[RobA_Oz]

Another reason I am still very happy with my DC motor lenses, and these have proven themselves to be reliable as well as accurate. Quite fast too, though obviously not as fast as PLM lenses. I have yet to own a PLM lens. However, I believe my little DA-L 18-50mm DC lens is by-wire focusing, so it too might have a problem with MF if the motor failed.

That said, since the new K-3 III was designed with better, faster, and more accurate AF in mind to go with its higher FPS burst capability, it was appropriate to also come out with a DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 PLM replacement to go with this concept. Next should be an updated DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 lens as well. Updated DA* 200mm f/2.8 and DA* 300mm f/4 lenses should follow. Whether these should be PLM or DC is a question, but either would be a definite advancement over the old outdated SDM technology. Unlike the original DA* 16-50mm SDM, no change in optics would be necessary with these lenses, which are already of very high caliber, just the AF system.

The improved AF speed and overall performance, including with burst shooting, of the new K-3 III has been one of its most important advancements, but it is unclear if these advancements are there also with lenses of DC AF designs, or if AF speed would be about the same as say the KP unless using a PLM lens. Even then, a PLM lens has quicker AF on a KP then do other non-PLM lenses, so how much quicker is the new K-3 III using these same types of lenses?

I might have missed something, but my impression is that PLM drives are limited to lenses that have very lightweight focussing groups. The newest DA55-300 is described on Ricoh’s website as differing from the previous version’s optical design in this respect. If that’s the case, then DC and ring motor drives will still be around, at least for a while yet.

[Fogel70]

Another reason I am still very happy with my DC motor lenses, and these have proven themselves to be reliable as well as accurate. Quite fast too, though obviously not as fast as PLM lenses. I have yet to own a PLM lens. However, I believe my little DA-L 18-50mm DC lens is by-wire focusing, so it too might have a problem with MF if the motor failed.

That said, since the new K-3 III was designed with better, faster, and more accurate AF in mind to go with its higher FPS burst capability, it was appropriate to also come out with a DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 PLM replacement to go with this concept. Next should be an updated DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 lens as well. Updated DA* 200mm f/2.8 and DA* 300mm f/4 lenses should follow. Whether these should be PLM or DC is a question, but either would be a definite advancement over the old outdated SDM technology. Unlike the original DA* 16-50mm SDM, no change in optics would be necessary with these lenses, which are already of very high caliber, just the AF system.

Without a change in optics on these lenses it will probably not be much use for a PLM motor. The reason for PLM can be fast is that it is use on a small light lens group focusing (and using focus-by-wire that minimize friction). PLM motor can not be made as powerful as other types of motors, so it is not suitable for all types of lens designs.

For larger lenses with larger lens elements DC or SDM ring motor will most likely be a faster solution. PLM motor is just not the only motor type that can make fast focusing lenses. it is more a case optimizing the motor for speed which few Pentax lenses has been in the past. But other brands have had fast focusing lenses with motor type equivalent to DC and SDM ring motor for decades (long before PLM type of motor was on the market).

The improved AF speed and overall performance, including with burst shooting, of the new K-3 III has been one of its most important advancements, but it is unclear if these advancements are there also with lenses of DC AF designs, or if AF speed would be about the same as say the KP unless using a PLM lens. Even then, a PLM lens has quicker AF on a KP then do other non-PLM lenses, so how much quicker is the new K-3 III using these same types of lenses?

[Rondec]

I might have missed something, but my impression is that PLM drives are limited to lenses that have very lightweight focussing groups. The newest DA55-300 is described on Ricoh’s website as differing from the previous version’s optical design in this respect. If that’s the case, then DC and ring motor drives will still be around, at least for a while yet.

I think some have suggested that you could have a couple of PLM motors to allow for slightly larger focus groups, but I think you are right. This tech is most useful for lenses with slower apertures -- using DC or ring motors will give adequate speed and precision for larger aperture lenses.

I don't think there is any way that you could use a PLM motor in a 70-200 f4 or f2.8 lens or many other lenses. It isn't a matter of PLM or die -- it's more a matter of use PLM where it makes sense to use it and consider other, quite fast drive systems, where it doesn't.

[BruceBanner]

...The whole experience has been frustrating

Hehe, welcome to Pentax

If it makes you feel any better switching systems isn't always a solution. I like my XT4 a lot, but it's far from perfect and has its own array of issues. If anything the experience of using another camera (especially a higher spec'd MILC) can make you both appreciative of Pentax's strengths but even more frustrated with the brand! I hardly take advantage of the UHS-II capability of the Fuji systems, managing buffer and fps constraints of UHS-I cards fine at event work, in many ways the XT4 is overkill... and it makes me mad that Pentax were so close to having something really brilliant that would suit so many genres of photography. The K-1 is a great landscape camera, but 4.4fps and a buffer of 13-17 RAWs is tough to cope with for 'unpredictable genres', adding to the fact the AF is not the fastest (though PLM helps a great deal here). Pentax could lure me back with a K-1 that does 8fps and a buffer around 50, with some classic primes updated with PLM and WR (even if the AF is not that much improved!).

Arguing for fast focussing lenses is fine, including new fast focussing primes. It is however nonsensical to mix the FA limiteds into that.

It would be silly to attempt such frankentech . Just release new D-FA limiteds. Actually no, even DFA ltd can't be focus by wire. So those will have to be a separate line of plain DFA lenses.

That's fair. I actually have a gripe with the entire industry at the moment, most brands (including the likes of Fuji) seem hell bent on developing only clinically well scoring glass, and that comes at a cost (size, weight and price). The more classic or characterful lenses (which are technically flawed but as a bonus tend to be smaller and lighter) we're typically relying on third party manual focus lenses. Pentax are actually being pretty cool with that new DFA21 Limited imo. I don't care if they continue production of the HD FA Ltd's but come out with a new optical recipe that is following in a DFA21 mindset, they could be DFA28 Ltd, DFA44 Ltd or DFA79 Ltd for all I care, the point would be that they have far improved AF and with weather sealing but follow a philosophy of 'not measurable by numbers' (of course we're taking for granted here that the optics are good!). I think there is a lot of people screaming for something with good AF that is not clinical, weighs a tonne and hits the bank balance hard. Unfortunately that last point is likely to not go away any time soon, but it would be really cool if Pentax show the rest of the industry how its done, after all they also know how to make reference lenses, the DFA85 is industry leading in clinical resolving power. But at the end of the day I feel its hard to get excited about anything K-new, it's still a lot of ancient glass slapped onto it, how great a difference can it really make...

Another reason I am still very happy with my DC motor lenses, and these have proven themselves to be reliable as well as accurate. Quite fast too, though obviously not as fast as PLM lenses. I have yet to own a PLM lens. However, I believe my little DA-L 18-50mm DC lens is by-wire focusing, so it too might have a problem with MF if the motor failed.

That said, since the new K-3 III was designed with better, faster, and more accurate AF in mind to go with its higher FPS burst capability, it was appropriate to also come out with a DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 PLM replacement to go with this concept. Next should be an updated DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 lens as well. Updated DA* 200mm f/2.8 and DA* 300mm f/4 lenses should follow. Whether these should be PLM or DC is a question, but either would be a definite advancement over the old outdated SDM technology. Unlike the original DA* 16-50mm SDM, no change in optics would be necessary with these lenses, which are already of very high caliber, just the AF system.

The improved AF speed and overall performance, including with burst shooting, of the new K-3 III has been one of its most important advancements, but it is unclear if these advancements are there also with lenses of DC AF designs, or if AF speed would be about the same as say the KP unless using a PLM lens. Even then, a PLM lens has quicker AF on a KP then do other non-PLM lenses, so how much quicker is the new K-3 III using these same types of lenses?

My testing showed the new K3III to have little AF improvement. Live View side of things its practically a carbon copy of the K-1 from 2016. OVF wise it might be slightly better for some glass (but my experience with the 3 FA Limiteds actually gave worse AF accuracy than any Pentax camera that came before, very erratic and impossible to Fine Adjust with those lenses). I truly believe that those claiming the AF is better on the K3III are mistaking the benefits of boosted fps and buffer with better results/keepers. For the first time ever Pentaxians are able to witness the pros of 'spraying and praying' whether it be a bird flying in the sky or whatever. The AF system now gets additional time to 'catch back up' to what is going on, reacquire the subject etc etc. I feel like the same fps and buffer added to my K-1 or old KP would pretty much result in the same output. Don't get me wrong, not hating on the K3III, it is the best camera for Pentax suited for action, but a good PLM lens on that system is really making it shine as well (which harks back to my point I make in the video).

[house]

I've been saying it over and over but Pentax hasn't produced a prime lens in a normal line of lenses for a **very** long time. Primes are all Limiteds or Star. The DAL primes were both old formulas so I'm guessing the newest non special prime was a FA lens unless they were all A formulas ...

I'm sure that Pentax could make very beautiful cheapish fast focussing primes with balanced aberrations if they wanted to but clearly they don't. Perhaps because they would kill sales of FA ltds. Any new lens would basically outperform them.

[Rondec]

My testing showed the new K3III to have little AF improvement. Live View side of things its practically a carbon copy of the K-1 from 2016. OVF wise it might be slightly better for some glass (but my experience with the 3 FA Limiteds actually gave worse AF accuracy than any Pentax camera that came before, very erratic and impossible to Fine Adjust with those lenses). I truly believe that those claiming the AF is better on the K3III are mistaking the benefits of boosted fps and buffer with better results/keepers. For the first time ever Pentaxians are able to witness the pros of 'spraying and praying' whether it be a bird flying in the sky or whatever. The AF system now gets additional time to 'catch back up' to what is going on, reacquire the subject etc etc. I feel like the same fps and buffer added to my K-1 or old KP would pretty much result in the same output. Don't get me wrong, not hating on the K3III, it is the best camera for Pentax suited for action, but a good PLM lens on that system is really making it shine as well (which harks back to my point I make in the video).

You've said this sort of thing before, but I have found the K-3 III significantly better than my K-1 or K-3 with regard to tracking and eye focus. Now, I am using the DFA f2.8 zooms and DFA *50/85, plus the DA *16-50mm PLM so maybe that affects my perspective. I don't think there is much difference with my screw driven lenses like the FA 31 limited or FA 135 f2.8, but that's a big difference with saying that (1) the K-3 III is the same as older camera bodies (it isn't) or (2) the only lenses that show benefit are PLM lenses.

[gatorguy]

My testing showed the new K3III to have little AF improvement... I truly believe that those claiming the AF is better on the K3III are mistaking the benefits of boosted fps and buffer with better results/keepers.. Don't get me wrong, not hating on the K3III, it is the best camera for Pentax suited for action, but a good PLM lens on that system is really making it shine as well (which harks back to my point I make in the video).

Eddy, I don't have a clue whether you've kept up with firmware updates since you gave the K3III a go when it was first released. For what it's worth I never shoot bursts with My K3III except when doing BiF, despite my Sony and Canon friends doing the machine gun at model shoots. But I've certainly discovered better focus to be a fact when comparing to my K1 and K70. It's not imagination with my own camera.

But FWIW, I've not had much issue with focus on the K1/K70's either for relatively static subjects before buying the K3III. I was taught good technique by a great teacher.

For decades good DSLR shooters developed great focusing skills. Before that good film shooters did the same. IMO what mirrorless eye focus has done is mitigate much of the need for technique and practice so that new or inexperienced togs can get good results with less effort. It's opened up the craft to the lesser skilled, tho the timing could have been a whole lot better with the industry in a 7 year nose-dive. Anyway, there's a plethora of professional photographers making a living with their DSLR's and not seeing any need to rush to mirrorless.

All that out of the way I agree in most part with your assertion that it's fast-focus lenses that might be missing from the Pentax lineup, holding back the potential. The camera's are fine for most uses, in fact more than fine for most of what I do. The K1 has it's place, while the K3III serves another. But on that camera there have been times when I've chosen to carry my 55-300 PLM for that more spritely focus rather than the otherwise excellent 150-450. So a fast focus 35mm, and a 100 or 105mm would probably get my wallet open too.

And yes please Pentax, I know it can't be a PLM but let's see a rationally priced but speedy focus 150-600 too, and I don't care if you make a deal with a third-party to do it. That's the one lens that ensures me keeping my Nikon D500. The other two Nikons (55-300 and 16-80 2.8) pretty much sit on the shelf. Oh, and the Nikon version 55-300 is not as good a lens or as speedy focusing as Pentax own. It just isn't.

[Madaboutpix]

The DAL primes were both old formulas so I'm guessing the newest non special prime was a FA lens unless they were all A formulas ...

Unless I'm missing something, the latest non-Limited or -Star Pentax prime should have been the plastic-fantastic DA50 F1.8, released in 2012. BTW, it's neither an aspherical lens, nor did it use an already existing formula (although I take it to be a variation of the Double Gauss type). It may not look like much, but it's actually a tack-sharp (slightly stopped down) and quite capabable nifty fifty (F4.5, 1/800s, ISO 5000; processed to taste in DxO PL5):

[house]

Unless I'm missing something, the latest non-Limited or -Star Pentax prime should have been the plastic-fantastic DA50 F1.8, released in 2012. BTW, it's neither an aspherical lens, nor did it use an already existing formular (although I take it to be a variation of the Double Gauss type). It may not look like much, but it's actually a tack-sharp (slightly stopped down) and quite capabable nifty fifty (F4.5, 1/800s, ISO 5000):

I was thinking about the DA50 but remember someone saying it was a version of the FA1.7/50. That might have been a poorly researched comment though. I guess there tends to be less detailed info available about budget lenses. I own the DA50 but no longer use it. Always found the AF unreliable, but I do have some nice photos from it.

The DA35AL is the FA35AL with some baffles and downscaled elements so I took the assertion that the DA50 had a similar relation to the FA1.7/50 at face value. Would be interesting to know how you know that the DA50 is a new optical formula.

[Madaboutpix]

Would be interesting to know how you know that the DA50 is a new optical formula.

Admittedly, there may be a bit of conjecture in this. But on Douglas_of_Sweden's page on "Known and Unknown Pentax lens designers and their lenses"

through the viewfinder: Known and Unknown Pentax lens designers and their lenses

I found that Kato Koji (active at Pentax from 2005 till 2012) was responsible for the DA50 F1.8, which even has its own patent (issued in July 2012). Given that the FA50 F1.7 was released in 1991 (see PF User Reviews section), with no information to be readily found about who came up with it, I think it rather unlikely that it's by the same designer.

[BruceBanner]

You've said this sort of thing before, but I have found the K-3 III significantly better than my K-1 or K-3 with regard to tracking and eye focus. Now, I am using the DFA f2.8 zooms and DFA *50/85, plus the DA *16-50mm PLM so maybe that affects my perspective. I don't think there is much difference with my screw driven lenses like the FA 31 limited or FA 135 f2.8, but that's a big difference with saying that (1) the K-3 III is the same as older camera bodies (it isn't) or (2) the only lenses that show benefit are PLM lenses.

I've said it and also backed it up with pretty decent evidence, you only need to watch my K3III videos to see my results;

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

I don't want people to think I'm not saying its totally not better, but from my testing its just a little disappointing for such a long wait between bodies. LV side of things it really is no better at all, in fact I think I prefer the way the Tracking AF mode in LV works on my K-1 more than how it is implemented with an ever so weak AF.C implementation on the K3III (but that's kinda more user preference). And I think that Live View AF is largely a skimmed over feature when Pentaxians talk about AF with the K3III, it represents 50% of the shooting experience! So of the overall AF 'improvement' on the K3III it has already (in my eyes) lost 50% of any kind of improvement, we only have the other 50% of the AF experience via the OVF to pull ahead here to come to a conclusion of 'its so much better'...

I showed that the OVF with Subject Recognition is assisting more than what I was achieving with K-1/KP experience, but that it's still not amazing or crazy better. I really do side with DPreview with their assessment, D500 (2016 camera) still has better AF than 2021 K3III. That feels a fair call and reflected my own testing and in the field experience.
What I didn't (publicly) shout about was that I found the FA ltds (the only screw drive lenses I have) to being actually worse for AF on the K3III. This was very evident when trying to use the Dot Tune Method of AF tuning (a method that I have found to work very well in the past). I won't go over all this again but I can't change the facts from that testing experience, it was worse and the in the field experience reflected this with some very erratic results with the three amigos (to the point I would just manual focus them instead). I'm calling a spade a spade here, summary;

- LV not any better
- OVF marginally better with certain lenses
- OVF actually worse with certain lenses

I would recommend PLM glass for the K3III to take advantage of what little AF improvements it actually has and to avoid screw driven glass, all I'm saying is that it's a sensible pairing. My OP video to this thread is about how unexcited I am of a (maybe) K-1III down the line because I really can't see how much better that experience is going to be with the glass I adore with Pentax (FA Ltds), it's a 2 way thing, improvements in the AF experience comes down to both glass tech and body tech, not just one or the other. The PLM was great on my KP as well! It just ran out of steam very quickly, without a KP in existence that can shoot 10fps and for 30+ frames we'll never be able to know how the two cameras compare but I really feel like the overall experience and difference would basically be the same if such a camera from Pentax existed.

I'm happy to hear you find AF acceptable and improved with your experience and combination of lenses, nothing I say should impact that in anyway.

But back to the original message of the video, I could actually handle the AF for Pentax the way it currently is, I don't need Face/Eye Detection and all that jazz, my biggest problem with using Pentax for event work was fps (moments captured), hitting buffer, noise of lenses, lack of WR. I can see a K-1III solve some of those issues but not all, new lenses are great but we also need Pentax to update and modernize its current line-up (that is if the bodies are actually improved as we all think).

Eddy, I don't have a clue whether you've kept up with firmware updates since you gave the K3III a go when it was first released. For what it's worth I never shoot bursts with My K3III except when doing BiF, despite my Sony and Canon friends doing the machine gun at model shoots. But I've certainly discovered better focus to be a fact when comparing to my K1 and K70. It's not imagination with my own camera.

But FWIW, I've not had much issue with focus on the K1/K70's either for relatively static subjects before buying the K3III. I was taught good technique by a great teacher.

For decades good DSLR shooters developed great focusing skills. Before that good film shooters did the same. IMO what mirrorless eye focus has done is mitigate much of the need for technique and practice so that new or inexperienced togs can get good results with less effort. It's opened up the craft to the lesser skilled, tho the timing could have been a whole lot better with the industry in a 7 year nose-dive. Anyway, there's a plethora of professional photographers making a living with their DSLR's and not seeing any need to rush to mirrorless.

All that out of the way I agree in most part with your assertion that it's fast-focus lenses that might be missing from the Pentax lineup, holding back the potential. The camera's are fine for most uses, in fact more than fine for most of what I do. The K1 has it's place, while the K3III serves another. But on that camera there have been times when I've chosen to carry my 55-300 PLM for that more spritely focus rather than the otherwise excellent 150-450. So a fast focus 35mm, and a 100 or 105mm would probably get my wallet open too.

And yes please Pentax, I know it can't be a PLM but let's see a rationally priced but speedy focus 150-600 too, and I don't care if you make a deal with a third-party to do it. That's the one lens that ensures me keeping my Nikon D500. The other two Nikons (55-300 and 16-80 2.8) pretty much sit on the shelf. Oh, and the Nikon version 55-300 is not as good a lens or as speedy focusing as Pentax own. It just isn't.

I actually still have the K3III from Pentax, it is updated and it has not really changed my initial assessment of the AF.

I'm actually thankful that I learned most of my craft with Pentax, it indeed teaches useful things, technique, timing etc. I would become perhaps more heightened and 'in the zone' knowing and predicting moments, where I would need to be careful with buffer (leave something in the bank etc) because I basically had to. But of course this is also a competitive industry and I have learned the difference of having the benefits of selecting a moment such as the confetti throwing from a subpar AF.C 4.4fps experience with limited buffer to much better AF.C 10fps (with seemingly endless buffer). Huge differences can be had here and really it can be the difference between a shot barely worth presenting to the couple vs something you'd want to use to promote your services. I just imagine a K-1 with 10fps and a buffer of 50, with a PLM prime like an (imaginary) new DFA 31 PLM WR Ltd to being something that could really put Pentax back in the hands of some event professionals that value the brand. But without such an announcement (there are no PLM primes at all!) it makes me feel that any investment in future Pentax products are unlikely unless they address such things. All I would need is 'this is in the plans' to give me hope.

Also I just want to say... I did have a XC 50-230 OIS II from fuji on my XT4 for awhile, IQ wise it was great, AF wise it was awful, so slow to focus. I was really shocked as it was nothing like my 90/2, 50/2 or even the 3rd party Zeiss Touit 32 (which is known for sloppy AF). I have no idea if this experience is reflected on Fuji for their more premium zooms (like their 100-400 and 70-300), I certainly hope it is not because the K3III+55-300PLM just completely smokes the experience of using the XT4+50-230II (despite all the hype about MILC AF etc). I fully agree that DSLRs can be more than enough for many professionals and that nothing MILC has really offers benefits for them. I think however there is a strong pull in the video side of this industry now and is actually a pretty defining point of why MILC is here to stay. Even in as little as 2-3yrs, we've gone from popular media sharing sites from Stills to Reels, even jobs now ask the tog to be proficient in Reels. Oh the shame...

[BruceBanner]

I have since updated and made a blog about this (fwiw);

https://www.eddysummers.com.au/blog/the-sad-sale

[c.a.m]

I have since updated and made a blog about this (fwiw);

Your blog post includes a number of really, really good images. Well done!

Given your sadness over the departure of the FA 77 and 43, some might wonder whether you considered or tried shooting those exquisite lenses on your Fuji with an adapter. No AF, of course, but focusing manually through the XT-4's VF is quite acceptable, I imagine. I played with a Pentax-M 50/1.7 on my son's X-T3, and thought it worked fairly well. (If you already mentioned using an adapter, sorry, I missed the comment.)

- Craig

[BruceBanner]

Your blog post includes a number of really, really good images. Well done!

Given your sadness over the departure of the FA 77 and 43, some might wonder whether you considered or tried shooting those exquisite lenses on your Fuji with an adapter. No AF, of course, but focusing manually through the XT-4's VF is quite acceptable, I imagine. I played with a Pentax-M 50/1.7 on my son's X-T3, and thought it worked fairly well. (If you already mentioned using an adapter, sorry, I missed the comment.)

- Craig

Thank you! I did entertain such things but for me (being a bit snobbish) I find much of the magical qualities of these particular lenses suit FF. I did a click bait video about it;

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[mikesbike]

I showed that the OVF with Subject Recognition is assisting more than what I was achieving with K-1/KP experience, but that it's still not amazing or crazy better. I really do side with DPreview with their assessment, D500 (2016 camera) still has better AF than 2021 K3III. That feels a fair call and reflected my own testing and in the field experience.
What I didn't (publicly) shout about was that I found the FA ltds (the only screw drive lenses I have) to being actually worse for AF on the K3III. This was very evident when trying to use the Dot Tune Method of AF tuning (a method that I have found to work very well in the past). I won't go over all this again but I can't change the facts from that testing experience, it was worse and the in the field experience reflected this with some very erratic results with the three amigos (to the point I would just manual focus them instead). I'm calling a spade a spade here, summary;

- LV not any better
- OVF marginally better with certain lenses
- OVF actually worse with certain lenses

I would recommend PLM glass for the K3III to take advantage of what little AF improvements it actually has and to avoid screw driven glass, all I'm saying is that it's a sensible pairing. My OP video to this thread is about how unexcited I am of a (maybe) K-1III down the line because I really can't see how much better that experience is going to be with the glass I adore with Pentax (FA Ltds), it's a 2 way thing, improvements in the AF experience comes down to both glass tech and body tech, not just one or the other. The PLM was great on my KP as well! It just ran out of steam very quickly, without a KP in existence that can shoot 10fps and for 30+ frames we'll never be able to know how the two cameras compare but I really feel like the overa

This is interesting. I definitely have found most if not all of my regularly used screw-driven lenses when used on my KP to exhibit improved AF speed and accuracy with little or no hunting at all, compared to their use on previous models. This was especially noticeable with my HD DA 55-300mm WR lens. I still have some screw-driven lenses to try with the KP. I have also read posts by others who have had similar experience with screw driven lenses on their KP bodies.

Since the PLM technology is not capable with lenses above a certain size, I assume the new DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 must be approaching that limit, as it is certainly a pretty hefty lens with sizable elements. But if due to this, Pentax eventually decides to issue their DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 with a faster, more reliable DC motor instead, that would be a fine idea, and add HD coatings as well. This is a very well-performing lens optically, and just making those upgrades with the same optical formula would certainly be worthwhile, and thus would keep additional cost down. Same for others of the old SDM class which would then have even far more appeal.

Even though having the excellent FA 35mm f/2 for many years, I bought the updated HD version some months ago for use on my recently-acquired K-1 II, as B&H offered the lens at a sale price. I've been very happy with its performance and convenient-carrying versatility. I say that with some reservation, having the thought in the back of my mind that they could have gone a little further in the update, had they included a DC or PLM AF along with WR as well in their revision. These updates for the DA 55-300mm did not entail a huge cost increase, even though this lens was completely re-formulated. Then the revised 35mm could have become a DFA 35mm f/2, using the same optical formula, keeping the aperture ring, and just implementing a DC motor would be fine with such a lens, since it is not likely to be used for exceptionally fast-moving subjects, etc. anyway. Nonetheless, I am content with it as updated, though I could wish it at least came with WR sealing.