[jddwoods]

I stated in another thread, 35mm isn't one I tend to use, so I won't likely purchase this one. But I applaud Pentax/Ricoh for bringing this out. There's absolutely nothing wrong with re-introducing a good piece of glass with a price that is accordingly matched. I personally hope they put an entire line out of revamped FA lenses, 28-35-50 and even a 135. There's nothing wrong with having options.

People complain about lack of lenses, then complain about lenses that are produced. SMH

I agree and was very glad to see this lens. I would have been tempted by it but since I have an F series 28mm f2.8 and a DA 35 macro limited I can't really justify another small prime at this focal length. What I really have my sights set on is the DA* 11-18 but I would still like to see more FA refreshes.

[Rondec]

I think updating the FA 35 in this way didn't take time and energy away from other lens development processes (DFA 70-200 f4, DFA * 35 and 85, etc) that are pretty pressing. Adding weather sealing and rounding the aperture blades, while they sound like small changes, probably would take significantly more time to implement and probably would have increased the cost of the lens.

Honestly, what we need is real releases of new lenses (sounds like the 70-200 f4 and DFA *85 are probably coming this year) and not tweaks of old designs.

[gm4life]

I agree with so many other people in this thread... As long as this didn’t take away from DFA 85 * and 70-200 F4 dev too much... I have wanted an FF compatible autofocus wider end prime since I got my mits on my K1-II. This will do fine until they do a DFA 35 * or other smaller than the DFA 15-30 primes. When paired with my Rokinon 12mm Fisheye although manual focus I will have some moderately fast wide FF glass for which I am happy about.

[Trickortreat]

Decoupling AF ring during AF would be a wonderful thing to. Holding those small primes while camera focuses is a PITA :/

[MikeyBugs95]

Don‘t waste time on non-roadmap lenses. 2/35 is nice to have, but developer time is better spent on new designs.

In all likelihood, this "new" lens probably took up only about an hour or two of a developer's and manager's time. The only actual differences between this lens and the old FA lens are the new HD coatings (mature feature, no development time and low associated costs), updated exterior appearance (they just changed the color from off-gray to black, no development time and low associated costs), and the updated focus ring look. The only that would take any noticable amount of development time would be the focus ring but it's such a simple change that it's insignificant.

This lens is just a cash cow for Pentax designed to generate a large amount of revenue very quickly. Return on investment is very high because lens development costs have already been recouped many years ago and now everything above the relatively low cost to produce, package and ship the lens is pure profit. This update probably only costs a couple hundred to the low thousands to develop compared to an updated lens with WR, more iris blades, and an in-body motor which would have taken longer, cost many tens of thousands up to even a few hundred thousand to develop and would have brought less profit per lens sold. Basically, this is the best bet for them. The optics and design are proven and have $0 associated cost, the updates are inexpensive, quick and easy to implement, the lens is a well desired one and ROI is nearly perfect. They can have all development costs paid off after the sale of the first couple dozen lenses, basically.

It boils down to this: The more of this lens we buy, the more profit Ricoh makes and, theoretically, the more products Ricoh/Pentax is able to produce.

I won't be getting it though because I have the 35 limited and I can't afford a new lens for a while.

[BigMackCam]

In all likelihood, this "new" lens probably took up only about an hour or two of a developer's and manager's time. The only actual differences between this lens and the old FA lens are the new HD coatings (mature feature, no development time and low associated costs), updated exterior appearance (they just changed the color from off-gray to black, no development time and low associated costs), and the updated focus ring look. The only that would take any noticable amount of development time would be the focus ring but it's such a simple change that it's insignificant.

I suggest it probably took quite a bit more than an hour or two of development and management time... But I take your point, and agree with the basic idea. Compared to all new products, or those with major updates, this one had extremely low resource requirements. HD coating? Mature. SP coating? Mature. Updated exterior? Mature (although a little more than just a different colour... finished similar to the recent cameras - sort of a mottled satin / matte appearance). Focus ring? New component required here, but very simple...

Of course, it probably went through two or three short design, development, pre-production and testing cycles... But still, compared to a brand new product, nothing to speak of.

Actually, I see it as quite a clever product release on Ricoh's behalf. It was cheap to develop, yet it's potentially of interest to both APS-C and full-frame customers, for different reasons... so, a number of owners of each format will feel like they're getting a new lens this year. OK, everyone knows it's not really new, and basically just a mild update - but a very worthwhile one nonetheless, to a lens that already had a very good reputation. It's priced well, too. And it's kind of a bonus that none of us was expecting

I think it's a smarter move by Ricoh than many might give credit for...

[twilhelm]

I suggest it probably took quite a bit more than an hour or two of development and management time... But I take your point, and agree with the basic idea. Compared to all new products, or those with major updates, this one had extremely low resource requirements. HD coating? Mature. SP coating? Mature. Updated exterior? Mature (although a little more than just a different colour... finished similar to the recent cameras - sort of a mottled satin / matte appearance). Focus ring? New component required here, but very simple...

Of course, it probably went through a two or three short design, development, pre-production and testing cycles... But still, compared to a brand new product, nothing to speak of.

Actually, I see it as quite a clever product release on Ricoh's behalf. It was cheap to develop, yet it's potentially of interest to both APS-C and full-frame customers, for different reasons... so, a number of owners of each format will feel like they're getting a new lens this year. OK, everyone knows it's not really new, and basically just a mild update - but a very worthwhile one nonetheless, to a lens that already had a very good reputation. It's priced well, too. And it's kind of a bonus that none of us was expecting

I think it's a smarter move by Ricoh than many might give credit for...

And this is why it wouldn't surprise me to see a couple more of the FA lenses re-done in the near future. The K-1 is now a "mature" platform and I think initially surprised Ricoh/Pentax with the interest/sales of it. I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't catch them off guard. Throw in a few more FA lenses and we have a nice line-up covering the entire price range of lenses.

[mikesbike]

Realizing the newly "refreshed" lens is not a DFA, still FA- so no silent DC motor. But as with the original DA 55-300mm f/4-5.6 being superseded by the "refreshed" version with HD coatings AND with WR as well, without any other meaningful lens body change, it seems the newer "refreshed" FA HD 35mm f/2 could have included the same extra WR step also and still at minimal added cost . This would make it even more attractive to FF owners, as well as for APS-C. Perhaps Pentax reasoned doing so would reduce the appeal of a forthcoming faster DFA 35mm f/1.4 lens, but I don't think it would. A faster lens of exceptional quality will still have its own attraction. The DA HD 55-300mm WR did not reduce the appeal of the DA* 60-250mm f/4 WR. And I do not think the new DFA 70-200mm will either, since it does not have the zoom range, but it may be lighter carrying, so both could have their own place, according to one's needs.

[ZombieArmy]

I disagree with you here. Pentax can either produce:

1 a brand new 35mm with different blades and weather sealing and electronic aperture and focus motor (which is in the pipeline).

2. Nothing at present

3. A revamp of an old model with updated coatings at a low price.

What they cannot do is produce a "revamp" of the 35mm f2 and add features like weather sealing aperture blade changes. This would be a new model, requiring total redesign. The development team would say "get in the queue", and the management team would say "we need to sell that for $1000 +"

I don't think changes like WR/DC/Quickshift require whole redesigns. I mean look at kit lenses and the 55-300 PLM.

The only thing I could think of is that they wanted to hit a very specific price point with this lens.

[Just1MoreDave]

I don't think changes like WR/DC/Quickshift require whole redesigns. I mean look at kit lenses and the 55-300 PLM.

The only thing I could think of is that they wanted to hit a very specific price point with this lens.

Exactly. It's an excellent price too. I paid $300 eleven years ago for the original, after the second round of discontinuation rumors - the FA 28/2.8 had already been dropped. I'm pretty happy with it. Sure, it would be nicer with WR or QS or 17 blades but no one really knows how much that would cost or how big the resulting lens would be.

[Sandy Hancock]

I don't think changes like WR/DC/Quickshift require whole redesigns. I mean look at kit lenses and the 55-300 PLM.

Huh? The PLM has a different optical formula, a different barrel diameter, length and telscoping mechanism, a different focus motor, and a different aperture range from the previous iterations of the 55-300.

That strikes me as a "whole redesign"....

[gm4life]

Huh? The PLM has a different optical formula, a different barrel diameter, length and telscoping mechanism, a different focus motor, and a different aperture range from the previous iterations of the 55-300.

That strikes me as a "whole redesign"....

Yes my understanding was the PLM 55-300 HD is a radically different animal than the Screw Drive 55-300 HD... The screw drive model with WR and HD coating along with a re-skin is the same model they were selling 10 years ago. However, several years ago they updated it with a new “body” and HD coating... The PLM version came since with a new optical formula along with indexing (believe they call it that) like a couple years ago.

I should know I have the screw drive HD verison that came out like five years ago... It was because at the time I had a notion of a budget getting into this hobby. Opps, broke that rule!

[ZombieArmy]

Huh? The PLM has a different optical formula, a different barrel diameter, length and telscoping mechanism, a different focus motor, and a different aperture range from the previous iterations of the 55-300.

That strikes me as a "whole redesign"....

I didn't know that about the 55-300. However since the kit lenses can have versions with/without Quickshift/WR I would imagine that those features could be reasonably added to a lens without a complete redesign.