Jim,
Excellent point. Unfortunately, the quality is all about what the consumer can
afford now. There was a time in the past when all the camera companies made one
grade of equipment. Now they all market to different levels of affordability.
Canon specifically has three grades of lens each targeted at a specific level of
photographer. The "L" lens being the pro lens or the equalivent of the Pentax
"FA*" lens. To put a consumer lens on a Canon EOS 1 IV would also be a mismatch
too, but the marketing department at Canon has people thinking they have the
best when it comes to SLRs and lens. But us "X" Canon users know that they
really don't have the better product.
The real problem is that Pentax has done such a poor job of marketing their
high in SLRs that the volume will never be high enough to produce the volume of
top quality "pro" Pentax lens today like Canon or Nikon. Pentax's market is in
the consumer SLR and point and shoot camera area so that is where the majority
of the lens will be produced. Ever once in a while Pentax will produce
something like the "Limited" lens to keep the high end market alive. My
greatest fear is that Pentax will go the way of Miranda if they don't do a
better job of marketing. Great product just not enough sales.
Darryl
Jim Brooks wrote:
> Following the recent discussion about the quality feel of older metal bodied
> lenses I thought I'd throw in my 2p.
>
> Just lately I find I am using my old smc A 70~210/4 on both manual and
> autofocus bodies. This is in preference to the FA 80~320 which is easy
> enough to focus manually on the ME super. I am satisfied with the optical
> quality of both lenses, and the weight is not an issue as I find there is
> very little practical difference between them. I rarely need focal length
> beyond 200mm. The only appreciable difference is the build quality. The
> 80~320 feels like it will snap in half, especially when it creeps out to
> 320mm and minimum focus, something it does in approximately 45 seconds of
> being carried on the shoulder. OTOH the 70~210 is rock-solid, and exudes
> quality of construction. It also looks the part with none of that silly
> silver finish that makes the 80~320 look like plastic junk.
>
> Lately Canon launched a constant f/4 telezoom with good build quality priced
> at £800. I'm sure there's a demand out there for well-built equipment that
> is not bulky and heavy like the f/2.8 zooms. I would pay a premium for
> something that was made to last, like a limited zoom.
>
> How about it Pentax? Imagine an MZ-S with the 80~320 mounted on it. What a
> mismatch!
>
> Jim Brooks
>
> ########################################################################
> E-MAILS are susceptible to interference. You should not assume that
> the contents originated from the sender or the Zetex Group or that they
> have been accurately reproduced from their original form.
> Zetex accepts no responsibility for information, errors or omissions in
> this e-mail nor for its use or misuse nor for any act committed or
> omitted in connection with this communication.
> If in doubt, please verify the authenticity with the sender.
>
> Visit us on http://www.zetex.com
> ########################################################################
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
