Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-02-2012, 07:19 PM   #1
Site Supporter
jcdoss's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kansas City, MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,823
Long focal length limiteds

Why do you think the Limited series stops at 77mm? I'm a Pentax neophyte, but I expected to see Limited primes up to 135mm or so. Seeing a Limited zoom in the sub 50mm range on the roadmap seems to make less sense comparatively.

12-02-2012, 07:42 PM   #2
Pentaxian
calsan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,373
DAs all share the 49mm filter size. That's probably one reason.
Another may be that there's probably little discernible advantage of a prime over a zoom in this range?? Just speculating.

Actually, the DFA 100 WR is often considered a limited by it's owners... and it's also 49mm.
12-02-2012, 07:56 PM   #3
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 41,422
Limiteds are designed to be very small, and it's really hard to make longer lenses that are small without sacrificing a lot of speed. And yeah, I would consider the 100mm WR macro a limited as they basically took used the DA limited design for it.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

12-02-2012, 08:13 PM   #4
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,446
QuoteOriginally posted by calsan Quote
Actually, the DFA 100 WR is often considered a limited by it's owners... and it's also 49mm.
+1 I assume they called it DFA because it covers full frame but they could have called it Limited just as easily.

12-02-2012, 09:08 PM   #5
Veteran Member
msatlas's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 309
The F & FA 135/2.8 are nice & small but use 52mm filters. Not sure if Pentax could manage to make a modern Limited 135/2.8 and get 49mm filter threads. But since the F & FA were designed for 35mm film, maybe it'd work if only covering the APS-C frame?
12-03-2012, 02:19 AM   #6
Banned




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,683
Then there's the DFA 50 macro as well, same filter size as the limiteds
12-03-2012, 06:07 AM   #7
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,697
QuoteOriginally posted by calsan Quote
Actually, the DFA 100 WR is often considered a limited by it's owners
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
I would consider the 100mm WR macro a limited
I agree to that. If you want a longer focal length fantastic IQ lens, get the DFA 100 WR.
12-03-2012, 06:30 AM   #8
Veteran Member
TenZ.NL's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Below sealevel
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,100
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Limiteds are designed to be very small, and it's really hard to make longer lenses that are small without sacrificing a lot of speed.
Just wondering...if the DFA50 and 100 and also the FA77, FA43, DA35, FA31 are F2.8 or below, then why are the wide-angle LTD`s so mediocre fast?
I mean, why is the DA21ltd F3.2 and the DA15ltd F4? Is that due to the wide angle?

I would love to have a DA15ltd F2.8 or faster

12-03-2012, 07:42 AM   #9
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,644
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
I agree to that. If you want a longer focal length fantastic IQ lens, get the DFA 100 WR.
The DA*200mm and DA*300mm are not too shabby either.
12-03-2012, 08:12 AM   #10
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,697
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
The DA*200mm and DA*300mm are not too shabby either
Of course. It depends on how long you want. On the other hand, those DA* are notwhere near as compact as what would (could?) qualify for a limited, I think.

Which lens fits in which category is full of gray areas of course...
12-03-2012, 08:51 AM   #11
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,660
QuoteOriginally posted by TenZ.NL Quote
Just wondering...if the DFA50 and 100 and also the FA77, FA43, DA35, FA31 are F2.8 or below, then why are the wide-angle LTD`s so mediocre fast?
I mean, why is the DA21ltd F3.2 and the DA15ltd F4? Is that due to the wide angle?

I would love to have a DA15ltd F2.8 or faster
As I understand it, limited size is part of the philosophy of the DA Limited range.

If you want an f/2.8 wide-angle in the 14-15mm focal length range, Pentax offers you the DA 14/2.8.

Since you can use really slow shutter speeds on wide-angle lenses with shake reduction,
I don't have a problem with the DA 15 Ltd being f/4.
In terms of blur avoidance, that's like f/2.4 at 35mm, or f/1.8 at 77mm.
12-03-2012, 08:59 AM   #12
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,660
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
The DA*200mm and DA*300mm are not too shabby either.
But certainly not "Limited" size-wise.

If you want longer "Limited" telephoto lenses,
i.e. small and with a 49mm filter thread,
the Voigtlaender SL Apo-Lanthar 90/3.5 and 180/4 are as close as it gets,
although they are both manual focus.
12-03-2012, 11:06 AM   #13
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,697
QuoteOriginally posted by TenZ.NL Quote
Just wondering...if the DFA50 and 100 and also the FA77, FA43, DA35, FA31 are F2.8 or below, then why are the wide-angle LTD`s so mediocre fast?
The 40 and 70 are quite fast, I'd say. But the DA limited seem to be focusing on size and uniform IQ, at the cost of aperture.
12-03-2012, 11:15 AM   #14
Veteran Member
TenZ.NL's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Below sealevel
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,100
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
As I understand it, limited size is part of the philosophy of the DA Limited range.

If you want an f/2.8 wide-angle in the 14-15mm focal length range, Pentax offers you the DA 14/2.8.

Since you can use really slow shutter speeds on wide-angle lenses with shake reduction,
I don't have a problem with the DA 15 Ltd being f/4.
In terms of blur avoidance, that's like f/2.4 at 35mm, or f/1.8 at 77mm.
I know and the DA14 is allready in my bag but that`s not what I ment.
The interest is merely technical.

For example, the DA35ltd macro is F2.8 but it`s plastic counterpart, the DA35 F2.4 is allready faster with F2.4. Size of the filter is the same and I believe overall size too.
I have the DA35ltd and for F2.8 the frontelement is quite small, also the frontelement of the tamron 90mm F2.8 is small, only 52mm. But my DA14 and DA*16-50 are huge (77mm) compared to those.

The question was triggered by Adam`s remark:
QuoteQuote:
Limiteds are designed to be very small, and it's really hard to make longer lenses that are small without sacrificing a lot of speed.
To me it now seems the opposite:, the ultra wide angles poses more problems with faster apertures than wide-medium tele.

Also, if I look at my 35ltd, the filtersize is 49mm but the actual glas is only about 25mm while the frontglass of the DA14 and the DA*16-50 cover allmost the entire filterdiameter.
The DA15ltd also has some "flesh" left, i.e. the frontglass isn`t as wide as the (what`s it called?) barrel and that goes for most if not all limiteds.

Sorry if this turned into a wall of uncoherent text but english isn`t my native language

QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
The 40 and 70 are quite fast, I'd say. But the DA limited seem to be focusing on size and uniform IQ, at the cost of aperture.
Crosspost...thanks for the explanation. But then it would be technically possible to design a faster aperture for the given sizes and shapes?

Last edited by TenZ.NL; 12-03-2012 at 11:53 AM. Reason: Typo`s
12-03-2012, 12:47 PM   #15
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,838
QuoteOriginally posted by msatlas Quote
The F & FA 135/2.8 are nice & small but use 52mm filters. Not sure if Pentax could manage to make a modern Limited 135/2.8 and get 49mm filter threads. But since the F & FA were designed for 35mm film, maybe it'd work if only covering the APS-C frame?
The Pentax-M 120mm f2.8 shows that Pentax could get pretty close if you don't mind a bit shorter FL. It has a 49mm filter, slightly less diameter than the DFA 100/2.8 WR macro, and 20% shorter length.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Focal length setting lammie200 Pentax K-5 5 06-12-2012 01:51 PM
Inputting focal length? slackercruster Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 02-08-2012 02:26 AM
Resolution/focal length calculations lavascript Photographic Technique 7 12-28-2011 05:40 AM
Input Focal Length Butterfingers Pentax K-5 10 11-16-2011 11:30 AM
Focal length conversion JJD2500 Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 03-01-2011 05:30 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:45 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top