[DSims]

They need a 135/1.8 again, then probably a 400.

15mm, 85mm and 200mm macro for me, all DFA*

These are all good ideas too.



They must bring back the FA*24 or a replacement, and it would be better to bring back the FA*85 (my favorite lens) rather than just relying on the FA77.

[Des]

bring back the 35/2 and the 28 2.8 (31 is not a substitute because of cost).

You know what the perfect focal length would be? A 28.

+1. I would settle for a 28 f2.4 in polycarbonate construction like the plastic fantastics, say for about $US250. If FF compatible, it would serve as a cheap wide for FF users who have blown the budget on the new camera and zoom lenses, as well as an affordable alternative to the FA 31 for APS-C users.

A 400 f/5.6 for me...

400mm f5.6 primes seem to have gone out of fashion. AFAIK only Canon still makes one. That's a pity. Why have to put a TC on a DA*300 to get the equivalent of 420mm f5.6 for birding if you can get a lens that already does it?

I am delighted with my Sigma 400 f5.6 tele macro. For me, it's the Goldilocks combination: long enough for significantly more reach than a 300, fast enough to be useful and lightweight enough (1.3kg) to be easily carried and easy to use handheld. Sure faster (f4) or longer (500mm) would be great, but it would be so much bigger, heavier and more expensive that it wouldn't interest me - e.g. Canon 400 f4 is 2kg and about $7k; Pentax DA 560 f5.6 is 3kg and $7k; Sigma 500 f4.5 is 3.1kg and about $5k.

[Outis]

+1. I would settle for a 28 f2.4 in polycarbonate construction like the plastic fantastics, say for about $US250. If FF compatible, it would serve as a cheap wide for FF users who have blown the budget on the new camera and zoom lenses, as well as an affordable alternative to the FA 31 for APS-C users.

Oh, I was actually making a math joke-- a perfect number is one which is the sum of all of its factors. So, 28 is a perfect number because 28 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14.

But 28 is a little wider than 31, which is a very useful focal length, so I imagine that you're right, a 28mm f/2.4 would actually be pretty great.

[Des]

Oh, I was actually making a math joke

Nice line - sorry it was wasted on me.

At least I got @savoche's joke about primes.

It must drive you mathematicians nuts that the FA 77 isn't a 79, to go with 31 and 43.

---------- Post added 04-24-15 at 02:40 PM ----------

But I reckon 42 would be the answer for everything.

Deep Thought got it wrong. The answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything is 31, 43 and 77.

---

Last edited by Des; 04-23-2015 at 09:41 PM.

[bassek]

Deep Thought got it wrong. The answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything is 31, 43 and 77.

This thread is getting better and better. I have to check it every morning.

Seb

[hoopsontoast]

A compact D-FA 85mm f1.8 (inspired by the K85).

[lytrytyr]

Oh, I was actually making a math joke-- a perfect number is one which is the sum of all of its factors. So, 28 is a perfect number because 28 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 7 + 14.

But a 24 would be practical:

Practical number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[redcat]

A compact D-FA 85mm f1.8 (inspired by the K85).

yeah, make a cheap&reliable 85mm 1.8 as Canikon would be very very useful !

[kenny47]

But a 24 would be practical:

Practical number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But a 24 would be practical

Well, 28 is both practical and perfect.

Deep Thought got it wrong. The answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything is 31, 43 and 77.

Maybe Pentax got it wrong (I know, no way that could happen) and 43 was meant to be 42?

[TER-OR]

With the FF camera on the horizon, a 150mm to 200mm range macro would make a lot of sense. I use the 100mm on a K5 for field macro and a FF would get benefit from a WR long macro. I know there were 180mm macros in the past, just modernize that range - maybe fast motorized focus if the algorithm is fairly predictive.

[yorik]

It must drive you mathematicians nuts that the FA 77 isn't a 79, to go with 31 and 43...

Humor aside (for a moment), I read somewhere that 7 is considered very lucky in Japan and having a 77mm FL was in part due to this... The digits of the 43 add up to 7 and 31 is (3+1)*7 + 3*1.

There you go.

[emalvick]

Well, 28 is both practical and perfect.



Maybe Pentax got it wrong (I know, no way that could happen) and 43 was meant to be 42?

Of course they got it wrong. They didn't want to wait for the program to complete... we all know how that ended up for Earth.

[MadMathMind]

Nice line - sorry it was wasted on me.

At least I got @savoche's joke about primes.

It must drive you mathematicians nuts that the FA 77 isn't a 79, to go with 31 and 43.

If the lens weren't so awesome, I would boycott it on this principle.

[rallekh]

Some fast primes with silent motors...

[kenny47]

Of course they got it wrong. They didn't want to wait for the program to complete... we all know how that ended up for Earth.

Or..Pentax is planning new 17mm FA limited..in which case the average focal length of the four amigos would be 42. Anyway, from now on, I vote for 17:-)