[HSV]

A lot of the other brands have 3 "classic" fast primes: 35, 50 and 85. Pentax has a pretty good fast 35 in production (fa31), a superb fast 50 (da*55)...but is missing a fast 85-ish!

There is the FA*85...which sadly is not in production any more.

[NitroDC]

Fa77/da70?

[JonPB]

The environmentalist requirement for lenses to be constructed with lead-free glass would necessitate a re-design of these lenses. The original Zeiss 28mm f/2 - the original Zeiss lens made for contax is optically superior to the current 28mm f/2 because Consina had the alter the design to compensate for the different refractive properties of lead-free glass.

Which is why the designs are "mostly" worked out, although I honestly don't know how difficult it would be to alter, as you say, a design from the leaded era. Yet the basic design for the DA 50/1.8 precedes the K-mount with the 1960 Auto-Takumar 55/1.8. No, they aren't the same design, but they're pretty close. So I bet they could make the corrections if they wanted to.

A lot of the other brands have 3 "classic" fast primes: 35, 50 and 85. Pentax has a pretty good fast 35 in production (fa31), a superb fast 50 (da*55)...but is missing a fast 85-ish!

FA 77? Heck, a 24, 31, 43, 55, 77, 90 lineup would be very dangerous to many budgets here.

[Digitalis]

A 77? Heck, a 24, 31, 43, 55, 77, 90 lineup would be very dangerous to many budgets here.

personally I think a 19mm f/2 and a 120mm f/2 would finish the FA limited lens line up nicely - but then again that is optimism.

[HSV]

The fa77 comes close...in application it's very similar to a fast 85. I have no complaints about the fa77.

But since dreaming is basically for free, I'm thinking something like a Helios 40, 85mm 1.5. Pentax likes weird focal lengths and apertures, so why not make something like a fa92 1.5?

With the da50-135, I used the 95mm the most...and my most used primes are the tamron 90 macro and the sigma 105 macro, so I'm sort of biased towards this focal length.

[wlachan]

Pentax absolutely needs a new FF24/2 which has good even wide open sharpness. And no, the FA*24/2 isn't great on APS-C. It was okay on film, but sucks big time on digital.

[JonPB]

personally I think a 19mm f/2 and a 120mm f/2 would finish the FA limited lens line up nicely - but then again that is optimism.

A 19/2? No. Absolutely not. I just got back from shooting my 24/2 on film, and that experience will probably push me into buying the DA 15. Wider? No. That is categorically a drug that I do not want to be exposed to.

But this cursed company called "Samyang" will probably do it someday, so Pentax may just as well go ahead and have no respect for my finances but do it right and proper.

Pentax absolutely needs a new FF24/2 which has good even wide open sharpness. And no, the FA*24/2 isn't great on APS-C. It was okay on film, but sucks big time on digital.

I can agree that it isn't one of the all-time greats. If what you're after is edge to edge resolution, then this isn't your lens. Yes, I'd trade my FA24 for an Elmarit-R (II) 19 in a heartbeat. But the 24 renders smoothly and clearly, or my copy does. This is more important to me than resolution in a fast, wide angle lens. In my opinion, the FA24 might not win any lens review awards, but photos shot with it might be more likely to win admiration. If only it weren't so big...

[Just1MoreDave]

Which is why the designs are "mostly" worked out, although I honestly don't know how difficult it would be to alter, as you say, a design from the leaded era. Yet the basic design for the DA 50/1.8 precedes the K-mount with the 1960 Auto-Takumar 55/1.8. No, they aren't the same design, but they're pretty close. So I bet they could make the corrections if they wanted to.

A 50-55 is easy,even other brands look pretty close. But if they have to start with a completely new type of glass, the old lens really just represents a potential target. They have to rework everything from the shape of every element to the build to maybe adding sealing or a different focus system to new coatings. Then they have to build the lens in a different factory and figure out how to make money on it for new owners, the reasons why they discontinued a lens like the FA 28mm f2.8. They might as well start fresh.

[axl]

... - but then again that is optimism.

To say the least...

[axl]

Pentax absolutely needs a new FF24/2 which has good even wide open sharpness. And no, the FA*24/2 isn't great on APS-C. It was okay on film, but sucks big time on digital.

The lack of fast 24 (or fast anything wider than 31ltd) is driing many Pentaxians nuts. Especially when Sigmas in that segment aren't the best and FA*24 (as the only Pentax AF lens in that segment faster than f2.8) is hard to come by and not everybody's lens anyway. What's really puzzling me is how company that has so openly been committed to APSC format and claims it has the most complete APSC line up, can ignore the fast 35 equivalent. Please don't even mention DA21....

For my part I wasn't unhappy with FA*24. Yes it had it's issues but the look of the pictures was very specific and really nice IMO. I haven't seen DA lens with rendering that would match it...

[Digitalis]

A 19/2? No. Absolutely not. I just got back from shooting my 24/2 on film, and that experience will probably push me into buying the DA 15. Wider? No. That is categorically a drug that I do not want to be exposed to. But this cursed company called "Samyang" will probably do it someday, so Pentax may just as well go ahead and have no respect for my finances but do it right and proper.

hah, I have been using a Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5.-5.6 on my K5IIs - brilliant lens I must say, it offers higher corner sharpness than the DA15 at 15mm f/8. I regularly use the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 on my D800E and D4, like it or not lenses are getting wiidddeeerr. I personally have little experience with Samyang lenses, I have heard they are built very well. Personally I think we should Petition Zeiss to re-start manufacturing lenses for the Pentax K mount, I won't lie: I have been taking a long hard look a the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO. I already have the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO Lanthar for my Nikon cameras so there is little point in buying a 135mm lens for that mount, so if I could get in in pentax K mount - i'm sure Cosina would be crying all the way to the bank over neglecting the pentax crowd.

[chesebert]

Pentax absolutely needs a new FF24/2 which has good even wide open sharpness. And no, the FA*24/2 isn't great on APS-C. It was okay on film, but sucks big time on digital.

Please elborate how exactly does FA*24/2 suck on APS-C.

[snake]

Please elborate how exactly does FA*24/2 suck on APS-C.

I'm interested in knowing, too. People keep saying stuff exactly like that, but they rarely say HOW. I'm wondering if it's a big secret people tell so that they don't have as much competition buying one. It's definitely the normal modus to talk about the FA24 negatively on APS, but then not say how.

As for the pic, I find it too blue.

I also prefer using FF lenses due to supposedly better edge to edge performance on APS.

[Lowell Goudge]

I also prefer using FF lenses due to supposedly better edge to edge performance on APS.

This is an assumption more than a proven fact. Since you enlarge an APS-C shot more to get to the same printed image size you also enlarge the flaws more. Not saying there isn't some truth to it, just be careful when you use FF on The cropped sensor. Also FF lenses put a lot of unusable light into the mirror box that can bounce around and cause reduced contrast because it covers double the image area of a crop sensor

[Digitalis]

Please elborate how exactly does FA*24/2 suck on APS-C.

Even in that small web sized image I can see the red-blue CA that the FA*24mm f/2 produces.