[dgaies]

I noticed that the FA 28 lens is an "AL" design, which might account for the harsher bokeh (but I would guess, better sharpness for landscape work on film). So the merits of the F 28 really came into being in the digital age..?

As I recall, the F28 is a bit sharper and the FA28 has the slightly better bokeh/OOF rendering. As I said, they're both good lenses, just overshadowed by the 31 IMO.

[Blue]

As I recall, the F28 is a bit sharper and the FA28 has the slightly better bokeh/OOF rendering. As I said, they're both good lenses, just overshadowed by the 31 IMO.

A valid argument could be made that the FA 31/1.8 Limited is the successor to the F 28/2.8. I don't think it would be unreasonable for a DA 28 Limited to surface evolved from the F 28.


The F has 7 elements arranged in 7 groups.





and FA 31/1.8 Ltd Has 9 elements in 7 groups, but it also has an ED element, an aspherical element and Ghostless Coating, but the layout is similar.



The FA has 5 elements arranged in 5 groups plus has an aspherical element in the design.



Images compliments of Dimitrov.

Just for kicks, here is the current Zeiss Distagon T* ZK 28mm/2 with its 10 elements in 8 groups.

[miltllama]

I fail to see how one could discuss the prospect of a new 28mm without discussing other 28mm options, including lenses such as the F28 and FA28. In the same respect, lenses such as the 31 and 35/2.4 should be discussed as well as their presence in the Pentax lineup has a direct impact on whether a new 28 would be released, and if so, what type of specs would make the mose sense.

For sure, I'm just more interested in discussing the possibility of a new 28mm than I am in arguing about the optical designs of older lenses. Maybe it's just getting too technical for me...

[Pentaxor]

Have you ever used both the F 28 and FA 28? No one burned an onion skin just that you have yet to acknowledge that the 2 lenses are completely different designs whether you like one or the other or neither.

YES ! so that doesn't make me an idiot. and even with such minimal difference it doesn't change the fact that "I DONT LIKE BOTH THE OLD AF 28MM LENSES".

No, it is because people aren't reselling them that often.

how about demands?

[Pentaxor]

A valid argument could be made that the FA 31/1.8 Limited is the successor to the F 28/2.8.

The F has 7 elements arranged in 7 groups.





and FA 31/1.8 Ltd Has 9 elements in 7 groups, but it also has an ED element, an aspherical element and Ghostless Coating, but the layout is similar.

successor as a focal length? yes, since there is no existing AF lens along that focal length after the two AF 28mm. so logically speaking so to speak. similar formula? definitely not. although they have the same grouping, the number and positioning of the elements makes all the difference that separate both lenses not just by optical construction but on IQ performance as well. I wouldn't say it is a predecessor of the FA31 since there is no real similarity on comparison to both lenses, especially in rendering. if such similarity does exist, I'm sure that the F28 won't be selling at it's current price right now, if not ridiculous. and I'm sure previous owners are not that stupid to sell their copies at such 1/4 or 1/5 (sometimes 1/6) the price of the FA31. they could had sold it for $400-$500 if it were really that special and in demand.

[Pentaxor]

I'm not even sure what you are arguing anymore.... but you are beginning to make little sense.

read BLUE's post. you might understand his bickering about me not liking his F28 and stop shoving it down my throat.

[Pentaxor]

Tell that to the people who began discussing *old* 28mm's before I even posted in the thread ..... like for example pentaxor who I quoted upon my entry into this discussion talking about *old* pentax 28mm's.

c'mon Yeatzee. how bout price excuse. how much you got your F135, again ?

[Pentaxor]

I fail to see how one could discuss the prospect of a new 28mm without discussing other 28mm options, including lenses such as the F28 and FA28. In the same respect, lenses such as the 31 and 35/2.4 should be discussed as well as their presence in the Pentax lineup has a direct impact on whether a new 28 would be released, and if so, what type of specs would make the mose sense.

it is simple.

F28/2.8 - discontinued and insufficient
FA28/2.8 - discontinued and insufficient
FA31 - expensive
FA35 - old, a bit insufficient and focal length a bit not ideal
DAL35 - disabled 35, a bit insufficient and focal length a bit not ideal
DA35 macro - a bit insufficient and focal length a bit not ideal.

the FA31 would had been a great candidate but the price made it quite unreachable by most consumers.

I'm not sure how Pentax would play out the pricing with respect to specs other than it may not be an FA LTD. maybe a fast DA LTD perhaps around f2 or f2.2, if we want an affordable one. I would think around $650 would be ideal. but who knows, Pentax might price it around $800 :ugh:.

[paperbag846]

F28/2.8 - discontinued and insufficient
FA28/2.8 - discontinued and insufficient

I fail to see how these lenses are "insufficient" but the DA 21 is just peachy.

If anything the 21 replaced the 28, not the 31...

You will notice that Pentax attempted to replace * equivalent* focal lengths. The DA* 55mm f1.4 is not a replacement for the FA 50, but rather the A* 85mm 1.4.

Listen, I'm not apologist. The 28mm is not *the best*. In fact, I'm happily getting by the with the kit lens right now as essentially a 24-40mm zoom (the ends suck IMHO). It's not quite as good as the 28mm (esp. w.r.t. sharpness) but it's good enough. My philosophy is that the lens better be *damn* good to justify a prime dedicated to that focal length.

However... I miss the focal length. It would be really nice for us to have a slower option in the range.

An f2 will never happen unless the FA 31 is discontinued. I think, what would happen, and I would be *happy enough* about, is an DA-L 28mm f2.8 based on the F28.

It's unfortunately unlikely, due to the FA 35 2.4, so kit zoom it is.

I might try out a cheap 28mm prime if I can find one. There's something charming about a cheap prime at that length... it reminds me of my parent's old photographs.

[Ratmagiclady]

I've always wondered what's stopping Pentax from reissuing old designs that are known to be good in some of their newer housings, though: for primes, why not just put some of em in DA (WR?) *housings* and have a line of accessible primes that are known quantities? They'd have a whole market right there, maybe not a huge one, but they'd have a lock on it and it'd go with the rest of the marketshare. Also free up some resources for the things people want to see like long teles and the rest.

I'm kind of *here* cause I'm just the type who could do 95 percent of her stuff, film and digital, with a few Limiteds and my FA 50, and for some occasions a decent standard zoom. (The Tammie 28-75 would serve there, for me, really) But those Limiteds aren't as abundant and relatively-affordable as they once were, partly due to Pentax being more successful with their *bodies* and all.

In part it's precisely because I think I could just buy those few lenses and be pretty much done that I think Pentax would be well-served by fairly accessible primes. This'd really be playing to their strengths. Get people in, respecting the brand, and then there's *always* going to be a better zoom to sell a lot of people.

I'd say, get some prime lenses out there on people's cameras, let the images do the talking. I think a bunch of 2.4's, if need be, would be sufficiently fast, if not as impressive to us, for this, as long as it's a really *good* and very usable 2.4 (which this new 35 seems to have) Everyone wants everything as nice as possible, of course, but probably for a lot of us, we want that one or two or three lenses to be really capable and just-right and the rest... We might buy to fill gaps as long as they make good images and will do the job.



(Some old stuff that was left on my browser during my extended Net outage when I thought I was back online: I include just cause someone seemed interested in the big Sigma 28 back there and I love the idea of say, the A28/2 in an AF version. I might have clipped it otherwise, since the discussion moved on, but I still wonder: how would that A28/2 in a DFA housing of some kind pan out here? )

+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.

Maybe make it a DFA with an aperture ring based on the old A 28/2, if you want to make a probably-pricey one. But maybe they could do a DA WR prime: I do like that 35/2.4's results from what people have shown here: it has some qualities I like, like good sharpness across the frame and all: I'd probably rather they made one just a little nicer and with that quick-shift and WR, though.

On the fancies, I could just keep dreaming till I get an FA 31. That'll do. Or one also wonders, why not just reissue *that* lens, if it's to be a pricey Limited. Something more accessible a little wider would seem to be something people want.

I've got the big Sigma 28/1.8: I rather like it, but it *is* bulky and a bit more imposing to subjects and bystanders than I'd like: (Full frame fast wide angle, remember: fun for actual film use,) but the weight really isn't so bad per se comparable to an old metal lens of more normal size, to my hands, at least.

I understand the barrel's extra big to prevent vignetting somehow, and then there's this focusing ring clutch system which I'm not sure was really so worthwhile, but it's not altogether packed with glass or anything like that. It's pretty sharp across the frame, even wide open, which is useful to me, cause I usually want my point of focus well to the side with a lens like that: FOV-wise I treat it more like I would a 35mm on film than I would a 50, though it straddles around the 43mm mark. This lens doesn't have a lot of 'life' to it, in some subjective ways, (Just doesn't seem to have much 'pixie dust,') but it can achieve what I need it for technically, and that's good enough for now.


But it does leave room for something a lot smaller: that'd mean I might welcome one of the old F or FA 28's for the time being, if I get a crack at one.

[Pentaxor]

I fail to see how these lenses are "insufficient" but the DA 21 is just peachy.

If anything the 21 replaced the 28, not the 31...

You will notice that Pentax attempted to replace * equivalent* focal lengths. The DA* 55mm f1.4 is not a replacement for the FA 50, but rather the A* 85mm 1.4.

Listen, I'm not apologist. The 28mm is not *the best*. In fact, I'm happily getting by the with the kit lens right now as essentially a 24-40mm zoom (the ends suck IMHO). It's not quite as good as the 28mm (esp. w.r.t. sharpness) but it's good enough. My philosophy is that the lens better be *damn* good to justify a prime dedicated to that focal length.

However... I miss the focal length. It would be really nice for us to have a slower option in the range.

An f2 will never happen unless the FA 31 is discontinued. I think, what would happen, and I would be *happy enough* about, is an DA-L 28mm f2.8 based on the F28.

It's unfortunately unlikely, due to the FA 35 2.4, so kit zoom it is.

I might try out a cheap 28mm prime if I can find one. There's something charming about a cheap prime at that length... it reminds me of my parent's old photographs.

personally it is insufficient by virtue of aperture speed and certain rendering. if you read my previous post, the FA31 would had been a good candidate but the price somehow cut off the potential average joe buyer. I think the best alternative as Marc pointed out is to copy the M or A 28/f2's optical design and make them AF. the K28/2 maybe too much considering the price it might sell and the price of the existing Zeiss version, unless Pentax decides to play a bit more aggressive. the M/A seem to cut off the cost dilemma and are made more affordable by making it more compact and using a different optical design than the K version. well, that is fine by me and I think most of us could afford the lens if that was the one Pentax is going to use.

for someone who uses the 28mm focal length as a standard wide shooting scenarios, f2.8 aperture would be fine. although for other uses, it may fall short. especially if one is looking for a standard normal use (portrait concerns) on an APS-C camera. and I'm highly skeptic that even with a different optical formula, that f2.8 would able to pull a miracle, especially at that wide focal length.

[paperbag846]

for someone who uses the 28mm focal length as a standard wide shooting scenarios, f2.8 aperture would be fine. although for other uses, it may fall short.

I think I'm with you on this. The 28, as a wide angle, is great like the DA 15 is - it's really sharp. However, bokeh is not exactly wonderful. Anyone who mounted the DA 15 on a super-crop sensor and tried to use it as a normal would be let down, likely. However, on it's intended format, it makes a lot of sense.

I can dream. I just wish Pentax didn't decide it needed another 35mm. I mean the 35mm is a nice option but I just find it too close to 55 / 50 to be worth owning.

[miltllama]

You will notice that Pentax attempted to replace * equivalent* focal lengths. The DA* 55mm f1.4 is not a replacement for the FA 50, but rather the A* 85mm 1.4.

Thanks for pointing this out. By this logic, Pentax could release a fast 28mm to replace the FA 43 Limited. I haven't used the 43 on film, but I have found that I often gravitate toward 28mm on my K10D, and given that 28mm is just about the APS-C diagonal, it seems like it could play the same role as the FA 43 did on film.

[paperbag846]

Thanks for pointing this out. By this logic, Pentax could release a fast 28mm to replace the FA 43 Limited. I haven't used the 43 on film, but I have found that I often gravitate toward 28mm on my K10D, and given that 28mm is just about the APS-C diagonal, it seems like it could play the same role as the FA 43 did on film.

Yes, this is very true. If they could make it f2, then it would essentially be the DA equivalent.

That said, we are now essentially talking about the FA 31. So if you can't afford the 31, I'm assuming this hypothetical 28 would be very similar in price.

The alternative would be a DA limited with a reduced image circle that only covers the crop sensor. That would be (presumably) less expensive. If they could some how make it *FA 43 like* (i.e., sharp, maybe not *AS* sharp, with better bokeh than the 28 f2.8) it would be a top priority for me to buy.

[Blue]

read BLUE's post. you might understand his bickering about me not liking his F28 and stop shoving it down my throat.

Actually, you are off base on this comment. I don't really give a flip if you like a 28mm or not much less use one. So I am not trying to convince you to use one. Its your opinion that neither of these lenses are any good. I have the opposite opinion. However, whether or not there is a demand in the future is speculation. Most of the F series primes were produced from 1987 to 1991 with most going out of production in 1991. The F 28/2.8 went out of production sometime in 1989 (it was produced from 87-89) and the FA 28/2.8 AL was released in 1991 and stopped in 2004. I fail to see how that has anything to do with current demand but the FA had a long haul. The situation in 91 had more to do with the release of the FA series than anything else. The FA 35/2 AL was started in 1999 and production stopped twice (2004 & 2009) and restarted twice counting the recent batch. The F series had basically a 3 year production run as a whole while the FA series went for a 20 year run, in part, considering 6 are still in production counting the recent batch of FA 35 and FA 20-35mm.