[pres589]

You missed what I intended to convey, that some folks that don't already own the FA 31 might want this lens more. I doubt there were a lot of FA 28 owners that also had FA 31's next to them in their kit.

My 18-135 is quite good at 28mm as well (as is yours). That doesn't mean I don't want a quality prime for added speed and reduced size/weight for certain times. In a couple weeks I've got a bar/bbq event coming up and my Sigma 28 1.8 is going with me, my 18-135 isn't, because I need to grab light. It loses the size/weight side of the equation but that's the cost of doing business with Sigma.

[DeadJohn]

I don't understand some of the comments here. Saying the 28 is too close to the 31... was that an issue when the FA 28 and FA 31 were both on the market together at the same time? Saying that there are old 28's on the market so this won't sell, is that killing sales of 50's?

A DA 28, usable only for APS-C, seems like a wasted opportunity. An FA 28 would make more sense since it's usable with the K-1.

Even an FA 28 doesn't feel like it should be a priority. When the 31 and 28 were both in production, people also had a 24 and a 20 to choose from. The current widest FF prime is the FA 31. The next one brought back should be the 24 or 20, before 28.

(In other words, fill the large gaps first, then go for the small gaps. We'd all be perplexed if Pentax added a 47mm to the roadmap to fill the gap from 43 to 50.)

[pres589]

Yeah, I wouldn't make this a crop only lens, either. That wasn't my suggestion, that's the OP's.

I suggested a 26mm but I'd try a 28 if one were available.

[Saltwater Images]

A DA 28, usable only for APS-C, seems like a wasted opportunity. An FA 28 would make more sense since it's usable with the K-1.

Even an FA 28 doesn't feel like it should be a priority. When the 31 and 28 were both in production, people also had a 24 and a 20 to choose from. The current widest FF prime is the FA 31. The next one brought back should be the 24 or 20, before 28.

(In other words, fill the large gaps first, then go for the small gaps. We'd all be perplexed if Pentax added a 47mm to the roadmap to fill the gap from 43 to 50.)

Not everyone has a K-1, in fact 67% of survey respondents so far only shoot APS-C. There are far more Pentax APS-C bodies being used today than K-1 shooters. 43mm is a dynamite focal length in the 35mm format - an APS-C equal would have the potential to be loved just as much. It also has a much larger market to draw from.

---

Last edited by Saltwater Images; 01-08-2018 at 10:16 AM. Reason: typo

[Kevin B123]

I have been using the DA 18-55 on a Super A and quite like 24 and 28 mm. Although I would buy either in a new prime, for Ricoh and the 67 percent APS-C users, a 24mm could take away from DA 21 sales?

[Cambo]

Here is a short survey to see if the Pentax community would have an interest in such a lens.
I believe it would fill a gap in the DA Limited prime lineup...a true normal for APS-C.

Check out the short 5 question survey and results here; Copy of Pentax HD DA 28 f/2.8 Survey

I personally think they need a DA 128 F2.8 rather than yet another short lens - they already have the 21, the 31, two 35s, two 40s, a 43...enough already!

And they need to make their Limiteds 'WR'

...and an aluminum-clad camera to match them...been waiting 21 years for that...

Cheers,
Cameron

[Kevin B123]

I personally think they need a DA 128 F2.8 rather than yet another short lens - they already have the 21, the 31, two 35s, two 40s, a 43...enough already!

And they need to make their Limiteds 'WR'

...and an aluminum-clad camera to match them...been waiting 21 years for that...

Cheers,
Cameron

I have been watching an M 135 f3.5 on fleabay in nice condition for a BIN price of £30, it's just been re-listed again. Awhile back I bought a Hoya 135 f2.8 for the sum of £11, it's OK.
If I look for anything in the 24 to 28mm range I'd have to shell out, the demand is there it seems.

28mm is a sweet spot and a genuine hole in the range. I have been running a spreadsheet with many viable options, with weightings for my needs against attributes etc. The FA 31 wins, except on price. Small size, weight and speed are all necessary to make it stand out against the capable DA 18-135 in this area IMO.
The DA 18-55 is a surprising stand-in. Smaller and lighter than the 18-135 but quite hansome in it's hood.

---

Last edited by Kevin B123; 01-08-2018 at 12:02 PM. Reason: typo

[pres589]

Suggesting that a 43mm crowds the purpose of a 28mm prime is a curious statement.

This thread is weird. Rarely have I seen so many people suggest on this forum that Pentax doesn't need another lens. Also odd how the request for a 28mm prime with a street price under $600 USD should be ignored because there's the $1000 FA 31 already on the market. The message is effectively "we don't need any more lenses and we don't need them to be considered affordable".

I should probably just ignore this thread.

[stevebrot]

Why APS-C? Why limited? The huge hole is for a D FA 28/2.8.

FWIW...I have several 28mm lenses and the focal length is not particularly compelling on APS-C. I have been shooting APS-C for over a decade (28mm pretty much forever) and my 28s only see service on my 35mm film cameras. The convention of using the frame diagonal as "normal" is sort of lame, to be truthful.*


Steve

* Consider 4:3 vs. 3:2 vs. 7:6 vs. 1:1 vs. 12:9 vs 5:4...the rule falls flat very quickly.

[Kevin B123]

Yeah, I wouldn't make this a crop only lens, either. That wasn't my suggestion, that's the OP's.

I suggested a 26mm but I'd try a 28 if one were available.

Sometimes I have a near heart attack when someone opens a thread about the DA 25mm and I think WHAT? HOW DID I MISS THAT!

Then I realise it's a 645 lens and I have to go off and look at flashes or tripods to calm down

[pres589]

Sometimes I have a near heart attack when someone opens a thread about the DA 25mm and I think WHAT? HOW DID I MISS THAT!

Then I realise it's a 645 lens and I have to go off and look at flashes or tripods to calm down

Same (well, not the part about flashes).

[Gimbeley]

Probable because there are a lot more Pentax APS-C shooters than full frame shooters and many may not go down the full frame path. I for one am very satisfied with humble Pentax APS-C bodies and the results from DA Limited and DA* glass.

I'll go down the full frame path when Pentax recommits themselves to compact lenses. If I sold my K-3 and all my DA lenses today, I could get a K-1 and a few lenses to start with, but at the moment, I simply can't rebuild an equally compact lens collection because the new D FA lenses are mostly gigantic and cost a small pittance.

They might as well keep the APS-C format around just so they can say that they have an option for people to have a really compact DSLR system because as it's looking, 4 out of the 5 new D FA zooms are priced above $1200 and 3 of the 5 are significantly heavier than their Canon L equivalents. In a similar vein, Canon has sub-$1000, f/4 constant aperture alternatives to their fastest, most expensive L zooms, whereas Pentax just has the most expensive lenses as the only options.

As long as APS-C users can keep getting updates to old DA designs with things like weather sealing, coatings, focus drive, etc., I don't see a big problem with having FF lenses being so big, but that's why I hope they keep paying attention to us, and even throwing us a new lens every once in a while. The K-1 ecosystem, as it stands, is very different than the APS-C ecosystem.

Why APS-C?

Pentax's new FF lenses have been quite expensive, and also quite large and heavy. The new DA Limited lenses are still relatively affordable. You can get a new DA 20-40/2.8-4 Limited for around $600, as opposed to the new D FA 24-70/2.8 standard zoom, which costs twice as much. I don't think a new FF-ready prime would be as affordable as if it were designed for APS-C.

Why limited?

Compactness, quality of optics and quality of construction. Weather sealing would also be expected on a new DA Limited design.

The huge hole is for a D FA 28/2.8.

Ignoring legacy lenses, since they apply to both formats, there is a hole in the 28mm range on APS-C too. The 21mm Limited gives a fairly wide perspective and is relatively slow at f/3.2, and the 35mm Limited, while more of a normal perspective, is a little tighter than desired by some, and is a macro lens, so focus hunting comes into play in low lighting (although, an easy fix would be to just add a focus limiter switch to that design). People also want a high quality, compact normal prime with weather sealing, and DC focusing would be a nice upgrade from screw drive focusing. Yes, the 20-40mm zoom "contains" a 28mm lens, but it's not a pancake lens.

[twilhelm]

This is one of those times I think making a DA only lens before they have a D FA equivalent would be a folly. I have quite a few 28 lenses, I just don’t care for them on my apsc camera, but they see quite a bit of use on my film cameras. Now 24 would be a different story, but I would still say it should be D FA first.

Funny how so many will say that 3mm isn’t enough of a spread between a 28 and the 31, when we have threads talking about how big of a difference 3mm is on a wide end of a zoom, such as between 20 and 17.

Just saying...

[stevebrot]

Pentax's new FF lenses have been quite expensive, and also quite large and heavy.

There is no reason for a D FA to be much larger than the legacy FA 28/2.8 or FA 35/2 if using current motor-in-lens technology. The FF = bigger argument is not born out by historic fact. The smallest lenses on my shelf are FF. Current generation big FF primes* are (predictably) fast ultrawides and fast internal focus lenses both of which require more and larger glass as well as more complicated mechanical components; neither of which is needed for a 28mm f/2.8.

Compactness, quality of optics and quality of construction.

The "Limited" label infers those features (don't forget to add expense), though lack of the label does preclude them.


Steve

* Does Pentax actually make any of these? Current FF primes are made to historic bulk/weight.

[pres589]

See, and I've got four 28mm primes at home, and I only shoot crop. I think it's a fantastic focal length as a general purpose as well as wide-portrait work, if that term means anything.

This is why I went with 26mm as my suggested, not going to happen Pentax prime; it's a compromise between 24 and 28 which probably matters more to full framer shooters than crop folks. And let's be honest, it's just different enough to not sound like a total reboot of the FA 28.