[fuent104]

It was also a marketing ploy not to compete with other FA lenses in the same focal length and attract sales with the new and unique focal lengths. (Especially the FA43 and FA77) Releasing an FA85/1.8LTD for example, would have competed with the FA*85/1.4 [IF]. Phil.

That may technically true, but I'd also consider it to be a cynical and very narrow conclusion. According to that line of thought, it could be said that everything that's ever been sold was simply a marketing ploy to sell something.

Yes, camera companies are in the business of making money, as are all for-profit businesses. However, that doesn't mean they aren't staffed (and often founded) by people who are passionate about their work. The engineers and designers I know are passionate people. They're usually not in the position to simply do what they'd like to do with very loose project guidelines - like carte blanche control over their projects. If they were, however, none of them simply do variations of already existing products. They'd much rather do something unique, which expresses their personal vision.

You could say Dark Side of the Moon was a marketing ploy by Pink Floyd, designed not to compete with their earlier albums. I'd say that is not the most accurate way of describing Dark Side of the Moon.

On second thought, I think I just disagree with you. The word "ploy" implies a hidden tactic. I don't think something as obvious as a offering different focal lengths is sophisticated enough to count as a ploy - I'd just consider it to be offering a different focal length.

[Akarak]

They could have made great 28mm and 50mm Limited lenses. They could have made great MF lenses in other lengths.

There is absolutely no causality here.

Let me try to put in other words, and i ask in advance for narrative errors because i really never studied english after the 7th grade.

I'll tell you a *technical/theororical fact no one in this forum can deny


Use math to calculate the depth of field, bokeh size, distance from subject and framing size of a medium format exposure, from the numbers you get

make the conversion ratio to get the equivalents in a smaller exposure, in this case, full frame 35mm negative.
you will now see from the numbers you got that you can run across all brands and all lens, and find out that only pentax can go get those numbers

how?

with their unique "odd focal lenghts" series of limited lens


even if you get the prime ultra fast canon lens, leica or nikon, you can *NEVER* get the same composition, bokeh, depth of field..
you just can't, even if you step back from the subject or hang from a crane lol, *it's just impossible* no post production tricks, no web toturials, no nothing can get you there, just the limited fa's lens.

This is a undeniable fact.
and if you think theese focal lenghts were randomly chosen, i think you are wrong

Now you ask why wouldn't they do limited "generic" lens? and what? compete with something that's alredy out there?

if you were a canon/nikon shooter back in the 90's would you really sell your gear, would you really be "Bought" for other brand that would just give you the same canon/nikon alredy offers?

They did somethign diferent, they found a way to get professional medium format photography look in the smaller 35mm medium format
that is passion, and a fact that was overlooked.
i wish i knew someone with a limited fa77 lens, i have a pentax fullframe slr and this medium format lended, i would totaly spend film making the perfect tests scenarios to take out any doubts.

that's the marketing there, but they did it with passion, they wanted to make people change to pentax but with passion for photography and not for the numbers $$$.



In somewhat related news, i just read today that a 5 year old canon DSLR films RAW VIDEO, but canon never allowed it too via firmware.
see? ....


I will try to get a fa77 limited, i will ask around all my friends and facebook photographers i know, if they ever travel here i will perform such tests with honour

[Ben_Edict]

well, every serious photographer out there want's the best for his shots, and i tell you this.. as i try to make it out as a photographer with my old gear and stuff, whay i see around here for serious photography is medium format..

and if pentax can deliever the medium format composition on a 35mm negative, that is without doubt the most atracting fearture of pentax cameras to professional photographers.


the fact you can get a medium format look on a 35mm negative makes it's impossible to make billboards and stuff like you do with medium format, but it's not impossible to make photography for magazines, web related magazines, etc etc...

so before discarding all this hypothesis, maybe you should look into them, because again...

haev the "odd focal lenghts" renamed to "the medium format standard" if a really good thing for pentax and ourselves, pentaxians that have been fighting against stupid feartures of other manufactures that in the end of the day, will improve nothing in your photography.


this? this medium format on 35mm look? now this would make lots of people to buy the limited or eevn change to pentax

more friends


do the maths, and don't forget the Apertuer must also be converted.
the first times i used medium format i was shocked i couldn't get a faster lens than 2.8 as i like thin DOF, but when i found what that a f2.8 on medium format is a 1.4 equivalente on 35mm film, my life was great again..

Your findings are true - but its very old wisdom. I cannot quite understand what you mean with "magic"? The standard focal length of any given film format is equivalent to the diagonal of that film/sensor format. That's it. So it is now wonder, that the Pentax 43mm lens produces roughly an image with similar "look" as the 80 mm on a 2.5'' square (thought the square format adds a different aesthetics to the image.

The only thing is, that hardly any other manufacturer deviated from the well-establishe standard fls officially. There are a few exceptions, but most stick to a 50mm lens offcially (though the print on the lens may be noticeably different from what is the real fl - I made a comparisson in the past for 20mm lenses and the real fl varied by +/- 10% between makes).

It is fine, that you discovered some established relationsships on your own and that you are enthusiastic about it - but obviously it provokes some sarcasm, if you try to show that off as being new or especially brilliant. Any good photography textbook should have tought you these things.

Ben

[Akarak]

Your findings are true - but its very old wisdom. I cannot quite understand what you mean with "magic"? The standard focal length of any given film format is equivalent to the diagonal of that film/sensor format. That's it. So it is now wonder, that the Pentax 43mm lens produces roughly an image with similar "look" as the 80 mm on a 2.5'' square (thought the square format adds a different aesthetics to the image.

The only thing is, that hardly any other manufacturer deviated from the well-establishe standard fls officially. There are a few exceptions, but most stick to a 50mm lens offcially (though the print on the lens may be noticeably different from what is the real fl - I made a comparisson in the past for 20mm lenses and the real fl varied by +/- 10% between makes).

It is fine, that you discovered some established relationsships on your own and that you are enthusiastic about it - but obviously it provokes some sarcasm, if you try to show that off as being new or especially brilliant. Any good photography textbook should have tought you these things.

Ben

thank you for your input and for sharing you wisdom with the tests you made.
i am really sorry if i came out as sarcastic, it was because i didn't feel i was getting understood on what i tried to say about the mystical values of limited focal lenghts.
The way you commented my post really shows me that you honestly understood what i tried to say and for that i thank you

[tclausen]

Yes, they could have, but they chose not to. The fact that they chose "odd" focal lengths for their premium series of lenses would lead me to believe that the focal lengths were intentionally chosen to contribute to the uniqueness of each lens. That's part of what makes great design great design -complete control over every creative decision. Part of the design philosophy of the FA limited lenses was, necessarily, that the focal length would be one of the unique properties of each lens.

I actually thought it odd that Pentax, when making the DA Limited, released a 35mm, an 21mm, a 15mm a 40mm and a 70mm - seem waay too "common and round numbers" -- compared to the FA Limited focal lengths. DA Limited focal lengths, most of which (maybe except the 70mm) exist in 35mm for different brands....

I'd have loved to see a 19mm and a 67mm, for example, just because they're "quirky numbers" like the FA Limiteds.....also, a 67mm would be sufficiently different from the 77mm to justify owning both

Now we're at it, I'm also disappointed that the DA Limited are all slower-than-f/2.0......I know that it's the price to pay for compact, but f/1.x (where x is as close to 0 as possible) would be great

[rparmar]

Part of the design philosophy of the FA limited lenses was, necessarily, that the focal length would be one of the unique properties of each lens.

No. This is simply your hypothesis, but there is no evidence. But I guess you can't get beyond this numerology, so I leave you.

[fuent104]

No. This is simply your hypothesis, but there is no evidence.

I feel like we must be somehow misunderstanding each other. The fact that the focal lengths are actually unique is evidence that part of the design philosophy was that the focal lengths would be unique. The debate about the MF numerology is a separate thing.

[lytrytyr]

DA Limited focal lengths, most of which (maybe except the 70mm) exist in 35mm for different brands.

The DA 70 is the equivalent of 105mm on FF,
which is about as traditional as you can get,
going right back to the 1958 Takumar.

[Akarak]

The DA 70 is the equivalent of 105mm on FF,
which is about as traditional as you can get,
going right back to the 1958 Takumar.

no it's not, because if you take a picture on the same subject on the same framing
on a digital SLR with the D70 and then pick up a film 35mm fullframe SLR and take the same picture with a 105mm lens, with the same framing, the final pictures wont' look the same.

saying something is equivalent because of the crop of view:
i don't believe it's right and it's one of the most misconceptions in the digital photography world.

There are far more important factors before the crop of field, i would say that crop of field is the last thing i look when i have a photograph in mind.

[lytrytyr]

saying something is equivalent because of the crop of view:
i don't believe it's right and it's one of the most misconceptions in the digital photography world.

"Equivalent" is not the same as "equal".
"Equivalent" in this context is used purely for comparing
the angle of view of different lenses on different formats.

So the 01 prime on a Q is "equivalent"
to the FA 31 Ltd on APS-C.
That is not saying that they are equal.

[haziz]

Focal length is focal length...

Cropping is cropping...

DOF (at base) is determined by physical aperture, magnification, and viewing distance...

So, I would postulate the relationship of the Limiteds to Medium Format is that they are lenses with inadequate image circle to be used with 120 film...

+1000!

Focal length is focal length is focal length! A 150 mm lens is the same whether the "sensor" behind it is an APSc digital sensor or an 8x10 sheet of film. Coverage and image circle may of course differ, and the 150 mm will be a telephoto on the APSc camera but a wide angle on your 8x10 camera, assuming it has sufficient coverage.

I actually do suggest going out with a large format camera and playing with one for a few days. It is a very instructive experience, and also great fun! I did shoot some film with my 8x10 a couple of weeks ago, maybe I should take it out next week.