[pres589]

A fast aperture like f1.4 would not be a Limited; that's "star" lenses from Pentax. D-FA*50 for instance.

Sigma currently sells a 16mm f1.4 lens for some mirrorless systems. While I imagine that a Pentax would be physically smaller this lens still should give some idea where the current state of lens designing would get you as far as this sort of lens is concerned when discussing package dimensions. The Sigma is also for crop sensor systems which has to be taken into account. About a decade ago Samyang came out with a 16mm f2 lens which I believe is larger still.

[normhead]

You have to sell a lot of cameras to make money on a 16 1.4. It's not many people's favourite shooting FL. And those who would like the FL have the 15 ƒ4 which is quite popular and very useable. Someone should run poll. How many who own the 15 (establishing the need for UWA) would rather have a 16 1.4? I bet Pentax marketing has had a look. (You know Pentax marketing? 6 dudes who all work in other divisions who get together for a beer over lunch, every second Tuesday.)

[pres589]

You have to sell a lot of cameras to make money on a 16 1.4. It's not many people's favourite shooting FL. And those who would like the FL have the 15 ƒ4 which is quite popular and very useable. Someone should run poll. How many who own the 15 (establishing the need for UWA) would rather have a 16 1.4? I bet Pentax marketing has had a look. (You know Pentax marketing? 6 dudes who all work in other divisions who get together for a beer over lunch, every second Tuesday.)

That's a good point about how many people would actually reach for such a lens. I wouldn't. A really good from wide-open 11mm or 12mm f2.8 for my crop body Pentax would be much more of an interest to me. Or something like the Fuji 18mm f2; it's not quite a pancake but it's still pretty small and would give that classic 28mm-on-FF field of view.


The 15mm Ltd is a really great compromise which I still value.

[jersey]

You have to sell a lot of cameras to make money on a 16 1.4. It's not many people's favourite shooting FL. And those who would like the FL have the 15 ƒ4 which is quite popular and very useable. Someone should run poll. How many who own the 15 (establishing the need for UWA) would rather have a 16 1.4? I bet Pentax marketing has had a look. (You know Pentax marketing? 6 dudes who all work in other divisions who get together for a beer over lunch, every second Tuesday.)

I have 15mm Ltd and no way in the hell I would ever waste money on 16mm f1.4. For not enough light there is tripod or IBIS+high ISO capabilities of K-3 Mk III. And if f4 i not enough I rather buy 16-50 for versatility then single very fast UWA.

[pres589]

I think my favorite shots with the DA 15 Ltd SMC are at night with a tripod and the lens stopped down to around f11. Even if I was a real estate photog I don't think I'd want to bother with anything faster than f2.8; seems to be smarter to bring stabilization in the form of a tripod or similar if I really need more light for indoor or low-light shots.

But that's just me and my opinion.

[normhead]

I think my favorite shots with the DA 15 Ltd SMC are at night with a tripod and the lens stopped down to around f11. Even if I was a real estate photog I don't think I'd want to bother with anything faster than f2.8; seems to be smarter to bring stabilization in the form of a tripod or similar if I really need more light for indoor or low-light shots.

But that's just me and my opinion.

Then there's the whole DoF issue. You can shoot sub ƒ2, but do you really want to? 90% of my shooting is ƒ5.6 APS-c and ƒ8 FF. Those are a nice balance between sharpness and DoF. Sometimes ƒ4 of ƒ2.8 in low light. Rarely less than ƒ4. For studio work it's probably better to buy a few more lights than blowing a wad on a 1.4 lens. With more lights, all your lenses are more capable.

[UncleVanya]

Then there's the whole DoF issue. You can shoot sub ƒ2, but do you really want to? 90% of my shooting is ƒ5.6 APS-c and ƒ8 FF. Those are a nice balance between sharpness and DoF. Sometimes ƒ4 of ƒ2.8 in low light. Rarely less than ƒ4. For studio work it's probably better to buy a few more lights and blowing a wad on a 1.4 lens. With more lights, all you lenses are more capable.

Norm we grew up in an era when "shallow" dof was a lot less in vogue. I totally get where you are coming from. I do shoot shallow DOF some but I lean into more DOF quite often. The biggest difficulty for my brain is using both FF and APSC and remembering that I need more than f5.6 on FF for some shots and less than F11 on APSC for some shots... Sigh.

[clackers]

Pentax has already amazed us all with its Limited editions and its legendary 70/2.4 or the 15/4. Why not hope for the next miracle?

There has never been an f1.4 Limited, or a Star lens of less than 50mm at f1.4.

In fact, the Limiteds are slow aperture wise for what they are, as a compromise with size.

[pres589]

I do use my Sigma 24 and 28's at their max f1.8 apertures for indoor photos of bands playing in low lighting situations. But I'm limited to hand held and I do not want to use a flash in such situations so this is the compromise I've picked. They're great focal lengths for such shots on APS-C. 28 on FF is pretty good as well, where I'm using film and need every bit of light I can grab.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Norm we grew up in an era when "shallow" dof was a lot less in vogue.

With the 24mm FF ƒ1.4 (16m cropped) the need for the ƒ1.4 was based more desired for subject isolation more than shallow dof. Under normal working distance one would use the 24mm and what OP has shown this would be around 3-6m working distance and in this you have 2 to 7m of DOF but you gain much more OOF background isolation from your subject. There really is not any shallow DOF when the subject is in 2m of DOF

[UncleVanya]

With the 24mm FF ƒ1.4 (16m cropped) the need for the ƒ1.4 was based more desired for subject isolation more than shallow dof. Under normal working distance one would use the 24mm and what OP has shown this would be around 3-6m working distance and in this you have 2 to 7m of DOF but you gain much more OOF background isolation from your subject. There really is not any shallow DOF when the subject is in 2m of DOF

I’m not clear that the op showed us that those would be the distances used. But more generically that comment was made to Norm about his comments. It wasn’t specific to this one situation - related, but not only limited to this. Also I’m using my da 15 or my Sony 24-105, rarely if ever do I think to myself that I’m in need of more subject Isolation. More often I’m looking for greater in focus area. The fact is I’ve never wanted a very wide aperture on wide angle except for Astro. This was a personal observation, The op may well have a reason for the use but I’m unaware of any way to achieve it with Pentax. He did but the DA 15, which I own and like. I’m excited for him.

[normhead]

My preference for subject isolation in the studio is a back drop, not narrow DoF. Especially when in condensed space with UWAs, which produce poor subject isolation in any case. And I'm not sure why you'd use 16mm for the provided photos unless your studio space was quite small, so I've assumed that's the case. If I'm wrong that changes everything, but, that being said, 6m with a 16mm lens on APS-c is not going to produce those photos without major cropping and the resultant loss of resolution.

Go here to see some 16mm 1.4 images. The subject isolation isn't a strong point.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=16mm%201.4%20APS-c

16mm and UWA's have far more utility as "everything in focus" lenses than subject isolation lenses.
In the case or the OPs hopes, the black (or white) background actually makes isolation through DoF unnecessary. The big advantage here is going to be the added DoF of the wide angle in a small space. The 15 ƒ4 should do great as long as it's not too wide. The wider the lens, the wider backdrop you're going to need. I still have memories of moving things out of the background in the studio, when shooting with a lens that was a bit too wide. And sometimes when I first set up, I'd have all my lights etc in the frame. The joys of shooting in multi-use studios.

[Athanassios]

So….
As far as the outdoor darkness of this world is concerned I just purchased a silver KP to accompany the Limiteds 15/4 and the “cropie nifty-fifty” ie the 35/2.8 Macro.

With is 5axis-stabilisation, the grainless (?) up to 3200-6400 ISO (very good even at 25600!!!) guess I can now shoot sharp as low as 1/30s or 1/15s “ as wide and as fast as I can”. An “owl’s eye setting” to be exact.

For indoors I ALSO just purchased a second black KP with a battery grip to carry along the DA* 16-50/ 2.8 for “socialites” or add precision and stability to the Limited 70/2.4 during portraits.

The black KP will also carry the 55-300 during my daytime safari in …Athens mostly.

I think I’m done. ✅ I may just need to open a new thread on “how to handle your wife after a (costly) pentaxian decision” 😇

Thank you all for the kind advices. Fully noted.

PS: photos from Ricoh’s PR launch but you get the idea. 😍

[Athanassios]

My preference for subject isolation in the studio is…

In studio I just focus on the “subject” hence my preference in either black or white backgrounds since I want the subject to be isolated from anything distracting.

[mikesbike]

Great choices!! Congratulations in getting this very fine equipment! Your images show your admirable capabilities, which will enable the extraordinary advantages offered by this equipment to be put to optimum use, and for a very long time.