[xGene]

14-24, f2.8 G lens? Geez, that one is 1kg alone -- like a K7 plus a prime together -- and at such specs that Pentaxians would start scratching their heads in disbelief, thinking Pentax has finally gone mad. Nikon has a luxury to do that, to boast around and live by the motto: "if it doesn't break your neck, it's not worth having a Nikon badge."

But not Pentax. So instead of Nikonian approach which can afford anything, rather something meaningful more people can enjoy.

LOL! Although, I remember not so long ago, I was regularly wearing a PZ-1p with the grip, with an AF500 flash and a FA*80-200 attached.... Talk about breaking your neck!!!! I lost a couple inches (in height....) during that period...

Pentax has not always been lean...

Gene

[tomtor]

Personally, this is the first time that I can remember not being able to wait for October to roll around. Then, hopefully, all are rumors will be laid to rest.
On another note: As for APS-C sensor lenses on FF, is it possible to make an extension tube like device to convert the lens to fill the FF sensor? It may increase the focal length and surely would affect the f/ stops.

Each teleconverter with at least a 1.5 ratio (eg the Pentax 1.7 af converter) does what you want.

It magnifies the center part of the image.

Personally I'd prefer the automatic or manual cropping of images produced by da lenses with an image circle which is too small.

Note that eg the 60-250 lens is really an FF lens, as shown by Falk by examining the patent data.

Add a 24-75/2.8 lens and a long tele (also nice for aps usage!) and together with the existing fa limiteds and the dfa 100 macro you go a long way in a ff roadmap.

[Aristophanes]

LOL! Although, I remember not so long ago, I was regularly wearing a PZ-1p with the grip, with an AF500 flash and a FA*80-200 attached.... Talk about breaking your neck!!!! I lost a couple inches (in height....) during that period...

Pentax has not always been lean...

Gene

And Pros carry big glass that they can afford. And pro-wannabes emulate. It's where the $$$ are. The Nikon D700 with 14-24, 24-70 (neither VR BTW) and the VR 70-300 are the best-selling FF packages for Nikon. Save for a single fast prime in the mix (for compactness indoors, not IQ as the 14-24 is a peer of primes), this set-up does it all. Add in a less expensive 22-90 walkaround zoom and you have suitable FF options for a smaller market. Pentax would do well to leverage their in-body IS for a less expensive lens system to the same measures. Add in legacy lenses and Pentax could get away with sub-8 lens production outlay for their FF system and thrive, serving some of the APS-C market via the Ltd as well.

Just a thought.

[theperception2008]

But it was least expensive to simply take the optics from the D FA 100 Macro and put it into a new exterior, to answer the critics about the original D FA 100 Macro being too plastic.

A DA 100 Macro would require a new optical design and this would be expensive.
Do note that Pentax shares the optical design of the D FA 100 Macro with the Tokina 100 Macro. Would Tokina be interrested in an APS-C only macro lens? Doesn't think so.
I think some here reads too much into this D FA 100 announcement.
It is just the old D FA 100 Macro in a new metal exterior with weather sealing!

But theres no point naming it FF (D-FA) if theres no plan for making an FF camera. Older FF lenses are labeled DA....

As Pål Jensen said it, Pentax has relabeled FA* lenses as DA* lenses. It could have just as easily been a DA 100 Macro F2.8 without changing a single thing, except sans aperture ring, which the new WR version lacks as well. It's just my thought as to why they used the D-FA designation instead of DA.

If it was meant primarily for film cameras, the *Ist and the MZ-S aren't weather sealed to my knowledge and the MZ-S is only partially compatible with the D-FA 100 WR version as it does not have an aperture ring.

Just my humble opinion.
:-)

[Winder]

Personally I think a squarer APS-H sensor is the way to go. 5/4 or 4/3 aspect ratio, but with the surface area of the APS-H. Most lenses on FF really suffer on the edges and FF glass with sharp edge to edge sharpness is $$$.

As far as being professional the Canon 1D APS-H has done pretty well. I believe most of the DA* lenses will work on an APS-H and if it were in a 5/4 or 4/3 light fall off would be much less of an issue.

3/2 is just not a good format unless you are into landscapes, and with good pano-stitching software any format can work great. 3/2 is very inefficient when it comes to using the best part of the image circle.

The CMOS Sensor Squared [CR2] Canon Rumors

I doubt Pentax will be this radical, but it is interesting.

[George Lama]

Most lenses on FF really suffer on the edges and FF glass with sharp edge to edge sharpness is $$$.

Exactly. Ned Bunnell addressed the FF issue in his blog last year and pointed out the lack of FF lenses engineered for a FF DSLR. He also pointed out that sure, you can slap on old FF lenses and you can take photos, but IQ is a serious concern, particularly at edge to edge sharpness and distortion control.

[Asahiflex]

Exactly. Ned Bunnell addressed the FF issue in his blog last year and pointed out the lack of FF lenses engineered for a FF DSLR. He also pointed out that sure, you can slap on old FF lenses and you can take photos, but IQ is a serious concern, particularly at edge to edge sharpness and distortion control.

IMHO that's a big fuss about nothing. I have used lots of old FF lenses on my (then) Canon 5D and I never saw any problems with any of the lenses I tried. And my eyes are not easily fooled.

Ned is just trying to sell more new Pentax lenses

[Aristophanes]

IMHO that's a big fuss about nothing. I have used lots of old FF lenses on my (then) Canon 5D and I never saw any problems with any of the lenses I tried. And my eyes are not easily fooled.

Ned is just trying to sell more new Pentax lenses

NO new lenses for you to buy, no FF

[Winder]

IMHO that's a big fuss about nothing. I have used lots of old FF lenses on my (then) Canon 5D and I never saw any problems with any of the lenses I tried. And my eyes are not easily fooled.

Ned is just trying to sell more new Pentax lenses

I would say it depends on what you are shooting. I still use a 5D for most of my work and there are certain types of work where it does not matter. My 85L has such a shallow DoF when shooting people that it is rare for edge sharpness to matter. Landscapes and architectural work on the other hand are a challenge and the softness is easy to spot. CA and distortion can ruin the image.

For people photography a little softness and vignetting is often a desirable effect.

[RMabo]

As Pål Jensen said it, Pentax has relabeled FA* lenses as DA* lenses.

Lenses? Pentax only did that with *one* lens - they re-used the optical design in the FA Star 200 f/2.8 and it became the DA Star 200 f/2.8. Only one lens, not lenses.

> It could have just as easily been a DA 100 Macro F2.8 without changing a single >thing, except sans aperture ring, which the new WR version lacks as well. It's just my >thought as to why they used the D-FA designation instead of DA.

The original D FA 100 f/2.8 Macro was designed for DSLR's, it has an optical formula designed with digital sensors in mind. Re-labeling the D FA to DA would just be confusing.
They kept the optical design and put it into a new exterior, so the D FA 100 WR is clearly a WR version of the old D FA 100 Macro. It is even official by Pentax that they re-used the optics. The king is dead, long live the king. Pentax announced the WR-version as a new version of the existing D FA 100. It would have been silly to announce a new version of the D FA 100 and re-name it DA.

The D FA 100 has got good verdicts by magazines, for it's great optical performance. Those tests are also valid for the WR-version. If Pentax changed the name to DA 100 Macro, the consumer would think it is a different lens so they would search for DA 100 Macro test results instead of D FA 100 test results and they wouldn't find any.
But now, thank's to using the same designation D FA - customers of the WR-version can find many positive reviews about it's optical formula. Because Pentax kept the name.

So there are many sound reasons to keeping the name D FA, and none of those has anything to do with a 24x36 DSLR.

Pentax had to change the exterior, since many complained about the plastic exterior and feel of the D FA 100. Making it into a WR also shows Pentax comitment to weather sealing, as they have said in interviews - that they are going to release more weather sealed lenses. More will come. I wouldn't be surprised if the DA 14 f/2.8 WR appears soon, for example.

Pentax has not said officially that the DA Star 200 f/2.8 has similar optical formula as FA Star 200 f/2.8. So DA Star 200 was not announced as the new version of the 200 f/2.8, it was announced as a new lens. The D FA 100 WR was announced as a new version of an existing lens. See the difference?

[George Lama]

NO new lenses for you to buy, no FF

Exactly - makes no sense to assume the man is trying to sell more Pentax lenses when even he readily admits there are no lenses available in the first place.

[falconeye]

So there are many sound reasons to keeping the name D FA, and none of those has anything to do with a 24x36 DSLR

This is not correct.

Around 2004, Pentax had no problem with a DFA designation. Probably to emphasize its usefulness with a film camera.

2005-2008, Pentax did release APS-C lenses with the DA designation. Fine.

However, 2008 and 2009, Pentax released a number of full frame star lenses not using the DFA designation which was not a problem back in 2004: DFA*55, DFA*200, DFA*300, DFA*60-250 (the F in DFA fixed by myself). And the re-released DFA100Macro clarifies that this wasn't due to a missing aperture ring.

IMHO, Pentax is holding back the DFA designation from full frame lenses and I can imagine one reason only: to not prematurely announce their FF project. Which by reverse logic allows to deduce the existance of said project...

[Blue]

Exactly - makes no sense to assume the man is trying to sell more Pentax lenses when even he readily admits there are no lenses available in the first place.

That was also back when The Man was playing with his Leica P&S. Ned isn't one to learn much about upcoming things from regarding what Pentax is going to do. Hoya could be working on a replacement for the Hubble and Ned wouldn't know.

[George Lama]

LOL Blue.

Falconeye - is the 60-250 actually full frame? I heard there is serious vignetting at the lower end of the range when used in FF cameras.

[falconeye]

Falconeye - is the 60-250 actually full frame? I heard there is serious vignetting at the lower end of the range when used in FF cameras.

George, you'll find all available info in the https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/31629-da-lens-...ts-thread.html.

Until I actually did a serious measurement of this lens, I judge it based on the fact that Pentax patented the lens as a full frame lens and that me and several others cannot see any sign of vignetting when looking through a FF viewfinder (just tried again). I've seen the serious vignetting claim as well (1 Chinese post) and don't believe it. I actually watched the exit pupil getting obscured at a given angle which lies slightly outside the full frame image plane.

The DA*300 is patented as a full frame lens too but not every DA lens is. E.g., the DA 70 is patented as an APS-C lens.


Tell me what you want. But the end of APS-C lenses in 2008 (with the DA15 being the only late comer in early 2009) and the obscured release of five FF lenses over the last two years speaks for itself (*).

Rather, I believe 2008 marks the year where Pentax has changed its roadmap, defining 2011 as the year to release an FF camera and 2010 to finish their MF project. And 2009 to finish their K-7 project which must have started 2006/2007 right after release of the K10D when they still were APS-C convicted.

I don't know if Pentax would announce a 2011 camera as early as PK 2010. But they'll better do. Because Pentaxians will likely migrate in masses if they don't. It would be a shame if Pentax eventually released their FF camera with no Pentaxians left to buy it

__
(*) DA*55/200/300 released in 2008 and DFA100 being only mechanically different (released in 2010) tells us that lenses developped in 2nd half of 2008, in 2009 and in 2010 are held back (with the notable exception of the DA15 which I declare a 2008 late comer ). Held back what for? Remember the 1.4x converter disappearance already showcased during PK 2008? Realize that an 1.4x/1.5x converter will make any DA lens fit for FF? So, this is my educated guess based on pure speculation (but I am good at this...):

When FF releases, there will be 4 new lenses: DFA 28-80 standard zoom, DFA*24-70/2.8 and DFA*70-200/2.8 star zooms, and a sub-20 UWA DFA zoom or prime. One lens per year (2008/09/10/11) the FF project took them to deliver.














So, putting 2+2 together, this is MY prediction:

• All in 2011:
• Pentax xxx 135mm digital SLR
• DFA lineup: 28-80, 100Macro, UWA?
• DFA* zooms: 24-70, 70-200, 60-250 (maybe replacing the 70-200 for 2011), UWA?
• DFA* primes: 55, 200, 300, UWA?
• FA Limiteds: 31, 43, 77
• DFA-DA adapter: 1.4x/1.5x converter

I am just not 100% sure that September will be the date where all this is announced yet.

UPDATE:

Actually, the decision for their FF development project back in 2008 was actually leaked by Shibata, Chi Ho! We may not have taken notice or forgot, but here it is:
Pentax SLR-rich product line general manager Ho Chi Shibata interview

The relevant sentence in a better translation (Franka T.L.):

We noted the trend also, and we are now in the process of starting to plan for the R&D of such line of products. Still, in the near to short term, we will be focusing on APS-C sized product.

(which in short words means: "we have decided to go FF")

So every move we have seen by the inner circle of Pentax after 2008, June 21 must be analyzed with taking their knowledge of this decision to eventually release an FF product into account.

E.g., this is what Ned Bunnell wrote back in April 2009 when discussing rumors the K-7 may be FF:

I know that our engineers have studied these issues and would probably not agree totally with my simplistic explanation. However, I think it's important to understand that going to a full frame sensor means not only having to design a brand new camera from ground up, but likely a new line of lenses that meet the more demanding optical requirements

So, from what we know now, this probably exactly is what Pentax did