So... What's this I hear about a new 135mm Limited? - Page 2

StigVidar · 10-09-2009, 02:23 PM

15mm * sqrt(2) ~ 21mm
21mm * sqrt(2) ~ 31mm
31mm * sqrt(2) ~ 43mm
35mm * sqrt(2) ~ 55mm
55mm * sqrt(2) ~ 77mm

1.4 * sqrt(2) ~ 2
2 * sqrt(2) ~ 2.8
....
....
8 * sqrt(2) ~ 11

The magic number is 1.4142
So I think the next Limited is given. They are missing a 55mm and a ~109mm

eurostar · 10-09-2009, 02:27 PM

I don't get how you go from 43 to 35...

gazonk · 10-09-2009, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by StigVidar

So I think the next Limited is given. They are missing a 55mm and a ~109mm

I don't want to spoil your fun, but I think they're also missing 61 and 99mms
- and when they have the 99 mm, they will of course introduce a 140 mm. And when...

jms698 · 10-09-2009, 03:26 PM

I'd love to see a 135mm prime from Pentax. I'd probably buy anything with a focal length from 90mm to 150mm and an aperture faster than f/2.8. If it is f/2.8 or slower, no point. Just get the 50-135mm DA*. Small size is, of course, desirable, but I'd rather have an SDM focus motor than a super-compact form-factor. Maybe a semi-limited, small but not pancake

Something like 108mm f/2 would be very nice ...

philbaum · 10-09-2009, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by jsherman999

The 50-135 is pretty big - the Limited would probably be about the size of the FA 135 2.8, or smaller, and would probably be a tad sharper wide open than the 50-135.

I used to have the 50-135 and loved it, but a very small 135 would have got the call on a lot of travel, portrait and walkabout situations where I didn't want to carry the big DA*.

I'd like very-small/sharp or kinda-large/fast/sharp - a 135 f/2.4 limited would be pretty sweet if it were very small, or an f/1.8 if it were about the size of the DA 50-135.

slow/large would be pointless.
.

I agree with everything you said. I just went on a club field trip with 7 others to a nearby classical garden preserve. Everyone of us were using tripods except for one monopod, and so the DA50-135 was convenient to carry around on the end of a tripod. But after several weeks since i bought the 50-135, if i was on tourist type travel, i'd much rather carry the A 135 f2.8 , a FA 50, and a DA 35.

But with the current pricing, i think Pentax might look at their sales and wonder whether the marketplace will provide a decent Return on Investment for the DA 135. (it would be interesting to know how high prices have affected sales of other favorites) On the other hand, how can they introduce the 645D and not have many lenses for it. I would think Pentax would prioritize the 645D lenses prior to any DA 135.

You heard it here, pure conjecture, no DA 135 anytime soon :-)

lithos · 10-10-2009, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by StigVidar

15mm * sqrt(2) ~ 21mm
21mm * sqrt(2) ~ 31mm
31mm * sqrt(2) ~ 43mm
35mm * sqrt(2) ~ 55mm
55mm * sqrt(2) ~ 77mm

1.4 * sqrt(2) ~ 2
2 * sqrt(2) ~ 2.8
....
....
8 * sqrt(2) ~ 11

The magic number is 1.4142
So I think the next Limited is given. They are missing a 55mm and a ~109mm

He's cracked The Pentax Code! Quick, get Tom Hanks with a bad haircut to play StigVidar!

I don't think they're gonna do a 55mm for a while.

Well, I hope they don't. Even though the current one is not a Limited, I don't think Pentax can afford to double up on focal lengths.

creampuff · 10-10-2009, 02:16 AM

135mm is a good focal length for Pentax to consider, though I think it ought to be at least f/2.8 at the very least. Better still, a re-issue of the A 135mm f/1.8 but with AF would be great.
I love my FA 135mm f/2.8 but I'd seriously consider a 135mm f/2 or faster with SDM. Silent focusing won't spook kittens with sensitive ears!

K20D FA 135mm f/2.8

thibs · 10-10-2009, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by marcinski

What about Tokina 35mm f/2.8 Macro?

Marcin

Yep AFAIK the 35 mcro isn't in the list I gave and so i s a Pentax design.
However, I did not find a patent (yet?) neither by Pentax or Tokina about that lens.

*falconeye* · 10-10-2009, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by StigVidar

The magic number is 1.4142

Inconclusive. There's always a way to find magic numbers. Just that they are meaningless most of the time.

The Limiteds originally were designed in triplet
77/43/31 and 70/40/21, giving factors of 1.8 +/- 0.1 and 1.4.

The 15 and 35 Ltd. are late comers and you could even factor in the DA*55 if you really want to complicate things.

If anything, the consistent factor is about 1.8 and 125-135mm are to be expected.

Personally, I would be more eager to see a DA*135/1.8 than a DA 135/3.5 Ltd. But I would prefer a fast screw over a slow SDM. Best would be a ring SDM making a DA* 135/1.8 ADM (Action Drive Motor).

*Steve Beswick* · 10-10-2009, 12:21 PM

If Pentax is going to release a lens in the neighborhood of 135mm and charge $500+ for it, it better be truly amazing. There are far too many really good and fast old 135's on the market to justify the expense to most people. They would be far better off putting a new skin and new coatings on the FA135, and selling it for $300-$350. Of course that makes sense, so Pentax will never do it. Come to think of it (tangent warning) I'm not sure why Pentax is so determined to re-invent the wheel.

thibs · 10-11-2009, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Steve Beswick

If Pentax is going to release a lens in the neighborhood of 135mm and charge $500+ for it, it better be truly amazing. There are far too many really good and fast old 135's on the market to justify the expense to most people. They would be far better off putting a new skin and new coatings on the FA135, and selling it for $300-$350. Of course that makes sense, so Pentax will never do it. Come to think of it (tangent warning) I'm not sure why Pentax is so determined to re-invent the wheel.

If their way of reinventing the wheel is updating a FA50 into a DA55, I'm all for it.
If it is Sony's way of taking a Minolta 35/1.4 and re-release it as is (extremely soft) for bragging rights, then I'm not for it.
Of course there's plenty of choices in between those two.

stanleyk · 10-11-2009, 02:12 PM

If its crop sensor why not make it a 90mm? But the point about different focal lengths is probably well taken. So who knows.

JHfwp · 10-11-2009, 02:44 PM

If there's really something coming in the 100-135mm range, and it's sharp enough to get my attention, I hope that it's FF capable and fast. Maybe more important yet; I would like it to be as compact as possible. I don't know how much bulk SDM might add, but if it adds any and hinders my ability to manually focus they can leave it off.

*Steve Beswick* · 10-11-2009, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by thibs

If their way of reinventing the wheel is updating a FA50 into a DA55, I'm all for it.
If it is Sony's way of taking a Minolta 35/1.4 and re-release it as is (extremely soft) for bragging rights, then I'm not for it.
Of course there's plenty of choices in between those two.

Until the DA 55 was released the FA 50 was $200. $200 FA 50 vs. $600 DA 55? I'll take the FA 50 eight days a week. Take the same photo with the DA 55 and the FA 50 and show me the real world difference. The two lenses are so close in image quality it's pointless. Oh wait, you might want to buy a $10 rubber lens hood for the FA.

Pentax needs to find a way to reduce the average price of it's lenses. One very good way to do this would be to freshen up old designs instead of spending R&D money on new ones.

elkarrde · 10-11-2009, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by stanleyk

If its crop sensor why not make it a 90mm? But the point about different focal lengths is probably well taken. So who knows.

i agree with 90mm focal length - on 1.5× crop sensor it gives 135mm equivalent FoV. DA90/2.4 Ltd in small package would be great.

also, we're still missing fast-fifty equivalent - DA35/2.8 macro ltd isn't really that fast.
i would like to see three versions of it. for example - DA*33/1.4 SDM, DA 33/1.7 Ltd WR, and finally DA L 33/2. perfect combo - fast and expensive DA* SDM, small and convenient DA Ltd WR, and cheap, light and not-bad-at-all DA L version.