Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-08-2018, 02:27 PM   #46
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 43
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
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.
I totally agree. There's no reason for new D FA lenses to be so big and expensive........but all the new releases are big and expensive lenses. Even the D FA 100mm macro and D FA 28-105 are only relatively small. Historical, shmistorical. Pentax isn't the same company as they were in the 90s. Just look at the pictures of the upcoming D FA 50/1.4 prime; it's a monster.

QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
The "Limited" label infers those features (don't forget to add expense), though lack of the label does preclude them.
I disagree here. Some of their new, non-Limited WR lenses are a little underwhelming optically. The retractable standard zoom and the 18-135 superzoom, for example.

QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
* Does Pentax actually make any of these? Current FF primes are made to historic bulk/weight.
Well the upcoming D FA 50mm f/1.4 is way bigger than the FA 50mm f/1.4.

HD Pentax-D FA* 50mm F1.4 SDM AW Reviews - D FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
SMC Pentax-FA 50mm F1.4 Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

01-08-2018, 03:59 PM   #47
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,348
QuoteOriginally posted by Saltwater Images Quote
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.
The 67% reflects today. I'm willing to wager a scoop of ice cream and a soda that number will be changing significantly in the next 2 - 3 years. That's where Ricoh is looking. Sony saw the same thing with their E mount. When the A7 came out and took off like a rocket almost all the E mount lens development shifted to full frame. APS nearly stopped. A mount completely stopped. Their recent APS E mount 18-135mm zoom is drop of water compared to the flood of FE lenses they've been cranking out to build up their system. If the K-1 becomes as affordable as the basic A7, spreads even half as quickly, and more people, especially price sensitive enthusiasts, grab it then you can start serving me my scoop of ice cream and soda.
01-08-2018, 04:18 PM   #48
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbeley Quote
There's no reason for new D FA lenses to be so big and expensive
Are you sure about that?
01-08-2018, 05:19 PM   #49
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 43
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Are you sure about that?
What's the wink implying here? There's no reason that the majority of modern lenses being made for a full frame camera should cost $1200 minimum per lens and be larger and/or heavier than other brands. There are plenty of good FA lens designs that are smaller, so these lenses are being redesigned without size as a consideration. Even the equivalent Canon L lenses look lightweight by comparison, and previously I thought of Canon L glass as setting the standard for big and heavy lenses.

For example:
D FA 15-30/2.8 is 37 oz; Canon EF 16-35/2.8L lenses range from 21-28 oz
D FA 24-70/2.8 is 28 oz; Canon EF 24-70/2.8L lenses range from 28-33 oz
D FA 70-200/2.8 is 62 oz; Canon EF 70-200/2.8L lenses range from 46-53 oz
D FA 150-450/4.5-5.6 is 71 oz; Canon EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L lenses range from 49-55 oz
DA FA 50/1.4 weight is unknown, but the photos make it look quite a bit larger than the FA 50/1.4 that it is replacing.

On the other hand, among the new D FA lenses, just two are actually lighter than their Canon L equivalents:
D FA 28-105/3.5-5.6 is 16 oz; Canon EF 24-105/4L lenses range from 24-28 oz
D FA 100/2.8 macro WR is 12 oz; Canon EF 100/2.8L macro is 22 oz

As for cost, again, Pentax is doing something weird here by focusing only on producing fast, premium zooms without seeming regard for mid grade lenses. Even the DA line has always had mid grade lenses, with f/4 constant aperture zooms bridging the gap between variable aperture kit zooms and f/2.8 premium zooms. Canon has their EF 70-200 f/2.8 L lens, which has always cost over $1000, but they've also always had their EF 70-200 f/4 L lens, which makes premium level optics available for under $1000. If they're trying to win over users from other brands, this is definitely a consideration.


01-08-2018, 05:37 PM   #50
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
Well, your statement for "not being a reason" is obviously false. What is happening here is that you're disagreeing with the choices made by Ricoh Imaging, in designing their own lenses or in rebadging the Tamrons (with the latter, there wasn't much choice).

Ricoh Imaging's choice is to go mostly for high-end lenses first. The reason why the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 weighs 830g is because it has to meet specific requirements - in terms of optical design, build, AF motor - with available technology, for a set price.
It makes no sense to compare it with the FA 50mm whose optical design is a version of the 1968 Super Takumar.

There's no simple recipe for winning over users from other brands.
01-08-2018, 06:14 PM   #51
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 43
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Well, your statement for "not being a reason" is obviously false. What is happening here is that you're disagreeing with the choices made by Ricoh Imaging, in designing their own lenses or in rebadging the Tamrons (with the latter, there wasn't much choice).

Ricoh Imaging's choice is to go mostly for high-end lenses first. The reason why the D FA* 50mm f/1.4 weighs 830g is because it has to meet specific requirements - in terms of optical design, build, AF motor - with available technology, for a set price.
It makes no sense to compare it with the FA 50mm whose optical design is a version of the 1968 Super Takumar.

There's no simple recipe for winning over users from other brands.
I thought it was understood that when people use the expression "there's no reason for X to be the way it is," they mean "no good reason." Maybe I was just being lazy with my writing in echoing the phrase from another user instead of putting the sentence into my own words.

There are reasons for madness, but just because there is a cause that leads to an effect doesn't make the effect above criticism. Sometimes the effect is a big, steaming (and before you call my statement "obviously false," I mean figurative) pile of crap. Obviously, decisions were made, on purpose, to bring the various D FA lenses to market. It just so happens that the D FA lens roadmap has ended up lopsided toward high end, fast zooms, leaving huge gaps where mid grade lenses could be. New users to a camera platform could get a lot more out of the K-1 if there were more modern, mid grade lenses available, without having to invest so much money into Pentax at first. The brand has been associated with hobbyists so much in the past. It feels like Ricoh is turning their backs on their current bread and butter users by doing this, which is not productive.

Bringing this back on topic, I think you can at least appreciate why I think that Pentax should keep their DA Limiteds alive and release fresh lenses occasionally.
01-08-2018, 06:49 PM   #52
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 4,509
I too think the most practical plan would be to design a new DFA 28mm lens, which of course would be usable on APS-C also. Doesn't have to be a Limited- could be or not be. The Limited build quality is always going to be costlier. Perhaps a DFA* would be fine. Either way, WR and a fast, quiet AF should be incorporated. A 28mm prime lens for full-frame (film) was a very popular FL. Such has not been made by Pentax for a long time. If it were to be a fast one, like f/2 or so, it will have to be rather weighty and sizable. If a Limited, the cost might then approach that of the 31mm, which is a truly fine-performing lens, despite being without the WR and AF updates. The 31mm Limited isn't a tiny lens, yet it is compact for its FL and speed. A 28mm version would have to be larger. Nikon makes a 28mm f/1.8 which is just slightly lighter than the Pentax 31mm LTD (no doubt due to the latter's superb metal construction), but the Pentax 31mm LTD is indeed smaller- considerably shorter, and a 58mm filter size vs a 67mm filter size for the Nikon 28mm lens. Since being designed with FF use in mind, this relative compactness is probably the reason this Limited lens was chosen to be 31mm instead of the traditional 28mm. Close enough to serve the wide angle need, yet able to be made more compact.

One appeal specifically of a 28mm FL prime for APS-C would be its having a true "normal" perspective, which is an attraction for the FA 43mm LTD for FF use. But even cut for APS-C, there's no way I can see a DA 28mm f/2 being the same size pancake lens that we have in the FA 43mm f/1.9 LTD. 28mm and 43mm are miles apart in terms of their physical size in the same speed category.


Last edited by mikesbike; 01-09-2018 at 04:44 PM.
01-09-2018, 01:40 AM   #53
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
Gimbeley, this kind of argument was made against the K-1. Surely, there was no reason for Pentax to make a FF instead of staying APS-C forever? Some are still saying this.
It all comes down to "I don't want them to make this, I want them to make something else".
01-09-2018, 02:26 AM   #54
Pentaxian
Jonathan Mac's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Madrid, Spain
Posts: 10,852
Just about all threads where someone wishes for a certain lens for APS-C get hijacked by people saying "hey, why don't we just make it FF? It'll only double the price and weight".

It's an argument that makes absolutely no sense.

Why shouldn't APS-C shooters have lenses designed for their systems rather than for a different one?
01-09-2018, 02:41 AM   #55
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,802
A D FA plastic fantastic 28mm F1:2.8 lens would neither be large, heavy or expensive.
01-09-2018, 03:40 AM   #56
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,606
I don't care if Pentax makes this lens. I probably wouldn't buy it. I'm looking more for a 20-ish mm prime that is full frame compatible.

I would say that this doesn't seem like a priority. Pentax does currently have the DA 21, FA 31, FA 35, DA 35 in this general space and several zooms that cover that range as well. It does seem as though Pentax's focus, of late, has to be on filling out the full frame lens line up. This isn't to say that they should stop developing for APS-C -- they should -- it is just that the K-1 has been on the market for quite awhile and so far the only lenses for it are those that were present at its time of launch. Once they get those lenses moving, honestly, I would see more benefit in a version two of the DA * zooms. The 16-50 and 50-135, in particular, could benefit from an update.

Briefly on the DFA *50, since it came up, Pentax has a history of small lenses, but also has a history of some quite large lenses that were optically stellar. Lenses like the A* 135 f1.8, the FA 200 macro, and the FA *250-600 were anything but small, but were known for their excellent performance. It seems as though Pentax is following in these footsteps with their DFA * primes. Hopefully they have other lenses that are smaller -- variable aperture zooms, etc -- but I think the hope would be that some top end glass would get some good press for the brand.
01-09-2018, 03:54 AM   #57
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 43
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Gimbeley, this kind of argument was made against the K-1. Surely, there was no reason for Pentax to make a FF instead of staying APS-C forever? Some are still saying this.
It all comes down to "I don't want them to make this, I want them to make something else".
That isn't what I said at all, Kunzite. Don't put words in my mouth, especially with quotation marks.
01-09-2018, 03:57 AM   #58
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
@D1N0:
Canon has one for 500$ and weighing 260g; it's a bit older though, being launched in 2012.

It's all about making a clear difference from the FF version. Otherwise, APS-C buyers won't buy them; people asking for a product half the weight and half the price won't buy them.
And, of course, about what kind of lens you're making.

---------- Post added 09-01-18 at 01:00 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbeley Quote
That isn't what I said at all, Kunzite. Don't put words in my mouth, especially with quotation marks.
Sorry, but this is exactly what you said - except not in those words. But, I wasn't quoting you so it's fine.

Last edited by Kunzite; 01-09-2018 at 04:08 AM.
01-09-2018, 04:08 AM   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
You're going out of your way to attack Ricoh Imaging's decision of making high end D FA lenses. A perfect match for "I don't want them to make this", don't you think?

2012 is a bit old. The design criteria today might be different now, as lenses are designed for the future.
01-09-2018, 06:07 AM   #60
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,276
What makes anyone think a newly designed HD DA / D-FA Limited WR DC lens of any focal length would cost $600 street? Ricoh’s R&D and process engineering costs for ALL Limiteds was amortized years ago. They are 100% free cash flow now.

Last edited by monochrome; 01-09-2018 at 07:09 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
body, da, da 28mm f/2.8, f/2.8, fa, gone, half, hd, hd da 28mm, k-mount, kp, lenses, pancake, pentax, pentax lens, post, prime, results, slr lens, survey, words, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HD 20-40 or HD 21 & HD 35 macro BarryE Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 33 09-03-2017 06:05 AM
For Sale - Sold: Price Reduced, FA 31mm Limited, HD DA 70mm Limited, K5IIs, A-50mm 1.7, K-1000's cmmurray Sold Items 8 02-13-2017 11:27 AM
HD DA 21mm Limited vs. HD DA 20-40mm Limited seachongo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 05-09-2015 11:18 PM
For Sale - Sold: DA Limited 21mm / DA Limited 35mm Macro / DA Limited 70mm top-quark Sold Items 3 04-23-2013 05:01 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:22 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top