How difficult would it be to produce an FF upgrade to the DA* 50-135?

HarisF1 · 02-10-2017, 04:15 AM

The 50-135mm is probably my favorite ever APS-C lens due to it having a useful range as well as excellent image quality. I know the 70-200 lens is full frame and again has amazing quality but I think that an FF version of the DA* lens would be great. It would be much lighter than the DFA lens as well as having what is probably a more useful walkaround range (maybe a small upgrade to the long end to 150mm would be useful too). Something in between the 24-70 and 70-200 would be really cool.

So how difficult can it be? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

eddie1960 · 02-10-2017, 04:34 AM

Effectively the 70-200 is the ff version from a fov perspective but it can achieve shallower dof, so maybe a 70-200 f4 would be the real replacement light some dof and fov characteristics

Sandy Hancock · 02-10-2017, 04:38 AM

The current DFA28-105 covers quite a bit of that range, and I suspect a more compact, f/4.0 full frame telezoom (70-210ish) is on the medium term roadmap.

Let the DA*50-135 shine in the crop ecosystem.

Imp · 02-10-2017, 04:41 AM

How about updating the DA* lineup, metal bodies, newest autofocus, HD, completely new optical design for the 16-50 2.8...

D1N0 · 02-10-2017, 04:42 AM

The 50-135 suffers from square vignetting a 50mm which is virtually gone at 135mm. It seems like Pentax just needs to remove something form inside the lens that is causing the square to make it usable on full frame.

From this site; DA- lenses on K-1 - www.pentax-slr.com

GeneV · 02-10-2017, 05:16 AM

That shot and site are very interesting. The other half of the question whether the image under the dark frame is acceptable. As the site suggests, the frame itself just cuts the image down to a 70mm FOV-not too bad.

Sandy Hancock · 02-10-2017, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by D1N0

The 50-135 suffers from square vignetting a 50mm which is virtually gone at 135mm. It seems like Pentax just needs to remove something form inside the lens that is causing the square to make it usable on full frame.

That is what a petal hood looks like. Take shots with the hood off if you want to convince yourself that the DA50-135 might work as a FF lens (which you can't, because it doesn't - at any focal length or distance).

photoptimist · 02-10-2017, 07:54 AM

Except for the K-mount ring and the aperture iris, almost every part of the DFA 50-135 would be entirely new and redesigned from the ground up. For all but the longest focal lengths, designing a lens for a larger sensor requires larger glass elements and usually more elements (to correct aberrations in the corners) than the crop-sensor design. A DFA 50-135 would be larger and longer than the old DA 50-135.

pathdoc · 02-10-2017, 07:55 AM

It certainly seems from that image to work as a lens requiring only a minor crop in post. Which if that's your thing is easy enough to do.

It is SO tempting to forego the K-1 and get the 50-135 and a KP for my kids' dance recitals. The fast lens (with what I've found in my locale is the ideal focal length range), coupled with the astounding improvements in high-ISO quality over the K-5, would make it a natural. But my film-era glass cries out for a full-frame sensor, and I think rightly so.

stevebrot · 02-10-2017, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by HarisF1

How difficult would it be to produce an FF upgrade to the DA* 50-135?

As difficult as designing and tooling a completely new lens, since that is what it would require; assuming, of course there is a market for a zoom in that range. Traditionally, the shorter range tele zoom would be 70-150mm. I have been shooting a close-focus 70-150/4 since 1982 and have found that zoom range to be very appropriate for many subjects with the 24x36 format. My lens is quite compact and I would expect that a modern AF zoom could be built to similar dimensions allowing some bulk for AF motors. F/2.8 would push the size to something similar to the current DA* 50-135.

Steve

normhead · 02-10-2017, 07:59 AM

I still have my F-70-210. 4.5-5.6.

**shardulm** · 02-10-2017, 08:13 AM - **1 Like**

To answer the original question.. it is not hard at all. And they already built one.. The D-FA 70-200/f2.8 with a better motor and AF speed than the temperamental motor and AF on DA*50-135/f2.8. Have both and can't part with either. The beauty of equivalence .. and the portability of 50-135 is unbeatable and makes me keep it for my APS-C system for good.

Simen1 · 02-10-2017, 11:57 AM

I'm not sure I understand the first post correctly. Do HarisF1 mean:
- Same FOV or same focal lengths?
- Same DOF or same aperture?

HarisF1 · 02-10-2017, 12:35 PM

Same FoV would mean getting a 70-200 which is already out.

Same DoF would mean f/4.

These two wouldn't be so bad - I'd probably lean towards the 50-150mm focal length even with an f/4 aperture (which is equivalent to the f/2.8 on the DA*). It would be a bit wider than the DA* but that's something that would suit the walkaround lens style.

Simen1 · 02-10-2017, 02:06 PM

I prefer wider for a walkaround lens, and don't mind variable aperture, but WR is important too mee, so in my case I like the D-FA 28-105 f/3,5-5,6 WR.

I think the 50-150 range are more useful for portraiture. A versatile portraiture lens for studio, weddings and such. With flashes I don't think f/2,8 are necessary. f/4 should be enough. I dont mind a little corner softness or vignetting on a lens like that, so It don't need to be D-FA* quality, size and price.

02-10-2017, 04:15 AM	#1
HarisF1 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 543	*How difficult would it be to produce an FF upgrade to the DA 50-135?** The 50-135mm is probably my favorite ever APS-C lens due to it having a useful range as well as excellent image quality. I know the 70-200 lens is full frame and again has amazing quality but I think that an FF version of the DA* lens would be great. It would be much lighter than the DFA lens as well as having what is probably a more useful walkaround range (maybe a small upgrade to the long end to 150mm would be useful too). Something in between the 24-70 and 70-200 would be really cool. So how difficult can it be? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

02-10-2017, 04:42 AM	#5
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	The 50-135 suffers from square vignetting a 50mm which is virtually gone at 135mm. It seems like Pentax just needs to remove something form inside the lens that is causing the square to make it usable on full frame. From this site; DA- lenses on K-1 - www.pentax-slr.com Last edited by D1N0; 02-10-2017 at 05:01 AM.

02-10-2017, 07:55 AM	#10
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by HarisF1 How difficult would it be to produce an FF upgrade to the DA* 50-135? As difficult as designing and tooling a completely new lens, since that is what it would require; assuming, of course there is a market for a zoom in that range. Traditionally, the shorter range tele zoom would be 70-150mm. I have been shooting a close-focus 70-150/4 since 1982 and have found that zoom range to be very appropriate for many subjects with the 24x36 format. My lens is quite compact and I would expect that a modern AF zoom could be built to similar dimensions allowing some bulk for AF motors. F/2.8 would push the size to something similar to the current DA* 50-135. Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 02-10-2017 at 08:23 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
k 135 f2,5. It's worth the money (waiting for FF to come)?	bm75	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	05-31-2016 03:03 PM
What would you expect the future FF wide angle prime to be roughly?	Conqueror	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	03-22-2016 10:55 PM
It's Good to be FEARLESS! - The Heie DA* 16-50 Giveaway	Heie	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	198	02-24-2015 11:22 PM
Would an older Pentax DSLR be much of an upgrade?	DaveHolmes	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	16	08-31-2012 05:04 PM
Would I be crazy to sell my DA* 50-135 for a FA 77mm ?	Fred2726	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	25	05-26-2009 04:11 PM

02-10-2017, 04:34 AM	#2
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Effectively the 70-200 is the ff version from a fov perspective but it can achieve shallower dof, so maybe a 70-200 f4 would be the real replacement light some dof and fov characteristics

02-10-2017, 04:38 AM	#3
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	The current DFA28-105 covers quite a bit of that range, and I suspect a more compact, f/4.0 full frame telezoom (70-210ish) is on the medium term roadmap. Let the DA*50-135 shine in the crop ecosystem.

02-10-2017, 04:41 AM	#4
Imp Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Washington, DC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,749	How about updating the DA* lineup, metal bodies, newest autofocus, HD, completely new optical design for the 16-50 2.8...

02-10-2017, 05:16 AM	#6
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	That shot and site are very interesting. The other half of the question whether the image under the dark frame is acceptable. As the site suggests, the frame itself just cuts the image down to a 70mm FOV-not too bad.

02-10-2017, 05:20 AM	#7
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Originally posted by D1N0 The 50-135 suffers from square vignetting a 50mm which is virtually gone at 135mm. It seems like Pentax just needs to remove something form inside the lens that is causing the square to make it usable on full frame. That is what a petal hood looks like. Take shots with the hood off if you want to convince yourself that the DA50-135 might work as a FF lens (which you can't, because it doesn't - at any focal length or distance).

02-10-2017, 07:54 AM	#8
photoptimist Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2016 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,122	Except for the K-mount ring and the aperture iris, almost every part of the DFA 50-135 would be entirely new and redesigned from the ground up. For all but the longest focal lengths, designing a lens for a larger sensor requires larger glass elements and usually more elements (to correct aberrations in the corners) than the crop-sensor design. A DFA 50-135 would be larger and longer than the old DA 50-135.

02-10-2017, 07:55 AM	#9
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	It certainly seems from that image to work as a lens requiring only a minor crop in post. Which if that's your thing is easy enough to do. It is SO tempting to forego the K-1 and get the 50-135 and a KP for my kids' dance recitals. The fast lens (with what I've found in my locale is the ideal focal length range), coupled with the astounding improvements in high-ISO quality over the K-5, would make it a natural. But my film-era glass cries out for a full-frame sensor, and I think rightly so.

02-10-2017, 07:59 AM	#11
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I still have my F-70-210. 4.5-5.6.

02-10-2017, 08:13 AM - 1 Like	#12
shardulm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Cumming, GA Posts: 793	To answer the original question.. it is not hard at all. And they already built one.. The D-FA 70-200/f2.8 with a better motor and AF speed than the temperamental motor and AF on DA*50-135/f2.8. Have both and can't part with either. The beauty of equivalence .. and the portability of 50-135 is unbeatable and makes me keep it for my APS-C system for good.

02-10-2017, 11:57 AM	#13
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	I'm not sure I understand the first post correctly. Do HarisF1 mean: - Same FOV or same focal lengths? - Same DOF or same aperture?

02-10-2017, 12:35 PM	#14
HarisF1 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 543 Original Poster	Same FoV would mean getting a 70-200 which is already out. Same DoF would mean f/4. These two wouldn't be so bad - I'd probably lean towards the 50-150mm focal length even with an f/4 aperture (which is equivalent to the f/2.8 on the DA). It would be a bit wider than the DA but that's something that would suit the walkaround lens style.

02-10-2017, 02:06 PM	#15
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	I prefer wider for a walkaround lens, and don't mind variable aperture, but WR is important too mee, so in my case I like the D-FA 28-105 f/3,5-5,6 WR. I think the 50-150 range are more useful for portraiture. A versatile portraiture lens for studio, weddings and such. With flashes I don't think f/2,8 are necessary. f/4 should be enough. I dont mind a little corner softness or vignetting on a lens like that, so It don't need to be D-FA* quality, size and price.