new roadmap

Uluru · 09-01-2013, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Wired

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 · 09-02-2013, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Fogel70

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 · 09-02-2013, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by derekkite

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** · 09-02-2013, 06:31 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Wired

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 · 09-02-2013, 07:04 AM

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

**Aristophanes** · 09-02-2013, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by thibs

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 · 09-02-2013, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by derekkite

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 · 09-02-2013, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

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** · 09-02-2013, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by D1N0

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 · 09-02-2013, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

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 · 09-02-2013, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Barry Pearson

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** · 09-02-2013, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by D1N0

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 · 09-02-2013, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by derekkite

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 · 09-02-2013, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Quicksand

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 · 09-02-2013, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

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.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Lens Roadmap!	Noisychip	Pentax News and Rumors	21	02-02-2012 08:38 PM
New Pentax Lens Roadmap	agkchang	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	04-27-2009 04:05 PM
New Pentax Roadmap	ogl	Pentax News and Rumors	67	03-04-2009 03:59 AM
New Pentax lenses roadmap	ogl	Pentax News and Rumors	19	02-02-2008 02:24 AM
new lens roadmap	MJB DIGITAL	Pentax News and Rumors	13	10-02-2007 11:33 PM

09-01-2013, 08:33 PM	#106
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	Originally posted by Wired 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.

09-02-2013, 05:45 AM	#107
deus ursus Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Stårheim, Norway Posts: 658	Originally posted by Fogel70 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.

09-02-2013, 05:55 AM	#108
RockvilleBob Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Lewes DE USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,780	Originally posted by derekkite 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.

09-02-2013, 06:31 AM - 1 Like	#109
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Wired 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).

09-02-2013, 07:04 AM	#110
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	c'mon, considering their aperture, the FA Limited ARE compact. As for pancakes, FA Limited were never supposed to be pancakes AFAIK.

09-02-2013, 07:31 AM	#111
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by thibs 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.

09-02-2013, 07:45 AM	#112
Barry Pearson Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Stockport Posts: 964	Originally posted by derekkite 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.

09-02-2013, 10:59 AM	#113
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by Aristophanes 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.

09-02-2013, 11:02 AM	#114
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by D1N0 No it is not. That's just the limiteds. The DA* FA* lensen do have fast aperture. We were talking about the DA Limiteds.

09-02-2013, 11:05 AM	#115
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by Aristophanes We were talking about the DA Limiteds. Then there is no need to switch brands. Any way there's Sigma and Samyang as well.

09-02-2013, 11:19 AM	#116
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	Originally posted by Barry Pearson 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.

09-02-2013, 11:43 AM	#117
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by D1N0 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.

09-02-2013, 11:52 AM	#118
Barry Pearson Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Stockport Posts: 964	Originally posted by derekkite I regularly run into situations where my K5/ DA300 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.

09-02-2013, 09:38 PM	#119
Poit Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Canberra, Australia Posts: 423	Originally posted by Quicksand 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

09-02-2013, 10:08 PM	#120
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Aristophanes 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.