[Uluru]

Can't be that hard... the FA limiteds are tiny and sub 2.0 apertures. Why do the DA's have to be so slow in comparison?

It's not a matter of being fast or slow a lens, but it is the matter of the genuinely new investment.

[deus ursus]

This logic work if you view the DA 560/5.6 as a compact pancake lens.

Well, compared to an elephant's trunk, it is a compact pancake lens.

[RockvilleBob]

I suspect that they tried it and found that their long lenses would barely focus without it, and not at all with. They probably will release along with a body that will be able to use it effectively on their 300 f4.

That makes a lot of sense.

If that is the case I'll probably need to buy the new camera - I find the K-5 does what I need except for auto-focus capability.

It isn't so much more pixels I need, but nice to have, it is better auto-focus for wildlife, especially birds, and a 1.4 TC

I really like the 300 lens.

[Aristophanes]

Can't be that hard... the FA limiteds are tiny and sub 2.0 apertures. Why do the DA's have to be so slow in comparison?

The FA Limited are not tiny. They are smallish, but the 31 is quite large and the FA 77 is considerably larger than the true pancake DA 70, especially in weight:

FA77

64 x 48 mm (2.5 x 1.9 in.) 270 g (9.5 oz)

DA 70

63 x 26 mm (2.5 x 1 in.) 130 g (4.6 oz)

To get pancake small you give up some aperture. In the days of exceptional high ISO performance, that wide an iris is not really necessary. Super-shallow DOF is not used in most shooting situations (and starting to become a boring aesthetic in itself).

[thibs]

c'mon, considering their aperture, the FA Limited ARE compact.
As for pancakes, FA Limited were never supposed to be pancakes AFAIK.

[Aristophanes]

c'mon, considering their aperture, the FA Limited ARE compact.
As for pancakes, FA Limited were never supposed to be pancakes AFAIK.

The 43 is relatively compact, but heavy. The 31 is quite large. The 77 is on the smaller side for a 135 near-85mm lens, such as the M85/2. But it is hard to compare film era lenses to digital.

The DA 21, 40, and 70 are true pancake lenses and very lightweight. The 15mm gets as close to a pancake on APS-C as one could hope for an UWA. The DA 35 Macro is not really a pancake, but pretty small compared to the competition and other macros in particular and designed to take advantage of in-body SR. It is designed to macro resolve.

The FA's are of a standard file-era prime design template. They are AF lenses with large apertures and helicoids and prices. Same for the FA 24/2 and FA*85 (I've owned the former). The 50mm's are pretty compact, but they are for every brand. It is just inherent in optical design for 135 and APS-C that from ~35-70mm you can get a fairly compact design with reasonably fast apertures.

But, if you you want faster glass at wider or longer FL's you will get much larger and especially heavier lenses. Frankly the DA 21 is not a f/3.2 piece off glass but more like an f/4 (where it gets nicely sharp, and is stellar from f/4 to f/5.6).

These are all just inherent design trade-offs. Obviously Pentax looked at future sensor ISO performance and the trend towards smaller cameras and and went with screw-drive primes of a very small size and mass without super-fast apertures. They have superb flare control, focus very fast, are great across the frame, have minimal coma and distortions, and are easy to carry. Mine all fit in a pencil case. To get there you lose some shallow DOF headroom but get durable build and quick-shift focusing (likely at the expense of WR).

The DA 35/2.4 and DA 50/1.8 also continue this philosophy of being very lightweight and compact, especially compared to Canikon and Sony. The Pentax design philosophy is more about size and weight and less about maximum fast aperture. If you have a grip about this, switch brands.

[Barry Pearson]

I suspect that they tried it and found that their long lenses would barely focus without it, and not at all with. They probably will release along with a body that will be able to use it effectively on their 300 f4.

I'm not sure what point you are making.

When I put my DA* 300mm f/4 on a Pentax Z1-P with a Kenko P-AF 1.4x TELEPLUS MC4, it auto-focused without apparent problem.

The scanned results are here.

[D1N0]

The Pentax design philosophy is more about size and weight and less about maximum fast aperture. If you have a grip about this, switch brands.

No it is not. That's just the limiteds. The DA* FA* lensen do have fast aperture.

[Aristophanes]

No it is not. That's just the limiteds. The DA* FA* lensen do have fast aperture.

We were talking about the DA Limiteds.

[D1N0]

We were talking about the DA Limiteds.

Then there is no need to switch brands. Any way there's Sigma and Samyang as well.

[derekkite]

I'm not sure what point you are making.

When I put my DA* 300mm f/4 on a Pentax Z1-P with a Kenko P-AF 1.4x TELEPLUS MC4, it auto-focused without apparent problem.

The scanned results are here.

I regularly run into situations where my K5/ DA*300 doesn't have enough light to focus. Losing another stop would make those situations appear more often. In the summer it would be no issue, but we are already getting into low light conditions except for a few hours during the middle of the day. I understand that K5-II is better, but I haven't tried it.

[Aristophanes]

Then there is no need to switch brands. Any way there's Sigma and Samyang as well.

thibs wants only fast glass regardless of lens size. He wants the DA Ltd's to be faster aperture in the same size lens. That's the whole point of choosing a DA Ltd: small size, not Sigma or Samyang huge.

[Barry Pearson]

I regularly run into situations where my K5/ DA*300 doesn't have enough light to focus. Losing another stop would make those situations appear more often. In the summer it would be no issue, but we are already getting into low light conditions except for a few hours during the middle of the day. I understand that K5-II is better, but I haven't tried it.

I use a K-5IIs. This is certainly better for AF in low light than the K-5.

But I also had a lot of success, in daylight, shooting action such as airshows and motor sports with my DA* 300mm f/4, and especially my DA* 60-250mm f/4, on my K-5, and even my DA* 60-250mm f/4 with my K-7 before that. I live in the UK, where there quite a few hours of daylight throughout most of the year.

[Poit]

One thing I think we can learn from this updated roadmap -- in which the HD Limiteds suddenly appeared at the same time they were formally announced -- is that we can stop looking for subtle clues about FF and other changes of direction.

If they don't want us to know about it, it won't be represented in the roadmap.

I agree.

FF development has been publicly acknowledged on multiple occasions in the past 12 months, so one would expect to see FF lenses in the pipeline if the roadmap was an accurate and true representation of what they are working on.

As quicksand said, if they don't want us to know about it yet, it won't be there. That doesn't, necessarily, mean nothing is happening.

Go back to your lives

[thibs]

thibs wants only fast glass regardless of lens size. He wants the DA Ltd's to be faster aperture in the same size lens. That's the whole point of choosing a DA Ltd: small size, not Sigma or Samyang huge.

You got it completely wrong, would you re read your post on which I commented before writing nonsense ?
You argued that FA Limited are not tiny. They ARE for what they are. Compare with size/weight from the other brands.
That was my point. FA Limited ARE compact.