[lmd91343]

Never mind Pentax lenses. Tulip bulbs are where it's at. You heard it here first.

Someone reads history books!

[stevebrot]

The 43 ltd has been around since 1997 and the FA 31 has been in production unchanged since 2001.

Those dates only look old if you are under a certain age. The current model FA 50/1.4 is optically almost identical to a Super-Takumar 50/1.4 from the early 1960s. Optical design for primes was pretty much ironed out some time ago. What has changed is ease of precision manufacturing, improvements in coatings, changes in materials. There is nothing archaic or outdated about the current FA Limited lenses from an optical perspective and definitely none in regards to build. Addition of an in-lens focus motor might be nice, then they would not be a lens in the "Limited" tradition.


Steve

[stevebrot]

After the new ultrawide zoom is released and done with they'll focus on primes.

I would expect a refreshed D FA 50/1.4 along with a D FA 28/2.8, both with internal focus motor, at or near the release date for the new camera. There is a reason why those two focal lengths are so common as legacy lens stock. They are both incredibly useful for 35mm FF format photography. I would like a refreshed D FA 35/2 as well.


Steve

[stevebrot]

It's a great time to buy APS-C lenses in the marketplace for those who are sticking with it.

I would expect that Pentax APS-C camera sales will remain strong as will the lens sales to match. Given the difference in size/weight and the FOV advantage at the long end, my prediction is that enthusiasts and many pros will continue to shoot APS-C as their primary option for some time.

As case in point, the photographer for my daughter's wedding this last weekend was shooting Canon FF for the ceremony and the formal portraits. At the dimly-lit reception, however, she switched to APS-C and a pair of fast primes.


Steve

[Stavri]

I would expect that Pentax APS-C camera sales will remain strong as will the lens sales to match. Given the difference in size/weight and the FOV advantage at the long end, my prediction is that enthusiasts and many pros will continue to shoot APS-C as their primary option for some time.

As case in point, the photographer for my daughter's wedding this last weekend was shooting Canon FF for the ceremony and the formal portraits. At the dimly-lit reception, however, she switched to APS-C and a pair of fast primes.


Steve

I see you a fan of the long form journalistic writing.....

[stevebrot]

I see you a fan of the long form journalistic writing.....

Absolutely, my words are very, very good. The tweet version goes like this.

APS-C still good...light/compact w/reach #APS-Rules


Steve

[lytrytyr]

Addition of an in-lens focus motor might be nice, then they would not be a lens in the "Limited" tradition.

That particular "tradition" ceased when the DA 20-40 Ltd appeared.

[Stavri]

As i stated previously I'd be ok with Ricoh/Pentax not updating the FA ltds at all, they can keep introducing newer, faster primes, but keep the FA ltds unchanged, they're close to perfect anyways.

[monochrome]

Supposedly the last batch run of FA Limiteds was completed December, 2012, so technically they aren't 'in production.' The NIB FA77 I bought from B&H in October has a 'Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company' UPC sticker covering whatever had been printed on the box.

My belief is when the existing stock of each Limited runs out Ricoh will update the coatings. If they add a DC motor (and leave off the screwdrive gearing) why will they need an aperture ring? And if they do all that, will these lenses be FA Limiteds or D-FA Limiteds? Will an FA Limited become a colectible or will hundreds of spotess examples appear, box and papers included?

Anyone want a St. Patrick's Day Beanie Baby, tag untouched, in trade for a <00002xxx serial FA43? Mounted in a protective S&W UV filter box since new!!

[MadMathMind]

Should we buy a lot of FA limited in anticipation of the full frame release and resell them later with a profit?

Unless you have your own distribution channel, you won't make anything unless prices increase 20-30%--unless you can sell them all here. At the very least, PayPal takes 3%, so there's that. If you sell on eBay, final value fees eat up another 10%. By the time you get done with those two, a 15% profit means you make...0.05%. At a 20% price increase (profit), you make 4.4%. Still pretty cruddy. Amazon takes more, so that's out.

Of course, you probably won't get even a 10% profit here on the forums because buyers are too savvy. People here are unlikely to buy into the hype. Even if you can get 10%, Paypal fees reduce your profit to 6.7%, so it's not much. It's just not worth your time.

[Nicolas06]

For now, we have 4 lenses on the roadmap, all are zoom:

An APSC UWA, likely a 12-28 to replace the 12-24.
A large diameter DFA standard zoom, likely a 24-70 f/2.8
A DFA standard zoom that really look like a 28-105 looking at the road map. I guess this will be the kit lense provided with the FF.
And a DFA UWA.

No new prime are shown on the road map but the following DFA/FA primes are included as available:
FA ltd 31mm
FA 35
FA ltd 43mm
FA 50 f/1.4
DFA 50 macro WR
FA ltd 77mm
DFA 100 macro WR

To me it look obvious and logical that Pentax need zoom covering the most comon focals with zoom as this what is most practical for pros, what is most practical for many users and what allow for faster filling of the needed range. The only thing that would be really missing in term of zoom for me on the FF line-up if all the lenses on the road map are delivered is a affordable 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 that cover FF, would be quite better than the 55-300 but would target the 500-1000$ price range and under reasonable size/weight. This would be a huge success to me for both APSC and FF owners. It might predate the 60-250 f/4, but that's not bad if it compare nicely to it. SDM is a thing of the past anyway.

Of course we need new primes and updated primes too. We really need a 24mm DFA and 135mm DFA. Even if they already exist we really need update version of 35 & 50mm optimized for digital and covering FF officially as really both FA35 and FA50 show their age despite what many here say out of habit. DA35 & FA50 are really better lenses optically even just comparing the APSC frame circle. For example FA35 is soft on border compared to the DA and has more chromatic aberations. It may have better bokeh (to really check I never found that myself) but that maybe because they really release the DA35 with cost cutting measures. Just releasing DFA35 & DFA50 for maybe 300-400$ optimized for digital, circular blades and HD coating would be enough. Maybe also a metal mount. At some point we would need a 28mm likely and a portrait prime arround 85mm more affordable than FA77.

The FA ltd line for me is one of the last thing to update for many reasons. First it is already great by any standard. Theses lenses are sharp, render beautiflly, their color, micro constrast etc are really great. There no much need for update. Second if ltd make any sense for FF, they would need a DFA ltd longer than FA77 and a DFA ltd wider than FA31. That looks logical. If they could keep the FA ltd spirit to have a bit bigger ltd than DA and a bit wider apperture than DA ltd like something arround 100-135mm f/2 and 20-25mm f/2.8 that would look quite good.

[biz-engineer]

There is nothing archaic or outdated about the current FA Limited lenses from an optical perspective and definitely none in regards to build.

What's shocking to me, is when I use my M 50 1.7 from 1977, beside it's sensitivity to fare, aging coatings lack of AF, it is full metal, smooth focus ring, has aperture ring, and in terms of sharpness it outperforms some more recent lens versions sold at a higher price. The day I purchased the M 50 1.7, I realized that Pentax knows how to do better than their digital lenses, but probably don't do so because of cost limitations. When I see photos from the FA* 28-70 2.8, its amazing rendering, in comparison the 18-55, 18-50, 17-70, 18-135 look cheap.

[Nicolas06]

What's shocking to me, is when I use my M 50 1.7 from 1977, beside it's sensitivity to fare, aging coatings lack of AF, it is full metal, smooth focus ring, has aperture ring, and in terms of sharpness it outperforms some more recent lens versions sold at a higher price. The day I purchased the M 50 1.7, I realized that Pentax knows how to do better than their digital lenses, but probably don't do so because of cost limitations. When I see photos from the FA* 28-70 2.8, its amazing rendering, in comparison the 18-55, 18-50, 17-70, 18-135 look cheap.

Pentax doesn't do better because of size/weight constraint it put on lenses and cost. It enough to see what Leica does on some tiny lenses that beat FA31 easily that if you put the price you can have small/light and great quality. But then leica lenses I think of cost in the range of 4000-8000€ each.

As for M50 f/1.7 is good as sharp/constrasty when closed down and this is an easy formula mastered from a long time by all manufacturers. The downside it the large apperture performance that feature low constrast, lot of optical aberations and very average sharpness.

If you accept a huge and a bit expensive lense, you would gain a lot on performance at wide apperture with modern lenses like the sigma/samyang one. Big progress have been made in this area. You can how have at f/1.4 the performance the M50 had more at f/2.8 or f/4.

Would I buy one? No ! Too big, too huge. And well also expensive. Maybe not more than the M50 when it was new, but still a bit pricey. That not something I want in my bag.

I settled on FA77 for portraiture that by all mean render beautifully and that for me perform better overall than the old fast 50s designs. It keep the low profile weight/size in the bad through and the build quality. For an equivalent of 50mm FF on APSC, I choosed the DA35mm f/2.8. I know the bokeh is more dull than the M50, but the sharpness/colors/optical aberation control is by far on the DA35 side. So for sure it will not be for portraiture but for landscapes and macro, it would do its job.

The old fast 50s are globaly great but they are also far from perfect. The best one are likely the cheap one like your M50 or the DA50 f/1.8 because you get a lot for a fair price. I would not want to spend much on such kind of lense now as better alternative exist even throug it kind of happened to me with FA50 f/1.4 and I was kind of displeased with it overall. Does not justify the price towar your M or the DA50.

[Stavri]

We really need a 135mm DFA.

I thought you just bought an -F 135mm f2.8 lens....

Seriously though, can you imagine the little -F 135 all metal, with round blades and modern coating, how good would that lens be. I'm all for updating every prime F/FA/FA* except the Ltds....
I'm personally not a big fan of the "one eye in focus" portrait photography that the modern f1.4 lenses like the Sigma and Samyang can produce. I'm not saying you cannot achieve such effects with older glass ( heck my 45 yr old 8-element super takumar can match the EX 50mm f1.4 both in sharpness and aberration) I just don't see the point of a ultra sharp f1.4 lens (what am I to do with the rest of the aperture stops?)

[Nicolas06]

I thought you just bought an -F 135mm f2.8 lens....

Seriously though, can you imagine the little -F 135 all metal, with round blades and modern coating, how good would that lens be. I'm all for updating every prime F/FA/FA* except the Ltds....
I'm personally not a big fan of the "one eye in focus" portrait photography that the modern f1.4 lenses like the Sigma and Samyang can produce. I'm not saying you cannot achive such effects with older glass heck my 30 yr old 8-element super takumar can match the EX 50mm f1.4 both in sharpness and aberration) but I just don't see the point of a ultra sharp f1.4 lens (what am I to do with the rest of the aperture stops?)

Yeah for me the ltd should be last and I think the F135 would work just fine on the FF maybe except the chromatic aberations. But I had to get it used on ebay and this didn't give Pentax any money.

That do not concern me much for intended use in all honestly and there nothing better anyway in term of size/weight/price/sharpness compromize I could get. If there a great modern DFA135, it will be more like 800-1000€ while I paid mine 318€ shipping included.

But I mean FF wise, the longest tele prime we have is DFA100 macro... Not that long tele if you ask me APSC wise is equivalent of 66mm. Using all the time my 77 I pretty well know it is a bit short sometime. I feel like there would be a need for 135mm lense in the line up again

As for being sharp at f/1.4 I don't know honestly why even f/1.4 in the first place, in particular on FF, that not a big priority for me... I understand very large apperture do help isolate big subjects like a full body portrait or a small boat.

Look at the following shoot... Was FA77 at f/2.8. I tried at f/1.8 or f/2 I don't remember but prefered the better colors/rendering I go at f/2.8. But I wonder, what if one could isolate the boat with lot of background blur and keep highly constrasty and colorfull shoot ? I think that could be fun...




And well if you want 1 eye in focus, I'am not after that I all but when I see such shoot, I tend to prefer them if the thing in focus is really sharp/colorfull/crispy. It help the effect.

But me ? Buying a huge/heavy f/1.4 lense ? Not at all what I'am after. Quite unlikely for now. If I need wide appertures this would have to be with FA77 f/1.8