[GodsPetMonkey]

Do you think it's going to be built like a FA Limited lens or the infinitely less popular FA 50mm plastic?

If they did a 24mm f1.4 or f1.8 that would be great. Same thing for a 20mm f1.4 or f1.8.... I would hope we would have 4 or 5 amigos and not just three.

I don't see Ricoh prioritising DFA Limited lenses at this point - Pentax needs a solid base of mass-market appeal lenses, and what gets the rave reviews and marketing appeal these days is sharpness. They have the 3 FA Limiteds already, and I don't see them being dropped any time soon, but I expect a few affordable DFA designed for digital era consumers, and some DFA* as flagship primes before the three amigos get some new stable mates.

In the meantime if you want a 4th amigo, the FA* 24mm was designed by Jun Hirakawa (albeit before the Limiteds). It obviously had a very different design brief, and lacks the characteristic Limited style build, but reviews suggest that it shows rendering not too far removed from Mr Hirakawa's later masterpieces.

There is a reason why the 28mm was a part of the classic kit and why the various K-mount 24mm lenses are fairly rare used. The 24mm focal length is a little too wide for general use. The relative rarity of 24mm and 20mm lenses used is the result of poor sales back-in-the-day.

A lot has changed since the high point of film, and one of those changes has been the venerable 28mm prime moving from being the wide angle lens to being that slightly weird, daggy uncle that never got the memo. 24mm now rules the roost, which isn't all bad, digital makes cropping trivial, so the appreciable, but not massive, difference between the FOV of a 28mm and 24mm can be quickly eliminated at little cost. 24mm also gives more room for indoor shooting, which thanks to variable ISO means having separate equipment (including lens) for indoor and landscape is now redundant. 28mm seems to have been relegated to older designs and the starting point for consumer zooms.

Another example of the shift it wide angle has been the rise of the UWA. For 135 film, <20mm was a real oddity, choices were limited and sightings were rare indeed. These days everyone is doing a 15mm (or thereabouts), and UWA are considered almost essential for landscapes. Pentax would have been rightly panned if they had kept a more traditional line up and hadn't released the DFA 15-30mm. Pentax would also have been panned if they had thrown resources at such a lens in the 80s and even 90s.

In Pentax's case, the 28mm is also pretty close to the 31mm Limited in FOV, close enough that there isn't much benefit to be gained as far as the line up is concerned. A DFA* 24mm and DFA 20mm seems much more likely, with the 24mm aiming for sharpness + aperture, while the 20mm is targeting the extra width at a reasonable price. There probably isn't a business case for an even wider prime at this point, given there are a few holes at the other end of the spectrum (85mm, 135mm). That will change one day, but in the mean time we can all enjoy the wonderful Samyang 14mm.

[WPRESTO]

I'd like to see a compact wide of about 17~21mm, f4 to keep it compact, something similar to the discontinued Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 but with AF and notch up in IQ at edges and in the corners. Basically something with coverage, quality, and compactness akin to the DA 15mm, but with FF coverage.

[TwoUptons]

I think a 24mm f2.5 or f2.8 plastic fantastic would be appreciated, to go with the 35 an 50. People seem to have shifted wider than at the peak of film popularity.

But a DFA limited would also be cool, but being Pentax it would be a weird focal length and aperture... 22 mm f2.2 or 19mm f3.1, something like that...

-Eric

[les3547]

The 24mm movement grows!

[interested_observer]

f4 and even f2.8 has been plenty fast and just fine for me in just about every situation - other than one.

• Astro - Astro is a constant battle between a wide open aperture and ISO - especially for wide field astrolandscaping, the Milky Way shots. You want the widest possible aperture in order to collect as much light as possible, while needing the lowest possible ISO to hold down the noise. The ISO has been getting much better with the K5 and the follow on Sony sensors. That said, there is a fundamental threshold with the ISO that relates to the sensor. For Sony sensors, ISO 1600 is a point at which collection of light is essentially traded for artificial amplification of what has been collected. Yes, it appears that you get better images at ISO 3200, but that is really not from any additional light collection [see the link below]. Pentax also has AstroTracing, that does help. However, they have a (nearly fatal) flaw - the compass has a lot of error in it [anywhere from 2 or 3 degrees up to 15 degrees], that creates sufficient error that builds over time that creates star trails around the edges and corners - effectively killing off usability of about half the area of the frame. So, for a feature that Pentax touts that would actually help, it becomes an actual hindrance. Now to be fair, up to about 60 second exposures the error appears to be relatively controlled which tends to minimize the problem - while over 60 seconds the problem becomes very apparent pretty quickly. Going back to aperture for a minute, f1.8 is really very good. Obviously f1.4 would be better, but only about 28% better based on the actual physical area of the aperture letting the light in. It comes down to the question of what is that 28% actually worth. For a couple of hundred dollars, you can go out and get a tracking equatorial mount, that will solve the problem better with out the problems of the AstroTracer.

• https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/groups/135-astrophotography/4340-how-avoi...high-isos.html
• https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/328568-k-1-electron...s-problem.html

On a couple of other websites that I read, folks will bring up two other situations, that matter not to me...

• Night Club photography - They like wide angle (not necessarily ultra wide angle), with no flash.
• Concert photography - With the lighting and reasonably fast movements on the stage, no flash restrictions, you are left with either very high ISO (noise), large apertures or both (to varying degrees).

I don't know that Pentax really needs to pursue these areas of interest.

[stevebrot]

I can answer this in one word: astrophotography.

I still think f2 to f2.8 is ample for this photography.

What he said ^ ^ ^

The difference is one stop between f/1.4 and f/2. I understand that that is a huge difference when exposure times are long (2.5 minutes vs. 5 minutes), but the trade offs in terms of image quality at f/1.4 are significant.

Added: I was at the local farmers/craft market a few weeks ago and spent time in a photographer's booth where he had hung multiple large landscapes printed to aluminum (dye transfers actually). They were awesome and included a night shot of the milky way. It too was awesome except that all the stars away from center were oval and fuzzy compared to the center...optical aberrations. Except that I know it was shot with a Canon 5D III, I know nothing more but would wager that it was shot wide open with the EF 24/1.4 L II.


Steve

[stevebrot]

A lot has changed since the high point of film, and one of those changes has been the venerable 28mm prime moving from being the wide angle lens to being that slightly weird, daggy uncle that never got the memo. 24mm now rules the roost

Apparently you haven't gotten the word. The 35mm FF format (e.g. Pentax K-1) is the same size as 35mm film and the 28mm focal length that never fit in with APS-C is a very different tool when given a little breathing room. You may feel that 24mm "now rules the roost" and you are welcome to your opinion, but I will pit my 45+ years practical experience shooting 35mm format with a variety of lenses against that opinion. The 24mm focal length has its uses, but it was a niche market back in the day mostly because it is a tough fit to subject in much the same way as the DA 15/4 Limited on APS-C.

Perceived market need aside, if Pentax were to release both a 24/1.4 (or even 24/2.8) and 28/2.8 today at prices points appropriate to both lenses, sales would be 4:1 in favor of the 28/2.8.


Steve

[rodaballo]

I think that market logic will impel Ricoh-Pentax to develop a DFA HD 24mm f1.4 DC... and a DFA HD 35mm f1.4 DC too. If they want to become an alternative for professional photographers, as Kenspo seems to perceive, I think they will provide the tools that the two big brands already offer and therefore possible system migration is not that noticeable for professionals.

But... I also think that they must be preparing some surprise. I would love to see a new Pentax DFA HD 20mm f4 DC. Small, pancake, ultra-fast AF, coma-less, moderate-priced (joke), powerful green-blues, no CA's and extreme clarity micro-contrast.

[jatrax]

I think that market logic will impel Ricoh-Pentax to develop a DFA HD 24mm f1.4 DC... and a DFA HD 35mm f1.4 DC too.

What logic would that be exactly? Those are both rather exotic lenses, more suited to enthusiasts with time to experiment than to the professional market, IMHO. As already asked above I am curious what type of photography requires 24mm f/1.4? The only reply I've seen is wide scale astrophotography and even that is debatable.

My LBA is in remission right now so please let me know what is the reason I should start looking for a 24mm f/1.4?

[monochrome]

RE DFA updated Limiteds: Pentax would be insane to change those lenses even a tiny bit. The traditional Limiteds are in current production again after 3 years selling down inventory. I therefore think it unlikely Pentax will update them near term.

I fundamentally believe we will see 5-6 dedicated FF primes announced in the next 12 months, split between DFA* quality and affordable enthusiast lenses akin to the 28~105. I believe a derivant of the FA28/2.8 priced in the latter group is in the pipeline somewhere, updates to the FA50/1.4 and FA35/2 in DFA garb; and a DFA*24/2 and DFA*85/1.4.

I have no expectation we will see a large aperture ultrawide. They'd be fortunate to sell 1000 of them in a decade.

[GodsPetMonkey]

Apparently you haven't gotten the word. The 35mm FF format (e.g. Pentax K-1) is the same size as 35mm film and the 28mm focal length that never fit in with APS-C is a very different tool when given a little breathing room. You may feel that 24mm "now rules the roost" and you are welcome to your opinion, but I will pit my 45+ years practical experience shooting 35mm format with a variety of lenses against that opinion. The 24mm focal length has its uses, but it was a niche market back in the day mostly because it is a tough fit to subject in much the same way as the DA 15/4 Limited on APS-C.

Don't worry, I had noticed that Pentax has joined the digital FF world - but thanks for the assist. Thing is, my opinion is based on what is happening in the rest of the digital FF world - and 24mm really has taken over the space previous occupied by 28mm lenses. 24mm is the normal wide angle of the modern era - this isn't a Pentax thing, it isn't a me thing, it isn't a pretty-much-everyone-else-in-the-thread thing, it is a digital photography thing. By the same token we have seen the rise of the UWA, from a rare oddity in the film days to commonplace in digital.

Feel free to shoot like its 1979, there isn't exactly a lack of good 28mm legacy options if you find 24mm just a too wide for your tastes and too troublesome to crop. I suspect that Ricoh, however, will be basing their development choices on more business orientated reasoning, and in that the prevailing market trends (ie. looking at the existing players, the pragmatic approach) will rate far more than what worked 20+ years ago - this is exactly what would have driven them to prioritise the 'holy trinity' of f2.8 zooms, which was not exactly a hark back to the 135 film glory days.

From that business perspective there might be a case for refreshing the FA 28/2.8 as a quick, budget option to flesh out the lineup. But I don't think it is that simple. I suspect much, if not all, the production line machinery for the discontinued FA lenses is long destroyed, making the costs of gearing up a new run of these old lenses not much cheaper then making modern designs and putting them in production. That said, if a budget refresh was on the cards the FA 20-35mm would likely be the better choice for Ricoh. That the old FA lenses haven't returned en masse is probably for the best, the Pentax brand doesn't need to be panned as being 'outdated' by the usual sources, a legacy of the film era treading water to survive. Ricoh needs to establish Pentax as a brand of top-notch, modern optics that match the capabilities of the K-1.

By the by, neither 28mm or 24mm give a wide angle FOV on APS-C (by the technical definition 24mm winds up just on the normal side of the divide). But the same phenomenon which has gripped FF digital photography (wider going wider then was common in the film era) has also gripped the smaller format, with 18mm (the close equivalent of 28mm) being the domain of kit lenses and consumer super zooms. More 'serious' (read, expensive), higher end lenses come in at around 16mm (equivalent to 24mm). There is also a distinct lack of 18mm primes everywhere, every manufacturer seems to be pushing wider.

---------- Post added 09-10-16 at 11:39 PM ----------

What logic would that be exactly? Those are both rather exotic lenses, more suited to enthusiasts with time to experiment than to the professional market, IMHO. As already asked above I am curious what type of photography requires 24mm f/1.4? The only reply I've seen is wide scale astrophotography and even that is debatable.

The IQ gap between zooms and primes has narrowed considerably, lens engineers are cranking out ridiculously good designs for zooms and the phase 'bag of primes' is entering overused territory. With one of the major advantages of primes over zooms nearly eliminated, that leaves aperture, size, and for some, cost. So I can see the reasoning, a 24/1.4 is two stops faster than the DFA 15-30mm. That said, such a prime would be massive and expensive, and an extra stop over f2.0 would be an advantage in a pretty limited number of uses (in doors with natural light being the main one I can think of - contrary to popular belief, speed isn't everything for astrophotography).

f2.0 is probably the best we will get out of a DFA* wide angle prime as it'll allow size and cost to be kept reasonable - you are right that something faster is likely to be an exotic item with limited appeal, especially as any WA lens bought for landscape use will not be used wide open often. Better for Ricoh to invest their limited resources in new Pentax lenses that will sell.

On the point of astrophotography, super fast lenses tend to exhibit way too much aberration to be truly desirable - chroma and coma are killers in this art. Fast, wide lenses that don't have to be stopped down are a real rarity. Even of the current masters of this domain, the Samyang 24/1.4 and 14/2.8 you have to make sacrifices - in the case of the 24mm, it has noticeable coma on FF, which doesn't really come under control until you have moved past f2.8 (which means that extra few stops of aperture are wasted) - luckily it is not as problematic on APS-C, but then you lose a chunk of your FOV. For the 14/2.8, well, it is f2.8, 2 stops slower than a f1.4 lens anyway - for that you get pretty much the best coma handling out there, and minimal chromatic aberration as a bonus. I would hate to think what a 14/1.4 with similar optical quality would look like (or cost, for that matter), but given how good the 14/2.8 is for astrophotography there isn't much demand for a faster model anyway. For astrophotography a f2.8 wide angle lens is plenty fast, so long as it has an optical formulae that is up to snuff.

[stevebrot]

From that business perspective there might be a case for refreshing the FA 28/2.8 as a quick, budget option to flesh out the lineup. But I don't think it is that simple. I suspect much, if not all, the production line machinery for the discontinued FA lenses is long destroyed

Excellent observation. The cool part about 28s is that the design aspects are pretty well known. As has been observed often on this forum, it is pretty hard to build a bad 28mm. 24mm on the other hand was hard to make in 1991 (FA* 24/2 debut) and apparently not particularly easy now based on test results I have read for the $1000-$2000 f/1.4 offerings by Nikon and Canon. The Zeiss 25/2 is somewhat better, but not at that magic f/1.4 maximum aperture. Zeiss put their efforts into the Otus 28/1.4 instead ($$$$). Yeah, I know, dead 28mm focal length.

I know there is a strong opinion and desire among some users on this site to see a Pentax-branded FF 24mm f/1.4, but I wonder how many of those users are willing to pony up the $1500 to $2000 price of ownership. An even more telling question is how many current K-mount FF camera owners (film and digital) have purchased the Samyang 24/1.4 as an inexpensive stop-gap measure? There are a few (Gimbal shoots his on the K-1 with great results, Clackers too), but that lens his hardly a hotbed of discussion despite decent performance and bargain price point. Ditto for the Zeiss T* 25/2 ZS at just under $1000.

BTW...1979? I shoot much older and much newer than that. I only have four 28mm on my shelf at present and no (yes, zero) 24mm. Only one of the 28mms date to before 1983. As for 24mm, I have no use case despite doing mostly landscape and architecture work. Go figure. I have a 90mm for 4x5 large format (roughly 28m FOV). My field camera will accommodate a 60mm with reasonable movements, but the price to enter that space is prohibitively high for the limited use I would make of such a tool. Do we detect a trend

All that being said, it will be interesting to see what lenses Ricoh/Pentax actually delivers this winter. I doubt they will release an "Otus-buster" 28mm, but also suspect that a high-spec'ed 24mm is a year or so out. In the mean time there is always the Samyang

BTW...Gimbal posted a fairly impressive pixel shift image taken with his Samyang 24. Notice the crop dimensions.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/324925-pixel-shifted-image...ml#post3742688

Steve

[noelpolar]

But... I also think that they must be preparing some surprise. I would love to see a new Pentax DFA HD 20mm f4 DC. Small, pancake, ultra-fast AF, coma-less, moderate-priced (joke), powerful green-blues, no CA's and extreme clarity micro-contrast.

This may just happen.... it's what I wanted..... but assumed wouldn't happen so I bought a Voigtlander 20/3.5..., which I'm happy with and I reckon is about as good as a FF equiv of the DA15...... having purchased the Voigtlander I have tipped the cosmic balance back in favour of a Pentax 20/4 ish lens being released I believe!

[clackers]

I think that market logic will impel Ricoh-Pentax to develop a DFA HD 24mm f1.4 DC... and a DFA HD 35mm f1.4 DC too. If they want to become an alternative for professional photographers.

Most pros use f2.8 zooms for the bulk of their work, Rodaballo, particularly at those focal lengths.

In fact, you should actually look at Kenspo's work.

[rodaballo]

What logic would that be exactly? Those are both rather exotic lenses, more suited to enthusiasts with time to experiment than to the professional market, IMHO. As already asked above I am curious what type of photography requires 24mm f/1.4? The only reply I've seen is wide scale astrophotography and even that is debatable.

My LBA is in remission right now so please let me know what is the reason I should start looking for a 24mm f/1.4?

Most pros use f2.8 zooms for the bulk of their work, Rodaballo, particularly at those focal lengths.

In fact, you should actually look at Kenspo's work.

Thanks for these observations, jatrax and clackers. They seem actually precise. Usually pros rely on classic 24-70/70-200 zooms for their work so you may be right after all. What I mean with the "market logic" is that I think that Pentax might consider that as long as there is multiple choice around the 24mm in canon, nikkor and sigma, it is a very good idea that the brand offers no less than the competition. It is not that I believe that without an UWA f1.4 professional work is not possible at all. Actually I'm sure we've seen pretty good pro stuff with f2.8 lenses in aps-c cameras indeed. I also feel that current aesthetics are also obsessed with very thin DOF photography, and this is something very noticeable in wedding stuff (and somehow quite boring, too). Almost every wedding photographer that I know gives a high use of the Sigma 35/1.4 and some of them do also lust for the canon/nikkor/sigma 24/1.4. So yes, I think it's just a matter of offering the same glass already available for the two other big brands. But who knows... maybe I'm wrong and Pentax are thinking differently. Let's see what happens.