[Kunzite]

I don't think there are any savings in reusing the old FA lens designs, compared to developing new optics - for new barrels & lens mechanics. Actually I remember a Pentax official, some time ago, making exactly this claim.
And do we really want Pentax to launch 19xx lenses in 2017-18? Lenses with optics designed after different criteria, for a different medium? I know I don't.

By the way, the D FA* 70-200 is a modern design - there's a recent patent for it, discussed on another thread, and dubbed "100-300 f/4 patent". It's a very ambitious design, with quite a lot special glass elements. The D FA 150-450 is also a new, modern design. Even the D FA 28-105 is a new design, search for the "35-80 f/4 patent".

[ogl]

I"m waiting for absolutely new DFA lenses, not copies of old lenses.

[gofour3]

Particularly the soft outer body finish is a disgrace...

+1

I'd take an A* over a FA* any day.

Phil.

[Zygonyx]

I"m waiting for absolutely new DFA lenses, not copies of old lenses.

+1
For two reasons that have no relation with optical quality :
- i own all FA*s that interest me
- reusing former optical formulas would once more draw attention and critics on Ricoh's "low profile R&D" that has already done damage to K-1 Tamron originating DFA's efforts

[bilybianca]

I'm on a quagmire writing anything on this subject, as my knowledge is very far from that of an engineer, but I also think that the old designs actually are a bit obsolete. I use, with uttermost delight, vintage lenses like the A* 85mm, the A* 200mm and the F* 300mm with my K-1. But simply putting new coatings, weather sealing and in-lens AF motors on these isn't either as easy or as cheap as it might seem.
What I'm eagerly waiting for, is an affordable, standard D-FA zoom with f4 aperture, like type 28-90mm for everyday casual use.
And then some high-end prime lenses, D-FA* from 35 to 300mm, and of course a new D-FA* 200mm Macro. Lenses you can save up money for, and buy one by one when your partner (wife or husband) is looking in an other direction.
Some old lenses are fantastic, but nevertheless old. You can't see what's in front of you, if you keep looking back.

Kjell

[shardulm]

I'm on a quagmire writing anything on this subject, as my knowledge is very far from that of an engineer, but I also think that the old designs actually are a bit obsolete. I use, with uttermost delight, vintage lenses like the A* 85mm, the A* 200mm and the F* 300mm with my K-1. But simply putting new coatings, weather sealing and in-lens AF motors on these isn't either as easy or as cheap as it might seem.
What I'm eagerly waiting for, is an affordable, standard D-FA zoom with f4 aperture, like type 28-90mm for everyday casual use.
And then some high-end prime lenses, D-FA* from 35 to 300mm, and of course a new D-FA* 200mm Macro. Lenses you can save up money for, and buy one by one when your partner (wife or husband) is looking in an other direction.
Some old lenses are fantastic, but nevertheless old. You can't see what's in front of you, if you keep looking back.

Very well laid out thoughts...
But I wonder if the law of physics has changed and that the optical formula has gone obsolete.
Materials yes .. they may have become obsolete. And the newer manufacturing processes have vastly improved alongside better quality glass. But we will still end up making 24-70s and 70-200s and 50s and 300s and a bunch of primes and so on and so forth. Don't think the formula changes.. The design/dimensions of the parts may need adjustments but its still needs to produce the same FOV at the end of the day in a much better package.

[normhead]

Don't think so. Different compromises and demand on modern lenses. Pixelpeeping, corner to corner sharpness and less aberations. In addition, another AF mechanisms is mandatory, something that mean different mechanics and lens groups. It is probably better to start on scratch....

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/312892-your...mm-images.html

Lens number 5, the Supertack received the highest number of votes 27, with 33% of the vote.
The more modern edge to edge sharp DA 35 2.4 came in third with 23% votes

In second place with 25% of the vote, the Tamron 17-50, not even a prime. the take ways here are, the Super Takamur 35, 3.5 is still the most popular deign.

A full 75% of the vote did not prefer the modern edge to edge "killer" lens.

This is not the absolute authority on these lenses and this is not the best absolute test. But it does suggest that those old designs could still have some life to them. At least if we're thinking of bringing back the Supertack 35mm ƒ3.5, and probably quite a few more.

So in tis case, looking at the Supertak and the DA 35, is it the modern design or the new design Pentax should go forward with?

---

Last edited by normhead; 08-13-2016 at 04:19 AM.

[monochrome]

So in tis case, looking at the Supertak and the DA 35, is it the modern design or the new design Pentax should go forward with?

Put a DC motor and electronics in a K35/3.5. That oughta do the trick

There is the issue of in-lens autofocus motors pushing all that glass around. As soon as the special glass elements cause a prime lens to deliver anything less than instanteous AF response a whole host of people will criticize Pentax for their poor AF. That lends itself to replacing glass with at least some molded plastic elements; changing the properties of the material requires changes to the optical formula; and we're right back where we started.

You have to design lenses the current generation of reviewers will review favorably and the current generation of buyers will buy with appetite.

[Driline]

Same here. I am thrilled with the photos I am getting from my K-1 and: FA*24, 85, 28-70, 80-200 F*300

So what do you think of the F*300 on the K-1? Do you have any photo's? On my K-3 it's fantastic. It's like an FA 31 only in 300mm.

[BrianR]

I don't think so. I'd love to pick up a copy of the FA* 200 f/4 Macro, but it's hardly ever for sale. Its A equivalent just popped up on eBay for $3,300.

I think that if Pentax were to resume producing that specific lens, they'd do quite well, if everything that's written about that lens is even partly true...

I'll write "DFA* 200 f/4 Macro fund" on the side of my change jar they day they announce it.

[noelpolar]

They are like my dental technician. No matter what I do, it isn't good enough for her.

I just play hard to get with mine..... give her the cold shoulder for a couple of years from time to time... you know........"if you'd been a bit gentler with me last time I might not have waited to the next leap year to come see ya.... bought some lenses instead.... nah nah (as I whistle through my missing teeth)"

Note..... Olympic years are gods gift for scheduling those hard to remember things as you get older....

---------- Post added 13-08-16 at 01:48 PM ----------

So what do you think of the F*300 on the K-1? Do you have any photo's? On my K-3 it's fantastic. It's like an FA 31 only in 300mm.

It's like you just met her for the first time all over again....... only better. Just do it..... ya know ya gunna....there's only so many heartbeats to the big flat battery.

[ogl]

I have any no interest to well-known pictures of old lenses, I want to shoot with lenses with NEW optical quality - new contrast, new optical design, new BOKEH.

I want to see my new photos with new nuances. I'm BOKEH lover and I need new bokeh-machines

Pay attention - from engineering point of view it's better and simpler for designer to produce new optical design with new aperture blades for new 36+ (42, 50 and higher) MP FF cameras from "clean sheet of paper" than to adapt old design to new condition.

Don't be attached to the past.

[Wild Mark]

Don't be attached to the past.

No one is attached to the past. Some, including me, are saying there is senseless distinction being made here i.e. 'old must be outdated or obsolete' - I don't subscribe to that theory and in saying taht I certainly do not begrudge the nuance of more modern designs for persons such as yourself.

It just seems a pointless discussion. Use what you are interested in and do your best! I for one am having a great time with the older glass and do not feel left out.

[Nicolas06]

* designation mean huge/heavy and expensive. That doesn't look that good to me. I'd prefer light/small and cheap all else being equal.

Joke aside, there basically 3 type of lenses to get for both primes and zooms:
- cheap affordable like the kit lens or plastic wonder primes
- small light high quality limited primes and why not zooms.
- huge heavy behemoh with very larg apperture extremely expensive primes and zoom of the * designation.

The one group I am the least interrested in is that last group and * designation or not all the lenses we got recently match that except the 28-105. We got the 15-30, 24-70, 70-200 and 150-450...

I guess we can't avoid getting a few more lenses like that but honestly FA/DA limited showed that heavier/bigger doesn't mean necessarily better or more practical. I'll take an FA77 everyday over an FA*85 for weight and size alone.

[pres589]

I'm surprised there isn't more push for a D-FA WR version of the FA 20 now that the K-1 is out. Not that it's a star or Limited lens, but it seems like there's some K-1 owners that like it.