[biz-engineer]

I've said it before but I really think the ltds are a mixed blessing for Pentax. I'm sure they make a lot of money on them but they also eat resources and time slots preventing a more reasonable lens lineup. They need three lenses for each prime lens focal length, because ltds dont solve budget nor max performance, but they don't have the capacity for even one.

What you say makes sense. I also think Ricoh / Pentax target is the "hobby" market, people who like to own cameras and lenses that have a character, some people who like as much owning lenses as taking photos, not the same profile as the professional who is focused on production of images and effectiveness. So Ricoh make one lens at a time once in a while, one camera at a time once in a while to match the annual pocket money of the hobby photographer. Some people have hundreds of lenses, no that they need them, but just to play with things (a bit like some women have many camera bags and pair of shoes). IMO, the limited are beautifully crafted lenses, but optically not the most cost effective. Pentax sell the most if the product is under $1000, people just buy and have 20 or more lenses, most seldom used on a regular basis. A professional will have a different approach to equipment he will want to buy everything he needs right now for doing work, not wait two years or three years to get a decent kid and finally start working.

[StiffLegged]

What you say makes sense. I also think Ricoh / Pentax target is the "hobby" market, people who like to own cameras and lenses that have a character, some people who like as much owning lenses as taking photos, not the same profile as the professional who is focused on production of images and effectiveness. So Ricoh make one lens at a time once in a while, one camera at a time once in a while to match the annual pocket money of the hobby photographer. Some people have hundreds of lenses, no that they need them, but just to play with things (a bit like some women have many camera bags and pair of shoes). IMO, the limited are beautifully crafted lenses, but optically not the most cost effective. Pentax sell the most if the product is under $1000, people just buy and have 20 or more lenses, most seldom used on a regular basis. A professional will have a different approach to equipment he will want to buy everything he needs right now for doing work, not wait two years or three years to get a decent kid and finally start working.

You’ve convinced me biz: I’m with the wrong brand. Boy, have I got Pentax wrong!

[Sandy Hancock]

It's a fortunate thing for Pentax that there are orders of magnitude more enthusiasts than there are professionals.

Or maybe they already know that

[house]

What you say makes sense. I also think Ricoh / Pentax target is the "hobby" market, people who like to own cameras and lenses that have a character, some people who like as much owning lenses as taking photos, not the same profile as the professional who is focused on production of images and effectiveness. So Ricoh make one lens at a time once in a while, one camera at a time once in a while to match the annual pocket money of the hobby photographer. Some people have hundreds of lenses, no that they need them, but just to play with things (a bit like some women have many camera bags and pair of shoes). IMO, the limited are beautifully crafted lenses, but optically not the most cost effective. Pentax sell the most if the product is under $1000, people just buy and have 20 or more lenses, most seldom used on a regular basis. A professional will have a different approach to equipment he will want to buy everything he needs right now for doing work, not wait two years or three years to get a decent kid and finally start working.

I don't think there's any doubt Pentax is catering to the market you describe. Its not strict in that you can obviously have many different shades of grey between pro and collector and thus Pentax spans quite a few use cases. In general though that's how Pentax operate.

It's a fortunate thing for Pentax that there are orders of magnitude more enthusiasts than there are professionals.

Or maybe they already know that

Exactly.

Within this niche there are still many different ways to go about things tough. I guess I find myself enjoying the care and focus Pentax puts into their cameras and I don't need the latest AF. At the same time I'm not so happy about them producing very expensive products where the balance is tipping more and more towards collectors values. Perhaps I'm mistaken but it seems to me that the weight and size of the recent * lenses are also a bit of a sign they value build before practicality. Saying that many others produced heavy stuff a few years ago. Not quite Pentax heavy though.

If they shift the needle back a bit towards the *process* of photography rather than the objects of photography I would be very happy with what they produce.

I think it's a bit dangerous long term to cater to collectors because it's not a very attractive brand image to have. Leica gets away with it because it's counter balanced by lots of really very good and high profile both dead and living users. The collectors aspect is almost universally derided. Pentax unfortunately doesn't have any high profile users.

[biz-engineer]

At the same time I'm not so happy about them producing very expensive products where the balance is tipping more and more towards collectors values.

I'm not sure what product you are refer to as towards collector values. I'd consider the limited lenses as somehow collector lenses, and the D-FA* lenses as pro grade lenses, the D-FA* FF line-up being incomplete at the moment, no D-FA*35, and no D-FA*24.

---------- Post added 01-01-22 at 17:17 ----------

Perhaps I'm mistaken but it seems to me that the weight and size of the recent * lenses are also a bit of a sign they value build before practicality.

I believe the D-FA* size and price are such because those lenses are supposed to take the professional role of the 645 system. I'm double guessing here. If was a professional new to Pentax , say in two years from now when there will be a new K1 body, I'd not get a 645z , I get a high res. K1 and D-FA star glass because I believe I'd get better images than with a 645z with old lenses. FF = faster AF, top notch glass and coatings, better sensor, it will outpace anything Pentax medium format can offer. That's the way I see it.

[house]

I'm not sure what product you are refer to as towards collector values. I'd consider the limited lenses as somehow collector lenses, and the D-FA* lenses as pro grade lenses, the D-FA* FF line-up being incomplete at the moment, no D-FA*35, and no D-FA*24.

The limiteds are for sure collectors material but as I mention above I'm wondering about the * series as well. They seem, I haven't done a full cross brand comparison, heavier than competition. Build quality as a experiential thing is certainly emphasized there as well. Perhaps it's just my bias for smaller lenses but I also think that a purely technical durability decision would lead to more plastics and lighter lenses.

How many of the * lens buyers have worn out any lens at all? If they haven't why would they want massive, solid feeling lenses?

[pid]

why not 3D print a slip on adapter for your square filter holder?

[pschlute]

I have been looking at the new 21mm as an option for landscape work. Does anybody else find it odd that Pentax released a full frame 21mm lens that can’t be used with any filter kits such as 100x100mm grads?

Have a look at the Pentax page dedicated to this lens. They detail there what they intended from the outset to produce.

It was not a run of the mill landscape lens, of which there is already plenty of scope with the 15-30

[2351HD]

Have a look at the Pentax page dedicated to this lens. They detail there what they intended from the outset to produce.

It was not a run of the mill landscape lens, of which there is already plenty of scope with the 15-30

I have read it yes. And they go into great detail about landscape use but also wanting to make a lens that feels good in the hand and makes the user want to go out and use the lens, an enjoyable experience. Once again no mention of the design requirement for a fixed hood, only that speed of use once removing the lens cap was important. This can still be achieved with a screw on hood.

---------- Post added 01-02-22 at 06:41 AM ----------

IMHO the problem is the lack of choice in the lens lineup not the decision to use a fixed hood for a limited lens.

I somewhat agree. However I feel that in their pursuit of making a 21mm lens that is a limited series lens fitting to the history, plus has this joy to hold factor, that got in the way of truly making an exceptionally versatile lens. You are right in saying that there is lack of choice. Pentax are making what they know will capture the hearts and minds of their existing clients, not building a system that is a solid proposition for both existing and new users.

---------- Post added 01-02-22 at 06:46 AM ----------

Oh and the leica 1.4/21 hood is supposedly quite fiddly and can end up with slightly wrong rotation. Their solution is flawed as well.

I once owned a Leica Super Elmar 21mm f/3.4 (current model) with a screw on lens hood and the lens barrel had a thread on the outside and a bump stop so that the screw on hood stopped right where it needed to align it. The fit and finish was superb and never missed a beat. The visual join between the hood and body was exceptional and almost invisible. Pentax could have achieved this very easily with this new DFA 21mm lens and fulfilled all of their requirements of design and functionally.

---------- Post added 01-02-22 at 06:56 AM ----------

When all is said and done, if Pentax doesn't have what you want, and you can't wait, look elsewhere. Life is too short.

I understand. I just wish that on this forum there could be more discussion about what could be better, rather than just accept what Pentax has done and the “move on if you don’t like it” ending to most attempts at thoughtful discussion.

I love the brand, it’s close to my heart, I am back into the brand now after selling my 645z (to you Sandy I believe), the DFA 21 gives the warm and fuzzy feeling but I just wish it ticked one more box for me to make it truly sensational rather than having to get another lens on top just to cover something basic that the manufacturer really should have thought about.

---------- Post added 01-02-22 at 06:59 AM ----------

why not 3D print a slip on adapter for your square filter holder?

I did think about that, but would need to have a lens to test if mounting the adapter so far out the front would induce any vignetting from the adapter ring and mount, which it likely would do.

[house]

I did think about that, but would need to have a lens to test if mounting the adapter so far out the front would induce any vignetting from the adapter ring and mount, which it likely would do.

when pid mentioned it i saw something like these hoods in my mind. Slipped on from the mount side until it meets the hood flange. But then you need something to attach the filters as well...

[Sandy Hancock]

I understand. I just wish that on this forum there could be more discussion about what could be better, rather than just accept what Pentax has done and the “move on if you don’t like it” ending to most attempts at thoughtful discussion.

I love the brand, it’s close to my heart, I am back into the brand now after selling my 645z (to you Sandy I believe), the DFA 21 gives the warm and fuzzy feeling but I just wish it ticked one more box for me to make it truly sensational rather than having to get another lens on top just to cover something basic that the manufacturer really should have thought about.

Fair enough. Unfortunately we can only use what the company makes. For me at least, the charms (or warm and fuzzy feeling as you put it) of the (D)FA Limiteds outweigh their "limitations". At least the DFA 15-30 (or the DA* 11-18 on crop) can give the functionality you want, albeit at the inconvenience of added gear, expense, and size!

I'd hate to see you mutilate your lovely DFA 21 Limited

[Digitalis]

The arguments presented here in a nutshell: if you want to use square filter systems and excellent optical resolution while sacrificing a little on flare control, get the DFA15-30. If you want a relatively compact fast prime lens that is superbly built, and optically designed with the express purpose of having excellent bokeh rendering while still having decent levels of resolution even out to the corners, get the DFA21.

Don't circumcise your DFA21 with a dremel.

[biz-engineer]

If they haven't why would they want massive, solid feeling lenses?

Many years ago, I had a grand uncle who worked his whole career in sales, his knowledge of buyer's psychology was immense. He once told me manufacturers added weight to product so that to give a feeling of robustness to products. Some products where built out of plastic, but would have felt cheap, so small pieces of ballast were fixed inside the product to give it weight and balance. One of the reasons I got into Pentax with the K200D was the it felt better my hand, felt more solid, the Nikon felt cheap entry level body at the same price point. That may explain why Ricoh may not prioritize efforts on product weight saving.

---------- Post added 02-01-22 at 07:16 ----------

The arguments presented here in a nutshell: if you want to use square filter systems and excellent optical resolution while sacrificing a little on flare control, get the DFA15-30. If you want a relatively compact fast prime lens that is superbly built, and optically designed with the express purpose of having excellent bokeh rendering while still having decent levels of resolution even out to the corners, get the DFA21.

There's a logic to it. If I use a 10 stops filter, 2 minutes exposure, I need to bring a solid tripod, so the argument of saving size/weight on the lens doesn't hold. The idea of using filters on the DFA21 would be to own one UWA lens only, save money, but I guess Ricoh knows this, and it's not in the interest of Ricoh to sell less lenses.

---------- Post added 02-01-22 at 07:18 ----------

when pid mentioned it i saw something like these hoods in my mind. Slipped on from the mount side until it meets the hood flange. But then you need something to attach the filters as well...

Ricoh could have offered an accessory kit for using filter on the DFA21. So far they didn't, but that would be possible if they wanted to.

[Digitalis]

it's not in the interest of Ricoh to sell fewer(ED) lenses.

They have a business to run, it's what they do.

[stevebrot]

I'd go with the Leica...

Seriously, though...What strengths does this lens bring to the table that are unique to it over other options such that physical modification is worth sacrificing resale value along with voiding the warranty?

There are other options...

The FA 20mm has a removable hood and 67 mm filter size. It also has a user rating of 9.2 on PF. There are a couple currently available on eBay and I suspect more will become available as people buy the new DFA 21 Limited.

^^^ Not inexpensive, but definitely well-regarded...

Samyang 20 1.8
- cheaper
- faster aperture
- 77mm filter thread (most common diameter for landscape type lenses)
- removable hood

Cons:
- manual focus, but at 20mm the hyperfocal distance is rather short
- quality level based of lucky copy (according to user reviews)

^ ^ ^ Might be worth the trouble and not expensive. Buy it on Amazon Prime for easy return if not happy?
Note: Despite being current Samyang/Rokinon product, this lens in Pentax-K is currently backordered in many (most?) markets.


Steve