[dcpropilot]

If the slow AF was resolved, this lens would be killer on the K-1. Drop a fast ring motor in this baby, call it the DFA* 55 1.4 and I would be very happy.

[pathdoc]

Also tweak the optics to make sure it covers the full frame and then some - some users' experiences suggest that it does not, and you also want to give the shake reduction system some leeway to move around in.

[Imp]

And the DA* 50-135... and DA* 16-50... and heck, the whole Da* lineup, why not. Give people confidence in your professional lenses once again.

[AtitG]

a refresh of the da* 24mm f/2 would be great for both FF and apsc shooters.

[MadMathMind]

Also tweak the optics to make sure it covers the full frame and then some - some users' experiences suggest that it does not, and you also want to give the shake reduction system some leeway to move around in.

I've not had a problem with it on the K-1. Maybe some vignetting at the corners at large apertures? It's not there at f/2.8 and all of it seems to come out with the camera profile.

a refresh of the da* 24mm f/2 would be great for both FF and apsc shooters.

It could really use it. The FA*24 is quirky and can do some cool things but man...those corners are mush below f/8 on FF. I find that it's really a f/10 lens. It does some really cool stuff at f/10 or even f/8. That's where those * optics seem to kick in.

[Madaboutpix]

And the DA* 50-135... and DA* 16-50... and heck, the whole Da* lineup, why not. Give people confidence in your professional lenses once again.

Indeed. Those chronically unreliable, fairly sluggish first-generation SDM motors being the chief reason that I have put my trust in the DA Limiteds and avoided the DA* offerings altogether till now. It's not the optics or rendering. It is that I can't justify shelling out serious money for stuff that is bound to die on me if I don't use it once a week, or even if I do. Absolute show-stopper in my book. Would sure love to add a revised DA* 200 or DA*300 to my kit, or a DA*55, if only I could trust them.

I rarely badmouth Pentax, God knows how much I love my Pentax gear, but this is one of the few things that really get me.

[Kunzite]

Wow. Was it really that bad?
My DA* 60-250 would disagree with such hearsay; it kept working for years, even with intermittent usage. It had to go to make room for the D FA 150-450, but I'll miss its compact size & low weight.

[Madaboutpix]

My DA* 60-250 would disagree with such hearsay; it kept working for years, even with intermittent usage.

Okay, there was an element of hyperbole in my rant. Statistically, failure rates were significantly lower, not all models affected to the same degree, and there were reports Ricoh had revised the motor design in 2012.

However, even since then I've read more user reports about erratic SDM behaviour or downright failures than I would have liked. Not exactly trust-inspiring if you're looking for solid investments, is it?

[Kunzite]

I didn't only read user reports, good friends of mine had their SDM motors failing on their 16-50s and 50-135s; I wouldn't touch an early 16-50 with a ten-foot pole. And - though I'm no expert - I believe that a SDM micromotor is consumer-level technology, not worthy of a * lens. Puny motor!
Hyperbole works if your goal is to make people stay away from such products. If you want them to take an informed decision regarding the risk, though... but then, no Pentax micromotor-SDM was launched after 2008, and alternatives are getting more numerous.

[pres589]

It's strange how the DC focusing motor on the 18-135 seems very reliable while the much more costly 16-50 isn't. The price that Pentax asks for the 16-50 seems absurd even before the SDM issues are considered. At least it can be converted to screw drive AF.

The DA* 55 seems very interesting to me. I'm not sure I can rationalize buying one at my skill level, and I make no money from my photography hobby, but if they pulled off the improvements asked for above I would put it on a short list of lenses to look into buying.

[Kunzite]

Well, the SDM micromotor was Pentax' first attempt at an in-lens AF motor (yes, I know, technically speaking that's not true as they had that ME-F experiment back in the 80s). I'm not sure Canon and Nikon got their first attempts right.
From this point of view there's nothing strange; they had the SDM experience and acted on it (apparently, deciding that SDM micromotors are not a good solution).

I'm not sure what improvements you'd want, but next year we should see a "large aperture standard single focus lens".

[pres589]

A more reliable focusing motor so I don't worry about my $600+ lens purchase going manual-only. That's my top request. I love the images I see from the DA* 55, I just don't like worrying about SDM failures on a lens that can't be converted to screw drive. Make it mimic the focusing capabilities of my 18-135.

[Imp]

I'm not sure Canon and Nikon got their first attempts right.

But they rectified their errors - Pentax still has the same DA* sdm motors.

[Kunzite]

Same? I'm not so sure about that.

[Just1MoreDave]

...The DA* 55 seems very interesting to me. I'm not sure I can rationalize buying one at my skill level, and I make no money from my photography hobby, but if they pulled off the improvements asked for above I would put it on a short list of lenses to look into buying.

It is one of those lenses that you can pick out photos from even in a screen full of thumbnails.

One question is, what is the price after update.

They are not terribly expensive in the marketplace, maybe because of SDM. It doesn't have the screwdrive hardware so there's no quick conversion fix. My logic is that it's similar to the A50/1.2: focal length is close, depth of field at max aperture is nearly identical, 9 blades. If the SDM fails they are both manual focus. Weather sealing is a bonus. Anyway, A50/1.2s run about $500 give or take. A DA*55/1.4 should be close to that.

Mine takes about as long to wake up as my 15 year old one-eyed arthritic Chihuahua. And the AF is about as zippy. But it's still a great lens.