[Blue]

What I don't get is: what did he do after he left Pentax, did he 'retire', become a consultant, what? Did he get great golden parachute from Pentax? He must have been about 40-ish when he left Pentax, very young to retire...

He's almost like a Bobby Fischer, leaving the scene at the peak of his game, mysteriously disappearing, leaving only a legend behind... (Except without the crazy.)

.

It was a little more recent that he left but I have wondered the same thing. Here is a camerapedia article on him. I think his last "lens child" was DA* 55/1.4. It says he worked for Pentax until 2010 and also has the link that Robin linked above as well.

Hirakawa Jun - Camerapedia

[Docrwm]

I don't remember any Wikipedia article and cannot find one now. However, I do have a link for his patents:

Jun Hirakawa Patents

17 is not a lot, BTW. Yoshihisa Maitani of Olympus had over 50, but then again he worked on bodies too (PEN F notably).

There doesn't appear to be one, I misremembered. There was a link in a thread here to a bio of him and I thought it was there but its not. If anyone knows where it is I'd appreciate a link, thanks.

[parsons]

So he is 50 now right?
I hope he has come back to Pentax.

[rparmar]

So he is 50 now right?
I hope he has come back to Pentax.

Even if he came back they'd have to agree to him making lenses with the same design goals. Lenses with aperture dials, which don't hype sharpness at expense of other less quantifiable qualities, and that have a large enough image circle for full use on other camera systems. (For example, I adapt my full-frame k-mount lenses using a tilt adapter on MFT.)

I wouldn't wager on this happening.

[Blue]

Even if he came back they'd have to agree to him making lenses with the same design goals. Lenses with aperture dials, which don't hype sharpness at expense of other less quantifiable qualities, and that have a large enough image circle for full use on other camera systems. (For example, I adapt my full-frame k-mount lenses using a tilt adapter on MFT.)

I wouldn't wager on this happening.

A few of his lens designs lacked aperture dials though, the DA 14/2.8, DA 40 ltd, DA 10-17mm fish eye, DA* 55/1.4.

[rparmar]

A few of his lens designs lacked aperture dials though, the DA 14/2.8, DA 40 ltd, DA 10-17mm fish eye, DA* 55/1.4.

Indeed, because he was working to different design constraints. However, I was referring only to the FA Limiteds as befits the thread subject. Those other lenses do not have the pixie dust and perhaps never could. (I don't know enough about optics to consider that question.)

[pinholecam]

Even if he came back they'd have to agree to him making lenses with the same design goals. Lenses with aperture dials, which don't hype sharpness at expense of other less quantifiable qualities, and that have a large enough image circle for full use on other camera systems. (For example, I adapt my full-frame k-mount lenses using a tilt adapter on MFT.)

I wouldn't wager on this happening.

IMO, the emphasis on numbers to represent the ability of a lens on most sites that review lenses has more or less killed off any big venture in such directions.

[rparmar]

IMO, the emphasis on numbers to represent the ability of a lens on most sites that review lenses has more or less killed off any big venture in such directions.

Though there is a contrary impulse shared my many photography bloggers, who simply get out there and shoot. They get an awful lot of traffic, with people buying the lenses on the basis of particular excellent shots (even more meaningless than numbers IMO.) It's also true that the FA43 and FA77 didn't sacrifice much in the way of numbers. They are still darned sharp.

But despite those two provisos, I agree.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Wide open, they are not as sharp as some other brands, like the Zeiss ZKs.

Let's not hype the Zeiss lenses. The 85 is not terribly sharp wide open either - even photozone calls its microcontrast "dreamy":

The center resolution is already excellent at max. aperture whereas the borders are a bit softer but already very good. The contrast is a somewhat "dreamy" at this setting.

It is quite interesting, because the older Zeiss designs seem to be characterized by good microcontrast wide open. The Russian copies kept this characteristic too. But I haven't found it on any modern lens.

[jeffshaddix]

It is quite interesting, because the older Zeiss designs seem to be characterized by good microcontrast wide open. The Russian copies kept this characteristic too. But I haven't found it on any modern lens.

Not every Zeiss lens is perfect for sure. For a good example of a modern Zeiss with superb wide-open microcontrast try the ZK 35/2.

[jeffshaddix]

This means that sharpness is not as absolutely perfect as is possible. It also means that field curvature is a given, hence the decline in sharpness at wide apertures towards the periphery of the image. However what this gains is "a gentle transition from the solid subject to the out of focus portion" of the image. This reflects the priority given to rendering real-world dimensional objects and not the idealised focus plane.

It's probably good to note that if one focuses on a subject closer to the edge of the frame, it will be sharper than if someone focused on the center of a flat test chart, then checked the edge resolution. Suffice to say, real world photos aren't nearly as affected by the field curvature as a test chart would lead one to believe.

I agree rparmar, I thought that description of aberration correction was the closest to technical "pixie dust" I've seen.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Not every Zeiss lens is perfect for sure. For a good example of a modern Zeiss with superb wide-open microcontrast try the ZK 35/2.

I now remember why I didn't try the 35 - because I had the FA 31 already. Looking at the wide open sample that photozone has, it looks to be contrasty indeed. I wish all Zeiss lenses were like this.

[lytrytyr]

Let's not hype the Zeiss lenses.

I don't wish to hype any lenses, Zeiss, FA Limiteds, or otherwise,
since hype would be misleading to users of this forum.

The 85 is not terribly sharp wide open either - even photozone calls its microcontrast "dreamy":

Photozone describes the contrast as dreamy, not the microcontrast.
However, unless you're shooting slides, contrast is easily increased.
Of the resolution, Photozone says:
"The center resolution is already excellent at max. aperture whereas the borders are a bit softer but already very good."
For the FA 77 Limited, the comparable quote is:
"At f/1.8 the center performance is already very fine but the borders quality isn't there yet."

Recall that the OP was originally
"wondering how would the FA ltd stack up against the best lenses of other brands regard to sharpness . . ."

[jeffshaddix]

Does photozone refocus for edge performance? The review didn't mention it. I think due to the intentional field curvature, edge performance is better than they're making it sound.

[lytrytyr]

Does photozone refocus for edge performance?

From http://www.photozone.de/lens-test-faq:

"If a lens suffers from field curvature and/or residual aberrations this is taken into account - in this case the corners are measured independently from the center using different reference images."