[Digitalis]

The Fujinon 56mm f/1.2 is physically bigger than the SMCP-K 50mm f/1.2 - and the Fujinon focuses by wire which is a characteristic that is irksome to me, the Canon 85mm f/1.2L focuses by wire as well and it cannot compete against a well oiled helicoid.

[DSims]

Yes. That's really annoying... Even Fuji now has several notable fast prime lens...

I agree - it really stinks!

---------- Post added 03-04-14 at 11:16 PM ----------

The Fujinon 56mm f/1.2 is physically bigger than the SMCP-K 50mm f/1.2 - and the Fujinon focuses by wire which is a characteristic that is irksome to me, the Canon 85mm f/1.2L focuses by wire as well and it cannot compete against a well oiled helicoid.

I have the K50/1.2 myself, and it's a nice lens (in fact I used it this evening). But Pentax hasn't made one for years - it would be nice to have something current here.


Of course the DA*55/1.4 is a very good lens, so they may have other priorities right now.

[pinholecam]

The Sigma 18-35/1.8 is a good choice for those who like fast zooms no matter the cost in monetary and encumbrance.
Also not considering bokeh, flare resistance, need for heavier tripod setup for stability.
There is no free lunch here to me.

With a selection of primes, they are smaller and I can mix and match for my needs.
DA15; DA21; DA35; DA50 for example, works out to be the size of one 18-35/1.8 and the lenses form a modular system than stores in various spaces in a bag.
Not take up one big area, leaving little space for other stuff.
Some trips, I can leave lenses at home (or in the safe of the hotel);
say a trip to the local market for street shots and I only need a 35mm.
Or a simple trip down to the local watering hole during a tour where I'd not want to be w/o a camera (so cam+35mm would do fine).


Furthermore, how often is a 18mm needed at f1.8 or even f2.8 for good IQ. (in general, of course there are niche applications like caving, but hope the lens does not get stuck in a crevice )
For Shallow DOF? - given the DOF of the focal length, its paying a lot for not much.


I think the second part of the OP, was that perhaps Pentax can make faster/smaller/cheaper primes for aps-c.
Generally, we would have to choose between 2 of the 3 (fast/small <> cheap; cheap/small <>not fast; etc)
It can be done, but I'm not sure if its going to be a priority if Pentax has a FF in the works.
A Pentax FF immediately leap frogs Pentax above the Fuji offerings (as well as Canon and Nikon FF) being FF (vs Fuji); small FF lenses (FA ltd; FA; DFA is generally smaller vs any other makes ).

If Pentax is not interested in FF development, then they should focus on faster primes and zooms catered for aps-c. (some lenses like 24; faster 35; 85mm )
Not sure about them being cheap though...

[Nicolas06]

They're not surpassing Pentax here, because their lineup isn't big enough or complete enough. But if you look at the quality of the photos they produce, they're outstanding.


They have at least 3 lenses here that Pentax doesn't have an answer for (although they should): 14/2.8 (Pentax 14/2.8 can't compare in quality), 23/1.4 (Pentax needs to bring back a 24/2 at the least), and 56/1.2 (Pentax was the f/1.2 pioneer when they brought out the 50/1.2 - what happened?!!). So I don't blame anyone for wanting a Fuji if they like these focal lengths. In fact, I was looking a one just today - the new camera is nice and the whole system looks really good (although it lacks long lenses).

To be honest, to have the same size/weight adventage you need an ibrid system. Pentax can't compete on this, for the size of the system part versus Fuji for short focals (<50mm).

But of course for the quality, rendering & aperture, there is no reason to not compete.

I'am really not sure that the f/1.2 thing is a big argument to many, but at least a few fast, reasonably lightweight and priced lenses would really help. I really think that a 24mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 would sell very very well while not being especially difficult to design.

[DSims]

I really think that a 24mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 would sell very very well while not being especially difficult to design.

Pentax is kinda stuck here, perception-wise. If they create a (presumably "semi-budget priced") 85/1.8, then the FA77 will be casually perceived as not fast enough and/or too expensive.

[aurele]

Pentax is kinda stuck here, perception-wise. If they create a (presumably "semi-budget priced") 85/1.8, then the FA77 will be casually perceived as not fast enough and/or too expensive.

i agree, the FA 77 is expensive and creating even a 85/2 would probably steal sales from the 77.
Maybe it would be good for Pentax to "recreate" the FA limited line ?

[DSims]

i agree, the FA 77 is expensive and creating even a 85/2 would probably steal sales from the 77.
Maybe it would be good for Pentax to "recreate" the FA limited line ?

The problem is that the FA Ltd line is already very good, and it's continuing to generate good revenue. It's also probably the best thing they have going image-wise (that is, in how people perceive the quality of the Pentax system). Adding to the line might be a better idea!


Whether Ltd, *, or something else, I think what's needed is another 135/1.8 (or 135/2), plus a 24/2 (or faster) and a modern 14, 15 or 16mm lens (all of them FF capable). They should also probably bring back the FA28 (and maybe the FA20) as an excellent, lower cost lens.

[TER-OR]

I'd like to play with this Sigma 18-35, it could be really nice.

I have a Sigma 28mm f1.8 macro and find it's more useful at f1.8 in dark indoor situations than I would have expected. It's a very nice lens - though it is big with a 77mm filter diameter...

[Digitalis]

'd like to play with this Sigma 18-35, it could be really nice.

I used one on a students Canon 7D not long ago, she was using it at f/1.8 under reasonable lighting - but the AF wasn't correctly calibrated to the lens, and there was some focus shift as you change focal lengths with this lens which made calibration difficult.

[starjedi]

The problem is that the FA Ltd line is already very good, and it's continuing to generate good revenue. It's also probably the best thing they have going image-wise (that is, in how people perceive the quality of the Pentax system). Adding to the line might be a better idea!


Whether Ltd, *, or something else, I think what's needed is another 135/1.8 (or 135/2), plus a 24/2 (or faster) and a modern 14, 15 or 16mm lens (all of them FF capable). They should also probably bring back the FA28 (and maybe the FA20) as an excellent, lower cost lens.

I do not think so. I have no doubt that FA 31 1.8 and FA 77 1.8 have very good reputation and are legendary lens. But they are expensive and CANNOT fully hold their positions on APS-C camera (eg FA31 1.8 is actually close to 50mm, a 50mm 1.8??? and FA77 1.8 is slightly longer for an indoor portrait on APS-C). I just mean FA 31 1.4 and FA 77 1.4 will actually shine at the current prices of FA31 1.8 and FA 77 1.8 level. And if at the same price range, the APS-C version of DA 31 1.2 and DA 77 1.2 with good optics will also shine...

At the same time, FA135/2 and FA*24/2 will of course be welcomed for FF camera body. But for APS-C lines, 135/2 and 24/2 do not hold their own values (the first is too long for portrait and too short for birds, 24/2 is a little bit of short for landscape).

[VoiceOfReason]

I do not think so. I have no doubt that FA 31 1.8 and FA 77 1.8 have very good reputation and are legendary lens. But they are expensive and CANNOT fully hold their positions on APS-C camera (eg FA31 1.8 is actually close to 50mm, a 50mm 1.8??? and FA77 1.8 is slightly longer for an indoor portrait on APS-C). I just mean FA 31 1.4 and FA 77 1.4 will actually shine at the current prices of FA31 1.8 and FA 77 1.8 level. And if at the same price range, the APS-C version of DA 31 1.2 and DA 77 1.2 with good optics will also shine...

At the same time, FA135/2 and FA*24/2 will of course be welcomed for FF camera body. But for APS-C lines, 135/2 and 24/2 do not hold their own values (the first is too long for portrait and too short for birds, 24/2 is a little bit of short for landscape).

They have a different FOV on APSC, but they are still 31mm and 77mm.

[northcoastgreg]

Even if Pentax released FF camera, they should seriously consider release fast but inexpensive APS-C lens (APS-C version 30F1.4, 55F1.2, 85F1.4 et al) . If they can control the prices below the current ridiculous high HD DA lens, there will be a really sale boost and benefits also our pentaxians... Not to mention fast APS-C zooms.... Fast with compactness, that's the place APS-C lens can win FF lens.

Pentax cannot produce fast inexpensive APS-C lenses and still make money. If Pentax thinks it's necessary to MSRP the DA* 16-50 at $1,500, why would they MSRP a faster standard zoom for less? The faster glass would be more expensive all the way down the line.

Fast lenses are primarily desired for DOF control and hand-hold shooting in low light. Given the DOF and low light advantages built-in to larger sensors, it makes more sense to build fast glass for FF system. It's a pricier system patronized by a deep pocket clientale who are more likely able to afford the expense of fast glass than the budget-minded shooters drawn to APS-C.

So in princple, pentax can easily make 21/1.8, 35/1.4 and 55/1.2 with slightly increase of weight and maintain at the same price range

That's making the assumption that Pentax can make fast SLR primes for the old K-Mount for the same cost that Fuji can make lenses for it's new mount mirrorless system. Keep in mind, Pentax has a different lens design philosophy than Fuji. Pentax is more old school. Their limited primes are mostly metal and built to last. I would guess that the Fuji lenses have more plastic in them, and their focus by wire designs suggest a limited life span. When the electronics in those lenses give out and the lenses are no longer supported, they'll become garbage fill material, as they will be utterly unusable. Even manual focus won't work with them once their focusing motors give out.

FF will gradually dominate even the consumer level DSLR market, (which is highly possible to occur in next 3-5 years

Not likely. A "budget" FF system is still quite a bit more expensive than a budget APS-C system.

[Digitalis]

their focus by wire designs suggest a limited life span. When the electronics in those lenses give out and the lenses are no longer supported, they'll become garbage fill material, as they will be utterly unusable. Even manual focus won't work with them once their focusing motors give out.

It would be difficult and time consuming but it should be possible to remove the optics and build a helicoid focusing system for defunct fujinon lenses. I have transplanted optics from lenses before, It is tricky but it can be done.

[starjedi]

They have a different FOV on APSC, but they are still 31mm and 77mm.

Yes. But for the same 31mm, the APS-C version can be made smaller or large aperture than FF version.

---------- Post added 03-06-14 at 09:08 PM ----------

Pentax cannot produce fast inexpensive APS-C lenses and still make money. If Pentax thinks it's necessary to MSRP the DA* 16-50 at $1,500, why would they MSRP a faster standard zoom for less? The faster glass would be more expensive all the way down the line.I

DA*16-50F2.8 is APS-C only, whose costs are much smaller than a FF-equivalent version. There is no magic here. APS-C sensor size is smaller than FF sensor. For the same pupil size, if only projected to APS-C sensor size, the density will be 2 times higher than FF. The truth is that Pentax lost a lot of excellet designers in recent several years due to structure change. For example, Jun Hirakawa , who designed many excellent lenses FA35/2 and FA43 and 77 Limited lenses, FA*24/2, FA*85/1.4, FA*80-200/2.8, as well as the DA14/2.8, DA40/2.8 Limited, DA*55/1.4, had been forced to leave Pentax and joined Tamron.

See: RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: The Very Different Fates of Two ex-AOC Top Optical Engineers

If Mr. Jun Hirakawa is still in Pentax and his goal is build to deliver APS-C lens, I am sure that he can design DA 35/1.2, DA 55/1.2 and DA 85/1.2 easily. The cost of those lens should be below $1000.

[Digitalis]

I am sure that he can design DA 35/1.2, DA 55/1.2 and DA 85/1.2 easily. The cost of those lens should be below $1000.

This is certainly possible however somewhat misguided. The restriction in the price of a lens, especially high end glass usually means some serious compromises have been made in the optical and physical construction of the lens. ED glass and Aspherical lenses are expensive to make and to be competitive with the optical qualities of other lenses of similar aperture Pentax will be driven to deliver quality matching or exceeding that of its competitors. So saying a high performance 50mm f/1.2 APS-C specific lens should be able to be built with a cost no greater than $1000 is completely missing the challenges and subtleties of optical engineering.