try to avoid watching him, so I've never seen him in self-deprecating mode (I suspect it happens every other 29th February). But I used to loathe Jonathan Ross until I heard him sending himself up over his inabillty to pronounce the letter "R". Now I find him quite tolerable.

G

Some of us are still searching for a reason why Clarkson exists. Like Delia Smith and Madonna, his career seems to be a trumph of marketing over talent.

IMHO, naturally.

G

The non-coated (or, to be precise, not fully SMC-coated) lenses are different from normal lenses primarily for that reason. In situations where the light is not going to cause flare problems, the performance of these lenses can be quite reasonable.

G

Exactly, Kim. Not much affection, but bags of respect. It didn't miss the first list by much.

G

In order of affection/respect:

77, K 50 1.2, F* 300 4.5, FA 100 2.8 macro

In order of most frequent use:

31, 77, F 50 1.4, FA 20 2.8

But the 16-50 seems to be rendering the 20 redundant. Not so the 31, which is just too good.

My 43 gets little use, but I don't really want to part with it. I only wish I had owned it while I still shot film.

G