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

Blue · 05-31-2011, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by 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.

. . .

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.

I agree with this logic. They could make up some batches of these lenses and be able to move them. That is the advantage of a small company relative to one that has to turn out millions of widgets per day to feed the beast. It wouldn't take much to revise some of the better performers.

paperbag846 · 05-31-2011, 12:49 PM

There's no arguing with Blue. He knows so much I wonder if he works for them

.

Blue · 05-31-2011, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

There's no arguing with Blue. He knows so much I wonder if he works for them

.

I wish. I would love to get loose in the prototype room.

paperbag846 · 05-31-2011, 01:00 PM

Blue, do you know much about the Vivitar close focus 28mm f2.8? I hear this is quite an exceptional lens.

miltllama · 05-31-2011, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

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.

Yeah, that is a good point

If I want it *that* bad, I should probably just suck it up and start saving! Although, if they could lower the cost a teensy bit by having a crop sensor image circle and f2 instead of f1.9, I would appreciate having the extra width from a 28mm instead of the 31mm.

paperbag846 · 05-31-2011, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by miltllama

Yeah, that is a good point If I want it *that* bad, I should probably just suck it up and start saving! Although, if they could lower the cost a teensy bit by having a crop sensor image circle and f2 instead of f1.9, I would appreciate having the extra width from a 28mm instead of the 31mm.

I would imagine that it should be significantly less expensive. That is the philosophy behind cheap DA zooms, and 28mm is not an extreme focal length. I would imagine they would be able to get the price of it within range of the DA 21, as long as they were OK with making the lens larger (in line with the DA 35 / DA 15).

Blue · 05-31-2011, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

Blue, do you know much about the Vivitar close focus 28mm f2.8? I hear this is quite an exceptional lens.

I only know about it in reputation. I haven't had the privilege of trying one. There is a long running thread on these. You may have seen it.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/34654-vivitar-...placement.html

yeatzee · 05-31-2011, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

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

Price excuse? I dont follow.......

$350 for the F 135mm.... and worth every single penny. As far as I can tell, not a bad price by any means.... so whats with the question?

axl · 06-01-2011, 01:21 AM

Guys, you seem to have way too much time on your hands, arguing about lenses of the past and future may bes...

Very early on in this thread I said I'd love to see 26/2 DA* instead of 28. Even in minds of Pentax high shots who pu out 5 lenses (primes) between 31 and 40 (I.e slight overkill IMO and spoil for choice) it can't seem right to put out 28mm. Why?!? There are 3 answers IMO:
1- yes, it would be true normal for APSC but how many folks want it? New DA L35 seems to be good for those who were calling for budget lens. 28/2.8 would be way too slow for normal lens and making it faster means making it bigger. 28/2 wouldn't be exactly small lens.

2- making it small means making it slow. We already have slow cheap normal lens, what purpose would slow, cheap true normal lens serve?

3- Pentax is replacing the old FOVs right? 28 would replace 43 but to make it worthwile it would need to be fast and good. That wouldn't be cheap and would be dangerously close to 31ltd IMO in all aspects. And since that lens is considered crown jewel in Pentax's line up, I don't think they'd want to have anything else that's so close to it. At the end of the day, the high end glass is where the revenue comes from and you don't want to cut your sales on it...

And one more thing, the gap lies elsewhere. 21-31 to be precise and no fast prime below 31, only one zoom at f2.8 in that range!!!. And I believe many more folks would opt for 24-26f2 as opposed 28/2.8...

All in all I don't see 28mm happening in DA line up, not until 31 is discontinued or until other, more important (IMO) gaps are filled. It just doesn't make sense at the moment. But then hey, there were few decisions before that didn't make sense

shiner · 06-01-2011, 06:03 AM

A 28 f1.7 that is sharp wide open would stick to my camera like poo on carpet.

axl · 06-01-2011, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by shiner

A 28 f1.7 that is sharp wide open would stick to my camera like poo on carpet.

but would be rather huge, have you seen the Sigma 28/1.8?!?
Granted it would be APSC only it could be smaller but not by huge margin IMO

Pentaxor · 06-01-2011, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by yeatzee

Price excuse? I dont follow.......

$350 for the F 135mm....

you don't see something sold like that on a normal day. if price was an issue, people would always look for a good deal.

Pentaxor · 06-01-2011, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by axl

but would be rather huge, have you seen the Sigma 28/1.8?!?
Granted it would be APSC only it could be smaller but not by huge margin IMO

the current Sigmas had always been huge (fatter) Peter. I think it has more to do on their optical design and priorities (minimal vignetting, performance on FF or APS-C (in some lenses, light transmission, and build). like the Sigma 30, eventhough it's short, the diameter of the body, aside from the front filter is considerably large.

a 26mm would be ok I guess but depending on a few factors. 1.> the lens would had to have great IQ for cropping since I always have second thoughts of using wider lenses when shooting persons with those lenses. 2.> perspective distortion with respect to shooting distance. it would be great if Pentax would design it to lessen distortion in general and also wouldn't handicap the shooter that much on certain angle and distance which makes the lens more flexible to use. if Pentax cannot build some lenses at these focal lengths, I guess we'll just all get an X100.

spicy cho · 06-01-2011, 10:56 AM

Figure I'll ask here... Why are wide angle primes always on the slower end? I'd love to have a <20mm with f2.0 or less. I love the 15mm limited but f4 isn't any good for my low light needs. Love my 21mm but it's not suited for that either...

Marc Sabatella · 06-01-2011, 11:24 AM

What scenes do you shoot with the DA15 where 1/10" isn't fast enough? I find the DA15 actually easier to use in low light than any of my other lenses, simply because you don't *need* nearly so fast a shutter speed to combat either camera shake or subject motion blur. Also, it's way less demanding in terms of nailing focus. I have a higher percentage of "keepers" in my concert photography, for example, from that lens than any other, by far - not even close.

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

05-31-2011, 12:45 PM	#136
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by 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. . . . 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. I agree with this logic. They could make up some batches of these lenses and be able to move them. That is the advantage of a small company relative to one that has to turn out millions of widgets per day to feed the beast. It wouldn't take much to revise some of the better performers.

05-31-2011, 12:49 PM	#137
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	There's no arguing with Blue. He knows so much I wonder if he works for them .

05-31-2011, 12:52 PM	#138
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by paperbag846 There's no arguing with Blue. He knows so much I wonder if he works for them . I wish. I would love to get loose in the prototype room.

05-31-2011, 01:00 PM	#139
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Blue, do you know much about the Vivitar close focus 28mm f2.8? I hear this is quite an exceptional lens.

05-31-2011, 01:02 PM	#140
miltllama Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Calgary, Alberta Photos: Gallery Posts: 86	Originally posted by paperbag846 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. Yeah, that is a good point If I want it that bad, I should probably just suck it up and start saving! Although, if they could lower the cost a teensy bit by having a crop sensor image circle and f2 instead of f1.9, I would appreciate having the extra width from a 28mm instead of the 31mm.

05-31-2011, 01:06 PM	#141
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by miltllama Yeah, that is a good point If I want it that bad, I should probably just suck it up and start saving! Although, if they could lower the cost a teensy bit by having a crop sensor image circle and f2 instead of f1.9, I would appreciate having the extra width from a 28mm instead of the 31mm. I would imagine that it should be significantly less expensive. That is the philosophy behind cheap DA zooms, and 28mm is not an extreme focal length. I would imagine they would be able to get the price of it within range of the DA 21, as long as they were OK with making the lens larger (in line with the DA 35 / DA 15).

05-31-2011, 01:10 PM	#142
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by paperbag846 Blue, do you know much about the Vivitar close focus 28mm f2.8? I hear this is quite an exceptional lens. I only know about it in reputation. I haven't had the privilege of trying one. There is a long running thread on these. You may have seen it. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/34654-vivitar-...placement.html

05-31-2011, 04:40 PM	#143
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by Pentaxor c'mon Yeatzee. how bout price excuse. how much you got your F135, again ? Price excuse? I dont follow....... $350 for the F 135mm.... and worth every single penny. As far as I can tell, not a bad price by any means.... so whats with the question?

06-01-2011, 01:21 AM	#144
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Guys, you seem to have way too much time on your hands, arguing about lenses of the past and future may bes... Very early on in this thread I said I'd love to see 26/2 DA* instead of 28. Even in minds of Pentax high shots who pu out 5 lenses (primes) between 31 and 40 (I.e slight overkill IMO and spoil for choice) it can't seem right to put out 28mm. Why?!? There are 3 answers IMO: 1- yes, it would be true normal for APSC but how many folks want it? New DA L35 seems to be good for those who were calling for budget lens. 28/2.8 would be way too slow for normal lens and making it faster means making it bigger. 28/2 wouldn't be exactly small lens. 2- making it small means making it slow. We already have slow cheap normal lens, what purpose would slow, cheap true normal lens serve? 3- Pentax is replacing the old FOVs right? 28 would replace 43 but to make it worthwile it would need to be fast and good. That wouldn't be cheap and would be dangerously close to 31ltd IMO in all aspects. And since that lens is considered crown jewel in Pentax's line up, I don't think they'd want to have anything else that's so close to it. At the end of the day, the high end glass is where the revenue comes from and you don't want to cut your sales on it... And one more thing, the gap lies elsewhere. 21-31 to be precise and no fast prime below 31, only one zoom at f2.8 in that range!!!. And I believe many more folks would opt for 24-26f2 as opposed 28/2.8... All in all I don't see 28mm happening in DA line up, not until 31 is discontinued or until other, more important (IMO) gaps are filled. It just doesn't make sense at the moment. But then hey, there were few decisions before that didn't make sense

06-01-2011, 06:03 AM	#145
shiner Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: N GA USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,127	A 28 f1.7 that is sharp wide open would stick to my camera like poo on carpet.

06-01-2011, 06:25 AM	#146
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by shiner A 28 f1.7 that is sharp wide open would stick to my camera like poo on carpet. but would be rather huge, have you seen the Sigma 28/1.8?!? Granted it would be APSC only it could be smaller but not by huge margin IMO

06-01-2011, 07:25 AM	#147
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by yeatzee Price excuse? I dont follow....... $350 for the F 135mm.... you don't see something sold like that on a normal day. if price was an issue, people would always look for a good deal.

06-01-2011, 07:48 AM	#148
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by axl but would be rather huge, have you seen the Sigma 28/1.8?!? Granted it would be APSC only it could be smaller but not by huge margin IMO the current Sigmas had always been huge (fatter) Peter. I think it has more to do on their optical design and priorities (minimal vignetting, performance on FF or APS-C (in some lenses, light transmission, and build). like the Sigma 30, eventhough it's short, the diameter of the body, aside from the front filter is considerably large. a 26mm would be ok I guess but depending on a few factors. 1.> the lens would had to have great IQ for cropping since I always have second thoughts of using wider lenses when shooting persons with those lenses. 2.> perspective distortion with respect to shooting distance. it would be great if Pentax would design it to lessen distortion in general and also wouldn't handicap the shooter that much on certain angle and distance which makes the lens more flexible to use. if Pentax cannot build some lenses at these focal lengths, I guess we'll just all get an X100.

06-01-2011, 10:56 AM	#149
spicy cho Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 73	Figure I'll ask here... Why are wide angle primes always on the slower end? I'd love to have a <20mm with f2.0 or less. I love the 15mm limited but f4 isn't any good for my low light needs. Love my 21mm but it's not suited for that either...

06-01-2011, 11:24 AM	#150
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	What scenes do you shoot with the DA15 where 1/10" isn't fast enough? I find the DA15 actually easier to use in low light than any of my other lenses, simply because you don't need nearly so fast a shutter speed to combat either camera shake or subject motion blur. Also, it's way less demanding in terms of nailing focus. I have a higher percentage of "keepers" in my concert photography, for example, from that lens than any other, by far - not even close.