Will Pentax make a "DA 28mm f2.8"?

Pentaxor · 05-29-2011, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Blue

The F 28 is optically different than the FA 28. I find it ironic we have debates on the fa/f 50 1.4 and the same for the fa/f 50 1.7 but the two auto focus 28 get lumped together. I think 8 out of 10 people like the F 28 better than the Fa. There are some good copies of the fa out there.

I'm not sure what the irony is, but I don't think that both 28s are lumped together. personally, I would treat them the same when comparing the copies of F and FA 50/1.4 and the 50/1.7. but really, is the subtle differences on these lenses worth the trouble or preference? I would think at the end, it doesn't matter since you still got an AF 50/1.4, AF 50/1.7, and AF 28/2.8 with subtle IQ differences. I mean these lenses would still display the IQ and bokeh characteristics that they are known for.

miltllama · 05-29-2011, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

My DA28 would be f/2, a limited in build - metal, with integrated hood, quick shift, but no aperture ring - and I guess it would need to retail at around $500 or perhaps a bit more.

+1 to this, I would definitely prefer a faster lens at that price than a slower one that's cheaper. DA28/2 limited would be great! I'd probably be fine with a 24mm too.

paperbag846 · 05-29-2011, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

I'm not sure what the irony is, but I don't think that both 28s are lumped together. personally, I would treat them the same when comparing the copies of F and FA 50/1.4 and the 50/1.7. but really, is the subtle differences on these lenses worth the trouble or preference? I would think at the end, it doesn't matter since you still got an AF 50/1.4, AF 50/1.7, and AF 28/2.8 with subtle IQ differences. I mean these lenses would still display the IQ and bokeh characteristics that they are known for.

These 50's have an unchanged optical formula going back to the M days, or perhaps before. The 28mm lenses have changed with every generation... but everyone says "oh, I used a 28mm lens. It was ok".

thanks for correcting me on the 28mm to look for... the F 28mm f2.8. I'll find you!

Pentaxor · 05-29-2011, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

These 50's have an unchanged optical formula going back to the M days, or perhaps before. The 28mm lenses have changed with every generation... but everyone says "oh, I used a 28mm lens. It was ok".

thanks for correcting me on the 28mm to look for... the F 28mm f2.8. I'll find you!

if we are going to consider the optical formula, and if that matters for people, then yes. but as a lens with an f2.8 rendering, personally, the f2.8 is insufficient and the differences are minimal from generation to generation. this is the reason that I would prefer something faster and have a major optical difference and rendering than what an f2.8 lens could give. this was also my issue with my K28/3.5, no matter how good it was. it just wasn't fast enough to render that certain quality that I would want for a 28mm (smooth and shallow DOF or really nice blur) for other use. the f2.8 doesn't sufficiently resolve that as well.

as Marc had stated, a fast one would be a better one. and I don't think that a new f2.8 28mm lens could do that type of rendering, especially at that focal length.

paperbag846 · 05-29-2011, 01:55 PM

I would agree that Marc's lens idea would be ideal. However, talking about real world lenses (and referencing yeatzee's example above) the F 28mm 2.8 *is* indeed different from the other 28mms, and not exactly "blah" in my eyes. \\

And yes, optical formula is exactly what I'm referring to. The same thing that differentiates between the M 40 2.8 and DA 40 2.8, which, IMHO, are quite different.

The bokeh of my 28mm was not wonderful, but not terrible, either. The samples I've seen from the F 28mm are a clear improvement, and at that focal length, I don't havu much trouble with "only" f2.8, as long as wide open is usable.

DOF control is good enough for me:

Name: _PBA1221.jpg
Views: 188
Size: 73.5 KB

Name: _PBA1221.jpg
Views: 188
Size: 73.5 KB

Although, to be honest, I used my 28mm mostly for snapshottery (and preferred a large DOF, because this was one sharp lens).

Name: _PBA7093.jpg
Views: 170
Size: 111.9 KB

Name: _PBA7093.jpg
Views: 170
Size: 111.9 KB

Pentaxor · 05-29-2011, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

And yes, optical formula is exactly what I'm referring to. The same thing that differentiates between the M 40 2.8 and DA 40 2.8, which, IMHO, are quite different.

to be honest, although both are pancake size, the difference between these two lenses are night and day. for what amount the M is selling right now, is just a waste of money for those who are expecting that it's just slightly below in terms of the DA40's IQ and rendering. I believe the M is selling around $200-$250 on average. I mean for $50-$70 more, they could get a much better lens and worth the buck (that is best bang for the buck). I would say that the M40 personally would only be $50-$70 at best, in terms of IQ value. the only thing that probably made it cost a bit more is it's unique pancake size. but really, who wants to spend more on cosmetics alone?

Blue · 05-30-2011, 07:55 AM

@ pentaxor, I assure you that an optical formula can and does make a huge difference in lens performance. The only thing the F and Fa 28 lens is focal length, f2.8 and auto focus.

As far as the 40s go, the da shares the basic layout, but there are some substantial differences with at least one of the elements plus ghostless coating.

jsherman999 · 05-30-2011, 08:54 AM

.

I got the F 28 2.8 for a good price, but didn't hold on to it long because at the time I had the FA 35 f2 and the 31ltd, Vivitar 28 close focus, etc. I do agree that the F was a very sharp 28, though.

This is wide-open:

paperbag846 · 05-30-2011, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by jsherman999

is is wide-open

Once again jsherman, your photographic eye drives me to buy lenses in a deluded attempt to harness some of your power!

scarboro1 · 05-30-2011, 10:39 AM

I was prepared to list my F 28 today to fund a DA 55mm*, but now I'm having second thoughts reading this post. I purchased the 17-50 tammy for the indoor family shooting lens as I found the 28 too long or too short (especially with a active two year old

). I need a portrait lens and think that I can part with the F 28. I will probably regret it because it is a sharp lens with quick AF.

Pentaxor · 05-30-2011, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Blue

@ pentaxor, I assure you that an optical formula can and does make a huge difference in lens performance. The only thing the F and Fa 28 lens is focal length, f2.8 and auto focus.

As far as the 40s go, the da shares the basic layout, but there are some substantial differences with at least one of the elements plus ghostless coating.

jsherman's reason for not keeping the 28mm is the same reason why I didn't like the F28 in the first place. as I had mention on my earlier posts, I just didn't see anything special about it, especially having a fast 35mm. if sharpness alone is the criterion that I'm after, I already have that on the 35mm, not to mention that it is fast. although I would prefer a 28mm focal length, I just didn't see anything else that would make the 28/2.8 more desirable than a 35/2. so obviously, having a 28/2 would make more sense and I would likely invest on, providing that the blur is consistently smooth in most, if not all occasions. makes it more ideal for other uses such as portraits and candid.

yeatzee · 05-30-2011, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

jsherman's reason for not keeping the 28mm is the same reason why I didn't like the F28 in the first place. as I had mention on my earlier posts, I just didn't see anything special about it, especially having a fast 35mm. if sharpness alone is the criterion that I'm after, I already have that on the 35mm, not to mention that it is fast. although I would prefer a 28mm focal length, I just didn't see anything else that would make the 28/2.8 more desirable than a 35/2. so obviously, having a 28/2 would make more sense and I would likely invest on, providing that the blur is consistently smooth in most, if not all occasions. makes it more ideal for other uses such as portraits and candid.

Price? The FA 35mm goes for like double what the F 28mm does

Disgusting quite honestly considering what it used to go for....

As if we didn't have enough pictures in a non-picture thread, but ah screw it

F 28mm

Pentaxor · 05-30-2011, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by yeatzee

Price? The FA 35mm goes for like double what the F 28mm does

Disgusting quite honestly considering what it used to go for....

well, who's fault is that? I don't exactly get the argument of what you are trying to say other than the lens was priced like this and that before Pentax wanted more cash for it. I mean mostly all of Pentax lenses have spiked up for the last 3 years, not just the FA35.

oh, and you can still find some copies of the FA35 to what is considered as fair price to those who are shorthanded or don't want to spend on it that much.

paperbag846 · 05-30-2011, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

jsherman's reason for not keeping the 28mm is the same reason why I didn't like the F28 in the first place.

I think it has a lot to do with him owning the 31...

I much prefer the FL of 28mm over 35mm, for "normal" work.

yeatzee · 05-30-2011, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

well, who's fault is that? I don't exactly get the argument of what you are trying to say other than the lens was priced like this and that before Pentax wanted more cash for it. I mean mostly all of Pentax lenses have spiked up for the last 3 years, not just the FA35.

oh, and you can still find some copies of the FA35 to what is considered as fair price to those who are shorthanded or don't want to spend on it.

My argument is that people buy the F 28mm over the FA 35mm because of price, among other things. How is that hard to get? The rest is "IMO"

05-29-2011, 01:55 PM	#65
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	I would agree that Marc's lens idea would be ideal. However, talking about real world lenses (and referencing yeatzee's example above) the F 28mm 2.8 is indeed different from the other 28mms, and not exactly "blah" in my eyes. \\ And yes, optical formula is exactly what I'm referring to. The same thing that differentiates between the M 40 2.8 and DA 40 2.8, which, IMHO, are quite different. The bokeh of my 28mm was not wonderful, but not terrible, either. The samples I've seen from the F 28mm are a clear improvement, and at that focal length, I don't havu much trouble with "only" f2.8, as long as wide open is usable. DOF control is good enough for me: Although, to be honest, I used my 28mm mostly for snapshottery (and preferred a large DOF, because this was one sharp lens). Last edited by paperbag846; 05-29-2011 at 02:01 PM.

05-30-2011, 12:52 PM	#73
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by yeatzee Price? The FA 35mm goes for like double what the F 28mm does Disgusting quite honestly considering what it used to go for.... well, who's fault is that? I don't exactly get the argument of what you are trying to say other than the lens was priced like this and that before Pentax wanted more cash for it. I mean mostly all of Pentax lenses have spiked up for the last 3 years, not just the FA35. oh, and you can still find some copies of the FA35 to what is considered as fair price to those who are shorthanded or don't want to spend on it that much. Last edited by Pentaxor; 05-30-2011 at 12:57 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
INDUSTAR 69 28mm F2.8 - Is this lens "Pentax-able"	minahasa	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	02-08-2011 04:06 PM
moderator - pls make a thread about "new K-x has something loose/noise/etc." sticky?	yuwlyuwl	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	7	03-09-2010 04:44 AM
Wanted - Acquired: Cheap "donor" KA-mount 28mm f/2.8 lens - any make	panoguy	Sold Items	2	03-04-2010 08:02 PM
For Sale - Sold: [SOLD]SMC PENTAX "K" 1:3.5/28mm (Hard to Find)	Curbster54	Sold Items	7	02-26-2010 03:53 PM
K-x - "make it or break it" for Pentax	gubak	Pentax DSLR Discussion	75	09-22-2009 10:31 AM

05-29-2011, 08:55 AM	#61
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Blue The F 28 is optically different than the FA 28. I find it ironic we have debates on the fa/f 50 1.4 and the same for the fa/f 50 1.7 but the two auto focus 28 get lumped together. I think 8 out of 10 people like the F 28 better than the Fa. There are some good copies of the fa out there. I'm not sure what the irony is, but I don't think that both 28s are lumped together. personally, I would treat them the same when comparing the copies of F and FA 50/1.4 and the 50/1.7. but really, is the subtle differences on these lenses worth the trouble or preference? I would think at the end, it doesn't matter since you still got an AF 50/1.4, AF 50/1.7, and AF 28/2.8 with subtle IQ differences. I mean these lenses would still display the IQ and bokeh characteristics that they are known for.

05-29-2011, 11:55 AM	#62
miltllama Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Calgary, Alberta Photos: Gallery Posts: 86	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella My DA28 would be f/2, a limited in build - metal, with integrated hood, quick shift, but no aperture ring - and I guess it would need to retail at around $500 or perhaps a bit more. +1 to this, I would definitely prefer a faster lens at that price than a slower one that's cheaper. DA28/2 limited would be great! I'd probably be fine with a 24mm too.

05-29-2011, 12:18 PM	#63
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by Pentaxor I'm not sure what the irony is, but I don't think that both 28s are lumped together. personally, I would treat them the same when comparing the copies of F and FA 50/1.4 and the 50/1.7. but really, is the subtle differences on these lenses worth the trouble or preference? I would think at the end, it doesn't matter since you still got an AF 50/1.4, AF 50/1.7, and AF 28/2.8 with subtle IQ differences. I mean these lenses would still display the IQ and bokeh characteristics that they are known for. These 50's have an unchanged optical formula going back to the M days, or perhaps before. The 28mm lenses have changed with every generation... but everyone says "oh, I used a 28mm lens. It was ok". thanks for correcting me on the 28mm to look for... the F 28mm f2.8. I'll find you!

05-29-2011, 01:17 PM	#64
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by paperbag846 These 50's have an unchanged optical formula going back to the M days, or perhaps before. The 28mm lenses have changed with every generation... but everyone says "oh, I used a 28mm lens. It was ok". thanks for correcting me on the 28mm to look for... the F 28mm f2.8. I'll find you! if we are going to consider the optical formula, and if that matters for people, then yes. but as a lens with an f2.8 rendering, personally, the f2.8 is insufficient and the differences are minimal from generation to generation. this is the reason that I would prefer something faster and have a major optical difference and rendering than what an f2.8 lens could give. this was also my issue with my K28/3.5, no matter how good it was. it just wasn't fast enough to render that certain quality that I would want for a 28mm (smooth and shallow DOF or really nice blur) for other use. the f2.8 doesn't sufficiently resolve that as well. as Marc had stated, a fast one would be a better one. and I don't think that a new f2.8 28mm lens could do that type of rendering, especially at that focal length.

05-29-2011, 02:22 PM	#66
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by paperbag846 And yes, optical formula is exactly what I'm referring to. The same thing that differentiates between the M 40 2.8 and DA 40 2.8, which, IMHO, are quite different. to be honest, although both are pancake size, the difference between these two lenses are night and day. for what amount the M is selling right now, is just a waste of money for those who are expecting that it's just slightly below in terms of the DA40's IQ and rendering. I believe the M is selling around $200-$250 on average. I mean for $50-$70 more, they could get a much better lens and worth the buck (that is best bang for the buck). I would say that the M40 personally would only be $50-$70 at best, in terms of IQ value. the only thing that probably made it cost a bit more is it's unique pancake size. but really, who wants to spend more on cosmetics alone?

05-30-2011, 07:55 AM	#67
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	@ pentaxor, I assure you that an optical formula can and does make a huge difference in lens performance. The only thing the F and Fa 28 lens is focal length, f2.8 and auto focus. As far as the 40s go, the da shares the basic layout, but there are some substantial differences with at least one of the elements plus ghostless coating.

05-30-2011, 08:54 AM	#68
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	. I got the F 28 2.8 for a good price, but didn't hold on to it long because at the time I had the FA 35 f2 and the 31ltd, Vivitar 28 close focus, etc. I do agree that the F was a very sharp 28, though. This is wide-open:

05-30-2011, 09:25 AM	#69
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by jsherman999 is is wide-open Once again jsherman, your photographic eye drives me to buy lenses in a deluded attempt to harness some of your power!

05-30-2011, 10:39 AM	#70
scarboro1 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Toronto Posts: 111	I was prepared to list my F 28 today to fund a DA 55mm*, but now I'm having second thoughts reading this post. I purchased the 17-50 tammy for the indoor family shooting lens as I found the 28 too long or too short (especially with a active two year old ). I need a portrait lens and think that I can part with the F 28. I will probably regret it because it is a sharp lens with quick AF.

05-30-2011, 11:28 AM	#71
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Blue @ pentaxor, I assure you that an optical formula can and does make a huge difference in lens performance. The only thing the F and Fa 28 lens is focal length, f2.8 and auto focus. As far as the 40s go, the da shares the basic layout, but there are some substantial differences with at least one of the elements plus ghostless coating. jsherman's reason for not keeping the 28mm is the same reason why I didn't like the F28 in the first place. as I had mention on my earlier posts, I just didn't see anything special about it, especially having a fast 35mm. if sharpness alone is the criterion that I'm after, I already have that on the 35mm, not to mention that it is fast. although I would prefer a 28mm focal length, I just didn't see anything else that would make the 28/2.8 more desirable than a 35/2. so obviously, having a 28/2 would make more sense and I would likely invest on, providing that the blur is consistently smooth in most, if not all occasions. makes it more ideal for other uses such as portraits and candid.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-30-2011, 12:42 PM	#72
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by Pentaxor jsherman's reason for not keeping the 28mm is the same reason why I didn't like the F28 in the first place. as I had mention on my earlier posts, I just didn't see anything special about it, especially having a fast 35mm. if sharpness alone is the criterion that I'm after, I already have that on the 35mm, not to mention that it is fast. although I would prefer a 28mm focal length, I just didn't see anything else that would make the 28/2.8 more desirable than a 35/2. so obviously, having a 28/2 would make more sense and I would likely invest on, providing that the blur is consistently smooth in most, if not all occasions. makes it more ideal for other uses such as portraits and candid. Price? The FA 35mm goes for like double what the F 28mm does Disgusting quite honestly considering what it used to go for.... As if we didn't have enough pictures in a non-picture thread, but ah screw it F 28mm

05-30-2011, 12:57 PM	#74
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by Pentaxor jsherman's reason for not keeping the 28mm is the same reason why I didn't like the F28 in the first place. I think it has a lot to do with him owning the 31... I much prefer the FL of 28mm over 35mm, for "normal" work.

05-30-2011, 12:57 PM	#75
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by Pentaxor well, who's fault is that? I don't exactly get the argument of what you are trying to say other than the lens was priced like this and that before Pentax wanted more cash for it. I mean mostly all of Pentax lenses have spiked up for the last 3 years, not just the FA35. oh, and you can still find some copies of the FA35 to what is considered as fair price to those who are shorthanded or don't want to spend on it. My argument is that people buy the F 28mm over the FA 35mm because of price, among other things. How is that hard to get? The rest is "IMO"