Im getting tired of arguing but in my experiences with ebay which are vast, the K/M lenses that are going for big bucks now have always gone for big bucks and most likely because there are lots of them WHERE YOU CANT BUY IT NEW(same specs)EVEN IT YOU WANTED TO. Thats one of the key reasons I feel that K/M support should continue considering its not imcompatible and absurdly low cost to implement in ANY Pentax SLR/DSLR. At least in one model, even if only the top line model once they have a line...There are too many LNA K/M lenses to disable over such a single cheap part ommisson... JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) I've heard and seen the opposite. B&H, Adorama, and others cant seem to keep them in stock, and they are selling at new prices. I dont think Pentax is building them fast enough, or they are using some type of just in time manufacturing scheme to avoid oversupplying the lenses and having excess inventory. I also suspect that they are attempting to replace many of their lens line with a DA line to better fit the digital market, witness the 14mm DA, 16-45DA, 50 2.8 macro DA, 100mm macro DA, various 18-xxx DA zooms, and the upcoming 12-24 DA, which I really want! Try bidding on a FA 50 1.4 lens on ebay, I've seen them sell for more than new! Scan some previous threads discussing this insanity. I think Don pointed out a K24mm2.8 that sold for a ridiculous amount recently. rg J. C. O'Connell wrote: > The K/M lenses are high priced on ebay? > Have you looked at new lenses from pentax > cost. They sell for less than new cost, > substantially less. I think your assumption > that they are all going on DSLRS is not > warranted, wheres the proof? That would > fall into the "unknown" category in my > opinion. But one thing is certain, there > will be even more demand for then if and when > pentax comes out with and upgraded DSLR > that supports ALL bayonet FF lens features including > K/M lenses. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 10:35 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) > > > Actually, the high price of lenses on ebay, even for K/M versions, > indicates that there is high demand for them. Why? Not because people > are putting them on their film cameras. Film is dead. ;) Because people > have just bought a *D, *DS, or *DL. That means that those people are > going to use them on a digital camera that has by some opinions, > rendered them useless. Why the discrepancy? I believe that the vast > majority of the people are content with the fix provided by Pentax, > otherwise the value of K/M lenses would be way below what we are seeing. > The market speaks for itself. > > > rg > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>Sure, but most don't want old lenses. >> >>========================================== >>I dont think AGE has anything to do with >>lens purchases or utility . You buy for >>image quality, focal lengths, speeds, >>coating types, bulky or compactness, features like manual or auto >>focus, metering capability, etc. You dont buy or not buy a lens based >>on what year it was made. It may sound like nit picking but >>its hard to tell if you are just stereotyping >>all the KM lenses as all unwanted because they are >>missing AF or something. Sometimes the features >>they have are MORE important than some new >>feature they dont have like AF to the buyer so AGE >>is not really ever the issue. Features and performance >>are and why I disagree that PENTAX should totally >>abandon key features of the KM lenses ( over 9 million of them >>by your last post?) at this time.... >>JCO >> >> > > >
