[Fogel70]

I do not need any new 50mm primes, so I see no reason to buy it. It will be too big and heavy for it to be useful to ne. If I would buy a new 50mm lens it would be DA50 or DA*55. My main system in APS-C so 50mm not the most intereting lens for me. My secondary system is mirroless FF, but it is mainly for use with vintage MF glass.

DFA50 will probably be one of the heaviest 50mm primes on the market with a weight of close to 1000g. Right now manufacturers seem to compete on creating the fattest lenses on the planet. I beleve Ziess Otus 55mm is the heavy weight champion right now in normal prime class with over 1000g, with Sony and Sigma 50mm behind with 800g.

There are other even heavier lenses like Xeen 50, but it is designed for cinema so I don't think it fair to have it competing in the same class as lenses designed for still photography.

With the DFA 70-200 Pentax have already shown they can create really fat glass.

[Kunzite]

Actually on the News thread we have a leak (hopefully it is a leak) claiming it will weight 830g - 15 more than the Sigma. It also has a smaller diameter than the Sigma (and filter thread).
DFA*50 1.4 coming - Page 157 - PentaxForums.com
(the Japanese text posted first by OoKU)

[Fogel70]

Ok so, then it will be the heaviest AF 50/1.4 lens on the market.

Pentax - 830g (DFA*)
Sigma - 815g
Sony - 787g (E-mount)
Samyang - 585g (E-mount)
Canon - 580g (50/1.2)
Nikon - 290g
Pentax - 220g (old FA)
Sony - 220g (A-mount)

[Rondec]

Ok so, then it will be the heaviest AF 50/1.4 lens on the market.

Pentax - 830g (DFA*)
Sigma - 815g
Sony - 787g (E-mount)
Samyang - 585g (E-mount)
Canon - 580g (50/1.2)
Nikon - 290g
Pentax - 220g (old FA)
Sony - 220g (A-mount)

I think this is supposed to be in the competition with lenses like the Zeiss Milvus which is 922 grams and is raved about. A lot of 50mm lenses are very old designs and nothing to write home about. The hope would be that this is a top end lens that actually attracts new photographers (read Milvus level quality with auto focus).

[Kunzite]

@Fogel70 :
The Leica SL 50mm f/1.4 is over a kg.

You should only include top lenses there, as that's the category this D FA* plays in.

[Rondec]

@Fogel70 :
The Leica SL 50mm f/1.4 is over a kg.

You should only include top lenses there, as that's the category this D FA* plays in.

Right. The newer Sony, the Sigma, and the Zeiss Milvus are all pretty decently sized lenses with a focus being on wide open performance. Clearly not everyone will need that sort of performance or can afford its cost, but I still don't see why people are upset over Pentax going all out to create top end designs. I would far rather that than see them only releasing prosumer zooms.

And yes, I think they should release those types of lenses too. But you don't make much of a splash in the marketplace when you come out with the a new 70-300 variable aperture zoom, even if it is a nice lens and weather sealed. You do if you come out with a new top shelf prime.

I would just add that if you want small 50-ish mm lenses for the K-1, there are plenty of capable ones currently on the market including the FA 50, DA 50, DFA 50 macro, FA 43, and DA *55. Even the DA 40 is passable stopped down a bit. Small 50s is one segment that is pretty well filled out in k mount.

[Fogel70]

I think this is supposed to be in the competition with lenses like the Zeiss Milvus which is 922 grams and is raved about. A lot of 50mm lenses are very old designs and nothing to write home about. The hope would be that this is a top end lens that actually attracts new photographers (read Milvus level quality with auto focus).

I'm sure it is. But I think it is a misstake to start bulding up a lens system with extreme high end glass. This is a type of lens you can add to the system when you already have a full line of lenses.

It's not like any mass of users are going to switch to Pentax for one or two of these lenses. Not untill they see all their lenses they may need in the lens line up. And it's not many existing Pentax users that are going to buy a $1500-2000 50mm prime lens.

[Kunzite]

But you don't have a full line of lenses without those.

"Not many existing Pentax users are going to buy a $1500-2000"... 50mm prime lens, telezoom, camera, etc. Don't do it, Pentax! Stay forever at the low end of the market!

[normhead]

I think this is supposed to be in the competition with lenses like the Zeiss Milvus which is 922 grams and is raved about. A lot of 50mm lenses are very old designs and nothing to write home about. The hope would be that this is a top end lens that actually attracts new photographers (read Milvus level quality with auto focus).

That will be great if it actually is in competition with a Milvus, say within 200 lw/ph. .My concern is it might be close to Milvus price but not Milvus IQ.

After all, the DFA 70-200 is bigger and costlier than other manufacturers lenses, but no one says it's better optically. That's just wrong. If I'm going to pay more, in terms of purchase pride and carrying weight, I want better. This is the frustrating part. I've yet to see a comprehensive review that tells me the DFA 70-200 and other new lenses are in anyway notable lenses in more than their ability to bring in a higher profit margin.

I expect other companies to come out with product in some way superior to the competition when they bring out a new release. I'm not sure I'm willing to let Pentax off the hook, just because they release an average of 2 lenses a year and are usually playing catch up. For high end items I want them to jump ahead and let the others play catch up.

[Rondec]

I'm sure it is. But I think it is a misstake to start bulding up a lens system with extreme high end glass. This is a type of lens you can add to the system when you already have a full line of lenses.

It's not like any mass of users are going to switch to Pentax for one or two of these lenses. Not untill they see all their lenses they may need in the lens line up. And it's not many existing Pentax users that are going to buy a $1500-2000 50mm prime lens.

I have already said that the lens system has a lot of entry to mid level options. I know the FA limiteds have become passe, but they really still deliver excellent quality in a very small package. What is missing is not entry level primes (we have the DA 35, FA 35, DA 50) or even mid level primes (DA *55, FA limiteds, DA *200/300/ DFA 100 macro). What is missing is top notch high end glass (DFA *20/35/50/85). That and some smaller f4 zooms would really fill in the gaps pretty well.

I really expect the f4 zooms to drop with minimal fanfare. There just is no reason to talk up slower mid level zooms. On the other hand, top end gear really does get reviewed pretty heavily and gets quite a bit of buzz. That can be a good thing if it really does measure up and not so good if it features decentered lenses with poor image quality, but those are the lenses that folks talk about, not your DFA 28-105 lenses, even if they do have image quality that is way above their price tag.

[Fogel70]

But you don't have a full line of lenses without those.

"Not many existing Pentax users are going to buy a $1500-2000"... 50mm prime lens, telezoom, camera, etc. Don't do it, Pentax! Stay forever at the low end of the market!

Yeah it's much better to release a unicorn lens, than lenses users of the system are going to buy.
A new 50mm lens must be highest priority when there already are half a dozen 40-55mm prime lenses in lens line up.

So are $500-800 prime lenses low market now?

[Kunzite]

That's precisely what I said, but let me make it a little clearer: don't make the K-1, Pentax! Nobody would buy your 2000 euro camera!

What is desperately (IMHO) needed is the ring type SDM which can be introduced only in high end lenses. What is needed is regaining their reputation as a lens maker; I remember claims that Pentax could not possibly make high-end optics, unlike Sigma - let's not forget the endless claims that every new Pentax lens is a rebadged something. That's absurd, and must be put to an end.
And if high spenders looking at the K-mount system would rather have a high-end 50mm than the film era FA, who are we to say they're wrong?

---------- Post added 05-01-18 at 06:28 PM ----------

That will be great if it actually is in competition with a Milvus, say within 200 lw/ph. .My concern is it might be close to Milvus price but not Milvus IQ.

After all, the DFA 70-200 is bigger and costlier than other manufacturers lenses, but no one says it's better optically.

Let me challenge that claim. After a brief visit on B&H's website:
1. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Lens 100th Anniversary Edition - $3,999.95
2. Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM II Lens - $2,998.00
3. Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens - $2,598.00
4. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Lens - $2,796.95
5. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens - $2,096.95
6. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens - $1,899.00
7. Pentax HD PENTAX D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW Lens - $1,596.95

As for the other part - did anyone said, and presented proof that it's optically worse?

[Fogel70]

That's precisely what I said, but let me make it a little clearer: don't make the K-1, Pentax! Nobody would buy your 2000 euro camera!

What is desperately (IMHO) needed is the ring type SDM which can be introduced only in high end lenses. What is needed is regaining their reputation as a lens maker; I remember claims that Pentax could not possibly make high-end optics, unlike Sigma - let's not forget the endless claims that every new Pentax lens is a rebadged something. That's absurd, and must be put to an end.
And if high spenders looking at the K-mount system would rather have a high-end 50mm than the film era FA, who are we to say they're wrong?

So are you one of the 29 that has voted to buy this lens, or do you just want it for the satisfaction of proving some guys on the internet wrong?

[Kunzite]

What you're doing is presenting me with a false choice - with both alternatives being wrong, of course.

It's not even "29 that has voted to buy this lens". 29 people said "Yes, I plan to buy it either at release or soon after.".

[normhead]

That's precisely what I said, but let me make it a little clearer: don't make the K-1, Pentax! Nobody would buy your 2000 euro camera!

What is desperately (IMHO) needed is the ring type SDM which can be introduced only in high end lenses. What is needed is regaining their reputation as a lens maker; I remember claims that Pentax could not possibly make high-end optics, unlike Sigma - let's not forget the endless claims that every new Pentax lens is a rebadged something. That's absurd, and must be put to an end.
And if high spenders looking at the K-mount system would rather have a high-end 50mm than the film era FA, who are we to say they're wrong?

---------- Post added 05-01-18 at 06:28 PM ----------


Let me challenge that claim. After a brief visit on B&H's website:
1. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Lens 100th Anniversary Edition - $3,999.95
2. Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM II Lens - $2,998.00
3. Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens - $2,598.00
4. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Lens - $2,796.95
5. Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens - $2,096.95
6. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens - $1,899.00
7. Pentax HD PENTAX D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW Lens - $1,596.95

As for the other part - did anyone said, and presented proof that it's optically worse?

I have yet to see definite answer to that. I have noticed no one says it's better, when discussing the lens. And you quoted the discounted price. To bad you didn't do the undiscounted price of each lens, while you were at it. But hey, good to know, my apologies for not looking these up myself before posting.