FA zooms: why the nadir of Pentax lens lines?

gavinhw · 10-15-2019, 07:19 PM

Hi All

I bought my first Pentax lenses (50mm F1.7, 28mm F2.8) when the M-series was introduced. High quality glass and metal across the board in those days.

I got back into photography when the K10D came out, so I missed the introduction of most of the F and FA lenses. I did subsequently pick up the FA 50mm F1.4, 35mm F2, and the 31/43/77mm Limiteds. No complaints here, but...

The non-FA* zooms seem to be universally panned for their optical and definitely their (plasticky) build quality.

I see lots of FA zooms at swap meets. Inexpensive prices with cheap build to match.

What were the market conditions at the time when these lenses were rolled out to result in such a downgrade in quality (i.e., compared to the K’s and M’s)?

Last edited by gavinhw; 10-15-2019 at 09:12 PM.

Adam · 10-15-2019, 07:33 PM - **2 Likes**

Budget lenses had been around well before the F series (e.g. the Takumar-A's) and certainly weren't any better if you ask me. That said, around the start of the AF era, camera gear also started becoming a lot more mainstream. Whereas in early K days, every lens was essentially a pro lens, a clear delineation between budget, consumer, and pro quality emerged over time.

This is why there are tons of really cheap, really poor F/FA lenses, but also plenty that hold their price well or are even outright overpriced as in the case of star lenses.

gavinhw · 10-15-2019, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Adam

Budget lenses had been around well before the F series (e.g. the Takumar-A's) and certainly weren't any better if you ask me. That said, around the start of the AF area, camera gear also started becoming a lot more mainstream. Whereas in early K days, every lens was essentially a pro lens, a clear delineation between budget, consumer, and pro quality emerged over time.

This is why there are tons of really cheap, really poor F/FA lenses, but also plenty that hold their price well or are even outright overpriced as in the case of star lenses.

Now where does this put the FA J’s? :-)

**manishved** · 10-15-2019, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by gavinhw

Now where does this put the FA J’s? :-)

Good point - they were far inferior even back then.

**Ash** · 10-15-2019, 09:26 PM

It's not often you hear of great quality F/FA lenses - but the FA 20-35 has a reputation of being a great lens optically.
We still have that "budget-line" DA range that is catering for the beginner/low end but the build is slightly better than the FA Js of the past.
DFAs are another league (with prices that reflect that).

**BigMackCam** · 10-15-2019, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by gavinhw

The non-FA* zooms seem to be universally panned for their optical and definitely their (plasticky) build quality.

I see lots of FA zooms at swap meets. Inexpensive prices with cheap build to match.

What were the market conditions at the time when these lenses were rolled out to result in such a downgrade in quality (i.e., compared to the K’s and M’s)?

I can't answer your question about market conditions, but I can say that this wasn't unique to Pentax. As a second system I shoot Sony A-mount, which is the evolution of Minolta AF and backward compatible with that mount. There are many low end, plastic build, optically uninspiring Minolta / Konica Minolta lenses that came out around the same time as Pentax's lower-end FA and FA-J offerings. I have a few, and whilst it's still possible to take great photos with them when used sensibly (generally, stopping down sufficiently), they're really not that great. But, like their Pentax cousins, it's amazing just how many have survived to the present day and remain in full working order. So I think the quality of construction is somewhat better than the feel of the materials would suggest...

**ffking** · 10-15-2019, 10:45 PM

I think I'd just add that it took optical designers a long (probably not until computer aided designs) time to make zooms anywhere near as good as prime lenses - they were always more of a consumer product by nature - several lenses for the price of one, but at a cost optically.

garywakeling · 10-15-2019, 11:29 PM

During the film era I liked using many lenses from the FA era , the reviews lately don't seem very positive, this reminds me I need to dust them off and try them out again.

**othar** · 10-16-2019, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by garywakeling

During the film era I liked using many lenses from the FA era , the reviews lately don't seem very positive, this reminds me I need to dust them off and try them out again.

That's because during film era someone typically had some prints made in 9x13cm or 10x15cm and that's it (unless you had a certain application in mind or you developted and magnified your negatives yourself a slightly missed focus or optical flaws of the lens where not that noticeable.)
Nowadays every PC monitor is bigger than those prints and we arn't even talking about pixel peeping

bdery · 10-16-2019, 05:26 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Adam

Budget lenses had been around well before the F series (e.g. the Takumar-A's) and certainly weren't any better if you ask me. That said, around the start of the AF area, camera gear also started becoming a lot more mainstream. Whereas in early K days, every lens was essentially a pro lens, a clear delineation between budget, consumer, and pro quality emerged over time.

This is why there are tons of really cheap, really poor F/FA lenses, but also plenty that hold their price well or are even outright overpriced as in the case of star lenses.

Great analysis.

Originally posted by Ash

It's not often you hear of great quality F/FA lenses - but the FA 20-35 has a reputation of being a great lens optically.
We still have that "budget-line" DA range that is catering for the beginner/low end but the build is slightly better than the FA Js of the past.
DFAs are another league (with prices that reflect that).

Yep, some lenses like the 20-35, F35-70, FA24-90, even the A35-105 were winners.

Originally posted by ffking

I think I'd just add that it took optical designers a long (probably not until computer aided designs) time to make zooms anywhere near as good as prime lenses - they were always more of a consumer product by nature - several lenses for the price of one, but at a cost optically.

The first computer-designer consumer zoom was the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 F3.5 macro. In 1978.

Computer design programs evolved and improved tremendously over time, but it's not always necessary to use a computer when you know what you're doing. In a lens design class, the young guys like me used computers to design, getting theoretical values like 1.476088 for specific elements (made-up number, you get the idea). An older guy came up with mostly round numbers (say 1.5) and his design was the best. He had done everything by hand, controlling what he did, instead of pushing the "optimize" button in the program.

That being said, in the film era lenses were not tested as thoroughly as today. People simply didn't have the information that we have now, nor the means to test or adjust. THis has led lens design to new heights. Kit lenses (or consumer zooms) from today are significantly better than they were some years ago.

Ontarian50 · 10-16-2019, 07:34 AM - **1 Like**

I do think market conditions at the time contribute a lot to the decline in Pentax's fortunes.

While the 35mm was a must-have item for many households in the late '70s, early '80s, by the mid '80s sales were slumping as many were content to buy 35mm AF point and shoots, and the big dollars were going to camcorders.

So Pentax, and others, concentrated their efforts on the more lucrative AF point and shoots. And Pentax really did have some of the best out there with their Espio lineup. Unfortunately, it does seem the R&D investment in the SLR lineup declined.

On the other hand, faced with declining sales, Nikon and Canon broadened their lineups to compete with the entry level models that used to be ruled by Pentax, Minolta, Yashica and others. As a barely-informed consumer, why would you buy a Pentax SLR for $500, when you could get a Nikon or a Canon. So Pentax and Minolta and the like were forced to find a way to make a $400 SLR, and lenses to match. And if the resulting products weren't quite as prestigious as what they made a decade before, well, at least they had the pocket cameras to fall back on.

Unfortunately, Pentax taking their foot off the gas for 35mm SLR development through to the late '90s led to them being unable to really get going when demand for DSLRs jumped up in the early '00s.

**pentaxus** · 10-16-2019, 07:48 AM

I think the big hit for Pentax was designing their first DSLR to use a full frame sensor that the manufacturer was unable to produce. A full frame 6mp camera in those days would have put them way ahead. Instead, all that R&D money was wasted.

**boriscleto** · 10-16-2019, 08:02 AM

I rather like the FA 28-105 PZ. Only downside is the PZ makes it heavy and at F4-5.6 it's slower than later versions.

SSGGeezer · 10-16-2019, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Adam

or are even outright overpriced as in the case of star lenses.

I must disagree on this point as the FA* lenses are generally pretty fairly priced for their performance, especially if the Pentax palette is important to you. Especially as they are FF capable and with the exception of the super long Focal lengths, they are reasonably priced compared to the D-FA versions.

Cons are of course no WR, and the PZ versions are pretty heavy to lug around. (And PZ not working on the KP is a bit sad also.)
I have seen some great results from forum members using some FA-J zooms here also. Mostly by @Normhead if I recall.

**gofour3** · 10-16-2019, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by gavinhw

What were the market conditions at the time when these lenses were rolled out to result in such a downgrade in quality (i.e., compared to the K’s and M’s)?

Some of the F/FA zooms were the new "kit" lenses for the auto focus SF/PZ/MZ series film bodies and just replaced the A50/1.7 or A50/2 prime "kit" lenses on the older manual focus bodies. Those two A Series 50mm kit lenses started the cheaper plastic trend.

Phil.

10-15-2019, 07:19 PM	#1
gavinhw Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 145	FA zooms: why the nadir of Pentax lens lines? Hi All I bought my first Pentax lenses (50mm F1.7, 28mm F2.8) when the M-series was introduced. High quality glass and metal across the board in those days. I got back into photography when the K10D came out, so I missed the introduction of most of the F and FA lenses. I did subsequently pick up the FA 50mm F1.4, 35mm F2, and the 31/43/77mm Limiteds. No complaints here, but... The non-FA* zooms seem to be universally panned for their optical and definitely their (plasticky) build quality. I see lots of FA zooms at swap meets. Inexpensive prices with cheap build to match. What were the market conditions at the time when these lenses were rolled out to result in such a downgrade in quality (i.e., compared to the K’s and M’s)? Last edited by gavinhw; 10-15-2019 at 09:12 PM.

10-15-2019, 10:32 PM	#6
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,670	Originally posted by gavinhw The non-FA* zooms seem to be universally panned for their optical and definitely their (plasticky) build quality. I see lots of FA zooms at swap meets. Inexpensive prices with cheap build to match. What were the market conditions at the time when these lenses were rolled out to result in such a downgrade in quality (i.e., compared to the K’s and M’s)? I can't answer your question about market conditions, but I can say that this wasn't unique to Pentax. As a second system I shoot Sony A-mount, which is the evolution of Minolta AF and backward compatible with that mount. There are many low end, plastic build, optically uninspiring Minolta / Konica Minolta lenses that came out around the same time as Pentax's lower-end FA and FA-J offerings. I have a few, and whilst it's still possible to take great photos with them when used sensibly (generally, stopping down sufficiently), they're really not that great. But, like their Pentax cousins, it's amazing just how many have survived to the present day and remain in full working order. So I think the quality of construction is somewhat better than the feel of the materials would suggest... Last edited by BigMackCam; 10-15-2019 at 11:21 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Architecture Line lines lines!	ChrisPMR	Photo Critique	22	11-25-2019 08:26 AM
maximum available apeture of zooms at variable focal lengths of zooms	aslyfox	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	10-23-2017 07:44 AM
Super Zooms vs normal zooms	robert52	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	10-12-2014 07:29 PM
WR zooms vs IQ zooms being considered	ChooseAName	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	10-22-2012 03:17 PM
Cheap old zooms or cheap new zooms better?	okto	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	11-21-2006 02:49 PM

10-15-2019, 07:33 PM - 2 Likes	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	Budget lenses had been around well before the F series (e.g. the Takumar-A's) and certainly weren't any better if you ask me. That said, around the start of the AF era, camera gear also started becoming a lot more mainstream. Whereas in early K days, every lens was essentially a pro lens, a clear delineation between budget, consumer, and pro quality emerged over time. This is why there are tons of really cheap, really poor F/FA lenses, but also plenty that hold their price well or are even outright overpriced as in the case of star lenses.

10-15-2019, 07:40 PM	#3
gavinhw Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 145 Original Poster	Originally posted by Adam Budget lenses had been around well before the F series (e.g. the Takumar-A's) and certainly weren't any better if you ask me. That said, around the start of the AF area, camera gear also started becoming a lot more mainstream. Whereas in early K days, every lens was essentially a pro lens, a clear delineation between budget, consumer, and pro quality emerged over time. This is why there are tons of really cheap, really poor F/FA lenses, but also plenty that hold their price well or are even outright overpriced as in the case of star lenses. Now where does this put the FA J’s? :-)

10-15-2019, 09:20 PM	#4
manishved Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: N. Calif Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,651	Originally posted by gavinhw Now where does this put the FA J’s? :-) Good point - they were far inferior even back then.

10-15-2019, 09:26 PM	#5
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	It's not often you hear of great quality F/FA lenses - but the FA 20-35 has a reputation of being a great lens optically. We still have that "budget-line" DA range that is catering for the beginner/low end but the build is slightly better than the FA Js of the past. DFAs are another league (with prices that reflect that).

10-15-2019, 10:45 PM	#7
ffking Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: Old South Wales Posts: 6,038	I think I'd just add that it took optical designers a long (probably not until computer aided designs) time to make zooms anywhere near as good as prime lenses - they were always more of a consumer product by nature - several lenses for the price of one, but at a cost optically.

10-15-2019, 11:29 PM	#8
garywakeling Moderator Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,759	During the film era I liked using many lenses from the FA era , the reviews lately don't seem very positive, this reminds me I need to dust them off and try them out again.

10-16-2019, 04:08 AM	#9
othar Site Supporter Join Date: May 2014 Location: Linz Photos: Albums Posts: 3,098	Originally posted by garywakeling During the film era I liked using many lenses from the FA era , the reviews lately don't seem very positive, this reminds me I need to dust them off and try them out again. That's because during film era someone typically had some prints made in 9x13cm or 10x15cm and that's it (unless you had a certain application in mind or you developted and magnified your negatives yourself a slightly missed focus or optical flaws of the lens where not that noticeable.) Nowadays every PC monitor is bigger than those prints and we arn't even talking about pixel peeping

10-16-2019, 05:26 AM - 1 Like	#10
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	Originally posted by Adam Budget lenses had been around well before the F series (e.g. the Takumar-A's) and certainly weren't any better if you ask me. That said, around the start of the AF area, camera gear also started becoming a lot more mainstream. Whereas in early K days, every lens was essentially a pro lens, a clear delineation between budget, consumer, and pro quality emerged over time. This is why there are tons of really cheap, really poor F/FA lenses, but also plenty that hold their price well or are even outright overpriced as in the case of star lenses. Great analysis. Originally posted by Ash It's not often you hear of great quality F/FA lenses - but the FA 20-35 has a reputation of being a great lens optically. We still have that "budget-line" DA range that is catering for the beginner/low end but the build is slightly better than the FA Js of the past. DFAs are another league (with prices that reflect that). Yep, some lenses like the 20-35, F35-70, FA24-90, even the A35-105 were winners. Originally posted by ffking I think I'd just add that it took optical designers a long (probably not until computer aided designs) time to make zooms anywhere near as good as prime lenses - they were always more of a consumer product by nature - several lenses for the price of one, but at a cost optically. The first computer-designer consumer zoom was the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 F3.5 macro. In 1978. Computer design programs evolved and improved tremendously over time, but it's not always necessary to use a computer when you know what you're doing. In a lens design class, the young guys like me used computers to design, getting theoretical values like 1.476088 for specific elements (made-up number, you get the idea). An older guy came up with mostly round numbers (say 1.5) and his design was the best. He had done everything by hand, controlling what he did, instead of pushing the "optimize" button in the program. That being said, in the film era lenses were not tested as thoroughly as today. People simply didn't have the information that we have now, nor the means to test or adjust. THis has led lens design to new heights. Kit lenses (or consumer zooms) from today are significantly better than they were some years ago.

10-16-2019, 07:34 AM - 1 Like	#11
Ontarian50 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 530	I do think market conditions at the time contribute a lot to the decline in Pentax's fortunes. While the 35mm was a must-have item for many households in the late '70s, early '80s, by the mid '80s sales were slumping as many were content to buy 35mm AF point and shoots, and the big dollars were going to camcorders. So Pentax, and others, concentrated their efforts on the more lucrative AF point and shoots. And Pentax really did have some of the best out there with their Espio lineup. Unfortunately, it does seem the R&D investment in the SLR lineup declined. On the other hand, faced with declining sales, Nikon and Canon broadened their lineups to compete with the entry level models that used to be ruled by Pentax, Minolta, Yashica and others. As a barely-informed consumer, why would you buy a Pentax SLR for $500, when you could get a Nikon or a Canon. So Pentax and Minolta and the like were forced to find a way to make a $400 SLR, and lenses to match. And if the resulting products weren't quite as prestigious as what they made a decade before, well, at least they had the pocket cameras to fall back on. Unfortunately, Pentax taking their foot off the gas for 35mm SLR development through to the late '90s led to them being unable to really get going when demand for DSLRs jumped up in the early '00s.

10-16-2019, 07:48 AM	#12
pentaxus Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Central Coast, CA Posts: 1,313	I think the big hit for Pentax was designing their first DSLR to use a full frame sensor that the manufacturer was unable to produce. A full frame 6mp camera in those days would have put them way ahead. Instead, all that R&D money was wasted.

10-16-2019, 08:02 AM	#13
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	I rather like the FA 28-105 PZ. Only downside is the PZ makes it heavy and at F4-5.6 it's slower than later versions.

10-16-2019, 08:16 AM	#14
SSGGeezer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2017 Location: Indiana, U.S. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,845	Originally posted by Adam or are even outright overpriced as in the case of star lenses. I must disagree on this point as the FA* lenses are generally pretty fairly priced for their performance, especially if the Pentax palette is important to you. Especially as they are FF capable and with the exception of the super long Focal lengths, they are reasonably priced compared to the D-FA versions. Cons are of course no WR, and the PZ versions are pretty heavy to lug around. (And PZ not working on the KP is a bit sad also.) I have seen some great results from forum members using some FA-J zooms here also. Mostly by @Normhead if I recall.

10-16-2019, 08:24 AM	#15
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	Originally posted by gavinhw What were the market conditions at the time when these lenses were rolled out to result in such a downgrade in quality (i.e., compared to the K’s and M’s)? Some of the F/FA zooms were the new "kit" lenses for the auto focus SF/PZ/MZ series film bodies and just replaced the A50/1.7 or A50/2 prime "kit" lenses on the older manual focus bodies. Those two A Series 50mm kit lenses started the cheaper plastic trend. Phil.