[UncleVanya]

Which lenses do see the most of failing? The missing thing though is how many of each one are out there to get a percentage of failures for each model. Have I heard about the 16-50 the most because there are just more out there to fail?

I have converted a bit more 50-135 than 16-50, a handful of 200's and only 2 300's. That tells you the lenses that people had that failed that they were willing to pay someone else to convert. There is no telling how many may have NOT failed relative to this number and how widely sold each lens is. I would imagine the 200 and 300 are rarer to own than the two zooms. It also doesn't address how many may have been repaired or converted outside of my conversion services. I can tell you requests for the 16-50 and 50-135 are by far the most common of the requests from my records - but again I have no idea what percentage of lenses each represents. My data is inherently biased - only forum members are likely to know about me, only those who don't convert their own will contact me, and only then if they find out about me and feel it is worth the service fee and shipping to resolve before they either repair, sell or trash the lens.

[Just1MoreDave]

I really like the DA* 55mm f1.4, and mine does live up to just about everything I've read about it.

The bad: The SDM focus motor is as described - it takes a minute to start working at all, which seems like five minutes, all of which you spend considering the cost of repair. There isn't a backup screwdrive so SDM failure means manual focus. Even when the motor wakes up, the lens focuses slowly. It's definitely slower than an 18-55 on my *ist DS, which was not fast. You could maybe call it "deliberate". I would not count on using this lens for fast action.

The OK: It's not small, like the FA50. It's still small compared to the Sigma 50/1.4, and probably will be small compared to the DFA50.

The really good: Images are great. It's a definite improvement over the FA 50mm f1.4, or the earlier 50/1.4s. I can see when I used the DA* in the small thumbnails. Images will make you forget about the SDM.

[stevebrot]

HD Pentax-D FA* 50mm F1.4 SDM AW

Reputation: Mythic

Does it deliver? Only if Ricoh/Pentax does

Why? Because Pentax MUST prove itself capable of making an overpriced lens at this focal length. How else can it compete against the like of offerings from Meyer-Optik Gorlitz?

More seriously, I hope this new fast 50 exceeds expectations. It will provide solace to K-mount shooters shut out from purchase of the (reportedly excellent) Sigma 50/1.4 DG HSM Art and may even spur sales of Pentax FF bodies. I will likely never own one, though I might be interested in a f/1.7 of similar performance at a moderate price point.


Steve

(...wondering if the Zeiss ZK and Voigtländer SL and SLII lenses live up to their reputation and why...)

[zapp]

Long ago you could get Canon FD mount lenses in L and non L version. At that time there were different classes of lenses available from the camera manufacturer to choose from with the same specs for f-stop and aperture were the same. Today, all Canon L lenses are made in Japan ( I think) so there are ceratin features as well as quality control and pride involved in making special lenses. Sigma offers sports and contemporary designs witht he same features and explains differences.
In Pentax land, we see lenses with high-profile (large aperture, weather sealing, ... full package) denoted with *. Theree are not enough lenses in Pentax land to compare for instance a 2.8/70-200 with * against a 4/70-200 without *. So at the end of the day, we can only assume that * lenses are special somehow in their making.
DA*55 has nice rendering, but is not a star wide open, looking at sharpness.
DFA*70-200 is a nice lens and probably the best Pentax can do in this range. Build quality is nice, special glass is required, ...
DA*300 is a nice lens with special glass, performs well
DFA100M WR is also a nice lens, no SDM, no focus limiter, no extreme features - this lens is a star
DFA50M is a nice lens, very sharp, but build quality is not star like
I am waiting for DFA85 with big * and something long with *

[kjphilippona]

I own the DA*16-50, DA*50-135, DA*55 & D FA*70-200, IMO only the DA*50-135 and DA*55 have lived up to their magical abilities!

[Ron Boggs]

Probably should stay out of this--I'm a * lens fanboy and not objective in any sense of the word!

Always believed * meant special elements with trick ED, AL, LD glass. Star designation also has generally been applied to lenses that emphasize "trick glass" at the expense of size and weight. This may be less so currently than during the FA*, F*, and A* eras. Often the * lens is the big gun as a counterpoint to the Limited lens tending to be compact and elegant. Star lenses had big, wide hoods--often with PENTAX emblazoned across them. Limiteds had the tiny built-in hoods. Again, star lenses aren't necessarily huge and hefty anymore...but compared to the Limited line, star lenses are still pretty big.

A mid-90's Pentax lens brochure says, "The Pentax FA* and A* series of SLR lenses are manufactured to the strictest standards for superior image definition, color reproduction, and contrast. Unsurpassed image quality is guaranteed even at wide-open aperture settings."

Note that when it was released, Pop Photo magazine's lens tests showed the FA* 80-200/2.8 to be measurably sharper than the also recently released Canon and Nikon variants. The magazine made particular note of the fact that the FA* got sharper as you zoomed with peak sharpness at 200mm...something you just don't see in this type of zoom lens.

As for IQ, the "spare no expense" size and glass design of star lenses has not just produced pro image quality when shooting wide open. I'm from the other side of the spectrum and frequently challenge the star lenses to produce eyeripping sharpness across the frame when shooting landscapes and outdoor scenic journalism. These lenses hold IQ when stopped way down. So for killer landscape extractions at f16, your star lenses will outperform standard consumer lenses.

Pentax has generally underrepresented star lenses only listing ED and seldom explaining how many ED elements or other noteworthy engineering details about the glass. One very noteworthy exception is the FA*200/4 Macro that actually got a press release. I printed that release September 19, 2000 (when I ordered my copy). Regarding the trick glass it says:

"Incorporating two Extra-low Dispersion (ED) lens elements, an abnormal-dispersion lens element as well as a high refraction lens element, the lens is designed to provide professional and advanced amateur photographers with extremely high-resolution macro images with minimal aberrations."

Star glass is the Pentax state-of-the-art best. It's like Canon's L glass. If it's got the * then you don't need to do a bunch of research...trust it's the best you'll find from Pentax.

Oh yes, and pixie dust, micro-contrast, and color rendition are legendary fanboy terms often applied to star lenses.

My current star lens stable: FA* 28-70/2.8; FA* 80-200/2.8; FA* 200/4 Macro; F*300/4.5

Sold in the past 30 days: FA*300/4.5; FA*600/4

Owned in the past: A*300/2.8; A*200/4 Macro; M*400/4 for 67; M*300/4 for 67; FA*24/2; F*600/4; FA*250-600/5.6

[Kerrowdown]

oops I missed the A * lens, A* lenses have been added to initial post

Now you've done this I'm able to mention my some of my "Ladies"...

A handful of my harem, fall into the A* lenses category... these are without question IMHO, "Star" performers in their own right.

Good solid construction, fine performance and have always delivered results for me.

A couple of varied subject examples from each of them, to try and show what I mean.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[iheiramo]

oops I missed the A * lens,

A* lenses have been added to initial post

Still missing the first; M*300/4.

It's only * lens in M series and in my collection. My experience with more modern lenses is so limited that I can only compare it to other lenses in M and I think it really stands out in that company. There are lenses in M series that can compare in sharpness, but there is something special in rendition. Due to focal length, especially on APSC, it's hard to use, but it produce stunning shots.

[aslyfox]

Still missing the first; M*300/4.

It's only * lens in M series and in my collection. My experience with more modern lenses is so limited that I can only compare it to other lenses in M and I think it really stands out in that company. There are lenses in M series that can compare in sharpness, but there is something special in rendition. Due to focal length, especially on APSC, it's hard to use, but it produce stunning shots.

hey, I'm a newbie and trying to learn,

cut me some slack

thanks for the assist, I have added the M * lens to the initial post

[GlennG]

now I am curious about the reputation of the Pentax * series

I have *16-50 and * 50-135, but I have a relatively small database to compare to otherwise. For these two lenses however, I believe both of mine are wonderful, optically. Other benefits are 2.8, WR, and a general sense of build toughness. That said, however, the 16-50 recently needed to be repaired due to the zoom mechanism being frozen. I've not had the SDM issue, but I'm always prepared for it to occur. These lenses are better on all fronts than my non-* lenses, save for cost and portability, but the DA 17-70 is very close to the 16-50 in IQ, and has its own set of pros and cons. Again, I've limited lens experience, but my two * lenses do what I'm led to believe lenses of this ilk should do. Slightly different perspective, but the 16-50 is often compared to the Tamron and Sigma 2.8's. Of the three lenses (Pentax, Tamron, and Sigma) I've looked at hundreds of photos from these on Flickr and I almost always come away with the impression that I like the *16-50 photos best. Others very much disagree, but IMHO the *16-50 is a better shooter than either of the other two. I might be biased, but I really am trying to look at the example photos with a clear objective head.

[clickclick]

I have converted a bit more 50-135 than 16-50, a handful of 200's and only 2 300's. [snip]

Thanks

Wish we had info on dates of production and changes in the designs, but from what I can tell, that will never happen, at least not from an official source.

[clickclick]

This thread is not helping my LBA.

[aslyfox]

This thread is not helping my LBA.

don't sue me, I just asked the questions

it is the other guys who are providing the answers which makes the * lenses so tempting



[ BTW, this thread started today at 05:17 and we have reached over 875 views already ]

[clickclick]

don't sue me, I just asked the questions

You have no need to worry about such things. However, where do I send the bill?

[aslyfox]

You have no need to worry about such things. However, where do I send the bill?

" [ bill ] ? We ain't got no [ bill ] . We don't need no [ bill ]. I don't have to show you any stinking [ bill ] "