new roadmap

Wired · 09-03-2013, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Huh?

As Fogel points out they are about average with the FA 43 being = to the Nikon. The 77 a tad smaller than the 85, and the 31 larger than anything its equivalent.

Ergo they have no distinction in the market when it comes to form factor. They are about what one might expect from a premium, fast glass from the late film era.

The DA Ltd's are, OTOH, quite different.

Save the 40mm which has traditionally been a pancake (in the 45mm FL as well) the 15, 21, and 70 are all designs unique to Pentax. They create a small system no other brand in DSLR's has. I pull my 15, 21, 40 or 70 out and people think I am shooting a mirrorless or bridge camera, especially on the diminutive K-x. You won't get that with the 31 or 77.

With the FA Ltd's we start talking about 'pixie dust' and other subjective criteria. With the DA Ltd's we measure and weigh objectively. No, they aren't fast as in sub-f/2 apertures, which was what was complained about. You cannot have a wide aperture and a line of 22-105mm pancake primes (135 eq.). ISOless sensors up to 3200 have made a lot of the need for bigger, faster glass moot, especially if you want a small form factor. The FA Ltd's don't even fit into that class, where the DA Ltd's actually can go H2H with some m43 or Fuji X glass.

I don't know how I missed that post, but I see your point.

I still find the 43mm is still quite small, its only thicker than the 40mm DA by the aperture ring, so to me it's still tiny. It's smaller than any Nikon lens I own thats for sure.

If you compare digital lenses to digital lenses the DA's are still incredibly compact but quite slow. Theres got to be a way to increase the size minimally on the DA40 for example to increase lens speed. Especially keeping screw drive.

Even if we got updates to the FA's with new coatings and they didn't change in size much I would be extremely happy. I own all three, but I'd upgrade if they had better CA/pF control

Last edited by Wired; 09-03-2013 at 06:14 PM.

Uluru · 09-03-2013, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Wired

Even if we got updates to the FA's with new coatings and they didn't change in size much I would be extremely happy. I own all three, but I'd upgrade if they had better CA/pF control

Most likely, they'll borrow a page from Leica's book and slightly redesign them internally. And the price will be higher.

**Aristophanes** · 09-03-2013, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Wired

I don't know how I missed that post, but I see your point.

...Theres got to be a way to increase the size minimally on the DA40 for example to increase lens speed. Especially keeping screw drive .

The only way would be to increase the iris. From 2.8 to f/2 would add considerable mass like the FA 43 and more iris diameter. At that point you start getting into frame edge issues critical on digital sensors. That is why newer lenses are usually larger than old film era ones. And larger glass = more cost and as we all know prices are already in stupidville. Heavier glass also equals slower AF, especially with screw drive.

You simply will not get "minimal" design changes to milk a few mm's of DOF. Not worth it to lose the pancake selling point. I think Pentax already milked the lenses as us with the oddball 3.2 and 2.4 in the 21 and 70. The 21 is IMO an f/4 lens and the 70 a 2.8. Wide open there is discernible softness, but a single click ~1/3 stopping down and they snap in sharp and are glorious. And so, so, so compact and low mass on my K-x.

Wired · 09-03-2013, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

The only way would be to increase the iris. From 2.8 to f/2 would add considerable mass like the FA 43 and more iris diameter. At that point you start getting into frame edge issues critical on digital sensors. That is why newer lenses are usually larger than old film era ones. And larger glass = more cost and as we all know prices are already in stupidville. Heavier glass also equals slower AF, especially with screw drive.

You simply will not get "minimal" design changes to milk a few mm's of DOF. Not worth it to lose the pancake selling point. I think Pentax already milked the lenses as us with the oddball 3.2 and 2.4 in the 21 and 70. The 21 is IMO an f/4 lens and the 70 a 2.8. Wide open there is discernible softness, but a single click ~1/3 stopping down and they snap in sharp and are glorious. And so, so, so compact and low mass on my K-x.

Ok I think I understand now. However, why do you keep saying the FA 43 is considerably larger than the DA40, I own both and find them very similar in size with the FA being slightly heavier. The extra little length of the lens I think is a non issue

Uluru · 09-03-2013, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Wired

Ok I think I understand now. However, why do you keep saying the FA 43 is considerably larger than the DA40, I own both and find them very similar in size with the FA being slightly heavier. The extra little length of the lens I think is a non issue

FA43 has an aperture ring. To make DA40 really small, Pentax removed the aperture ring of the SMC 40/2.8, further optimised its optical performance. The aperture in all DA Limiteds, as a consequence of the quest for ultimate small footprint, is controlled electronically.

To increase aperture of the DA40 to f2, more glass will be required. In 135 format terms, smallest lenses are possible at around the diagonal size of the format, 40-45mm. I think Pentax has chosen to remake SMC 40/2.8 into a digital lens rather than bother with FA43 for APS-C. Firstly because of the duplication of the cost.

Namely, I believe they had hoped that FA43 is already so well made that it can be used on a possible FF camera without any upgrade — the old SMC 40/2.8 from 1970's wasn't quite up to the digital challenge, and so they've redesigned it into a DA40 — to spend least amount of time, and money, test own abilities in miniaturisation, and deliver cheaper alternative that is still of excellent quality. We can think of DA40 as a purposefully recycled design.

I find DA40 to be an excellent lens, and because it is a longer normal lens on APS-C cameras, I use it as a portraiture lens.

D1N0 · 09-04-2013, 03:37 AM

HD is the replacement for SMC so far as I know. Eventually all lenses will have it.

**Rorschach** · 09-09-2013, 10:58 PM

I really hope that DA wide zoom will be WR. If not, I won't be buying it.

Caat · 09-10-2013, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

If the Limited zoom is HD why not the 16~85? Both are green on the roadmap. The Limited zoom will be a HD lens like newly updated Limiteds; thats pretty obvious. Note that the DA 560 is not a "*" lens maybe because the "*" designation is about to be faded out. Hence, the 16-85 could be a HD lens and not "downgraded" at all.

That's a possibility, but a premium line of zooms is a useful marketing tool. Fading out the * line would perhaps indicate either Pentax doesn't want to play at the high end any more or that they are not concerned about marketing premium zooms by nomenclature and just on price and features.

Uluru · 09-10-2013, 03:28 AM

17-xx /2.8.

Fogel70 · 09-10-2013, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by Caat

That's a possibility, but a premium line of zooms is a useful marketing tool. Fading out the * line would perhaps indicate either Pentax doesn't want to play at the high end any more or that they are not concerned about marketing premium zooms by nomenclature and just on price and features.

If this is the case then they will replace * with AW, which probably makes it easier for marketing as they will use the same naming on lenses for all systems.

WR = Consumer level weather sealing
AW = Pro level weather sealing

Pentax AW lenses so far are:
645 SMC D FA 55mm f/2.8 AL IF SDM AW
645 SMC D FA 25mm f/4,0 AL IF SDM AW
645 HD D FA 90mm f/2.8 ED AW SR Macro
HD DA 560mm f/5.6 ED AW

And Ricoh also used "AW" to describe the weather sealing on new flashes.

TenZ.NL · 09-10-2013, 04:05 AM

Originally posted by Fogel70

If this is the case then they will replace * with AW, which probably makes it easier for marketing as they will use the same naming on lenses for all systems.

WR = Consumer level weather sealing
AW = Pro level weather sealing

Pentax AW lenses so far are:
645 SMC D FA 55mm f/2.8 AL IF SDM AW
645 SMC D FA 25mm f/4,0 AL IF SDM AW
645 HD D FA 90mm f/2.8 ED AW SR Macro
HD DA 560mm f/5.6 ED AW

And Ricoh also used "AW" to describe the weather sealing on new flashes.

Aren`t the DA*`s also AW? I think someone said it was stated on the box of the DA* 16-50 (my 16-50 came w/o a box so I can`t check)

Fogel70 · 09-10-2013, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by TenZ.NL

Aren`t the DA*`s also AW? I think someone said it was stated on the box of the DA* 16-50 (my 16-50 came w/o a box so I can`t check)

The * and AW (basically) means the same thing, but it would be confusing if a lens has both in the description.
It would imply that the lens has dual pro level weather sealing.

I'm pretty sure AW was not in use when the first DA* lenses was releases, so if the box has a AW symbol, it's something they added later.

**Rorschach** · 09-10-2013, 05:05 AM

Well, AW level protection would be even better obviously but I'd be happy with just WR if other qualities are good (I am seriously suspicious of SDM for one thing...).

TenZ.NL · 09-10-2013, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by Fogel70

The * and AW (basically) means the same thing, but it would be confusing if a lens has both in the description.
It would imply that the lens has dual pro level weather sealing.

I'm pretty sure AW was not in use when the first DA* lenses was releases, so if the box has a AW symbol, it's something they added later.

Hmm, I allways thought that the * was an indication of prograde lenses which happen to have AW-sealing. WR came later as a simplefied variant of the AW-sealing of the DA*`s.

But nonetheless, shouldn`t the DA*`s be included in your list too?

Fogel70 · 09-10-2013, 06:12 AM

Originally posted by TenZ.NL

But nonetheless, shouldn`t the DA*`s be included in your list too?

No, DA* is DA*, not AW.
DA* is an older generation lenses that most likely will be replaced by DA AW.
As long as DA* lenses do not include "AW" in the name of the lens they are not AW, but they have the same pro specification as AW lenses.

09-03-2013, 09:58 PM	#140
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	Originally posted by Wired Ok I think I understand now. However, why do you keep saying the FA 43 is considerably larger than the DA40, I own both and find them very similar in size with the FA being slightly heavier. The extra little length of the lens I think is a non issue FA43 has an aperture ring. To make DA40 really small, Pentax removed the aperture ring of the SMC 40/2.8, further optimised its optical performance. The aperture in all DA Limiteds, as a consequence of the quest for ultimate small footprint, is controlled electronically. To increase aperture of the DA40 to f2, more glass will be required. In 135 format terms, smallest lenses are possible at around the diagonal size of the format, 40-45mm. I think Pentax has chosen to remake SMC 40/2.8 into a digital lens rather than bother with FA43 for APS-C. Firstly because of the duplication of the cost. Namely, I believe they had hoped that FA43 is already so well made that it can be used on a possible FF camera without any upgrade — the old SMC 40/2.8 from 1970's wasn't quite up to the digital challenge, and so they've redesigned it into a DA40 — to spend least amount of time, and money, test own abilities in miniaturisation, and deliver cheaper alternative that is still of excellent quality. We can think of DA40 as a purposefully recycled design. I find DA40 to be an excellent lens, and because it is a longer normal lens on APS-C cameras, I use it as a portraiture lens. Last edited by Uluru; 09-03-2013 at 10:08 PM.

09-10-2013, 03:28 AM	#144
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	17-xx /2.8. Last edited by Uluru; 09-10-2013 at 03:41 AM.

09-10-2013, 03:41 AM	#145
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by Caat That's a possibility, but a premium line of zooms is a useful marketing tool. Fading out the * line would perhaps indicate either Pentax doesn't want to play at the high end any more or that they are not concerned about marketing premium zooms by nomenclature and just on price and features. If this is the case then they will replace * with AW, which probably makes it easier for marketing as they will use the same naming on lenses for all systems. WR = Consumer level weather sealing AW = Pro level weather sealing Pentax AW lenses so far are: 645 SMC D FA 55mm f/2.8 AL IF SDM AW 645 SMC D FA 25mm f/4,0 AL IF SDM AW 645 HD D FA 90mm f/2.8 ED AW SR Macro HD DA 560mm f/5.6 ED AW And Ricoh also used "AW" to describe the weather sealing on new flashes. Last edited by Fogel70; 09-10-2013 at 04:02 AM.

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

09-03-2013, 06:04 PM	#136
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	Originally posted by Aristophanes Huh? As Fogel points out they are about average with the FA 43 being = to the Nikon. The 77 a tad smaller than the 85, and the 31 larger than anything its equivalent. Ergo they have no distinction in the market when it comes to form factor. They are about what one might expect from a premium, fast glass from the late film era. The DA Ltd's are, OTOH, quite different. Save the 40mm which has traditionally been a pancake (in the 45mm FL as well) the 15, 21, and 70 are all designs unique to Pentax. They create a small system no other brand in DSLR's has. I pull my 15, 21, 40 or 70 out and people think I am shooting a mirrorless or bridge camera, especially on the diminutive K-x. You won't get that with the 31 or 77. With the FA Ltd's we start talking about 'pixie dust' and other subjective criteria. With the DA Ltd's we measure and weigh objectively. No, they aren't fast as in sub-f/2 apertures, which was what was complained about. You cannot have a wide aperture and a line of 22-105mm pancake primes (135 eq.). ISOless sensors up to 3200 have made a lot of the need for bigger, faster glass moot, especially if you want a small form factor. The FA Ltd's don't even fit into that class, where the DA Ltd's actually can go H2H with some m43 or Fuji X glass. I don't know how I missed that post, but I see your point. I still find the 43mm is still quite small, its only thicker than the 40mm DA by the aperture ring, so to me it's still tiny. It's smaller than any Nikon lens I own thats for sure. If you compare digital lenses to digital lenses the DA's are still incredibly compact but quite slow. Theres got to be a way to increase the size minimally on the DA40 for example to increase lens speed. Especially keeping screw drive. Even if we got updates to the FA's with new coatings and they didn't change in size much I would be extremely happy. I own all three, but I'd upgrade if they had better CA/pF control Last edited by Wired; 09-03-2013 at 06:14 PM.

09-03-2013, 07:13 PM	#137
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	Originally posted by Wired Even if we got updates to the FA's with new coatings and they didn't change in size much I would be extremely happy. I own all three, but I'd upgrade if they had better CA/pF control Most likely, they'll borrow a page from Leica's book and slightly redesign them internally. And the price will be higher.

09-03-2013, 08:25 PM	#138
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Wired I don't know how I missed that post, but I see your point. ...Theres got to be a way to increase the size minimally on the DA40 for example to increase lens speed. Especially keeping screw drive . The only way would be to increase the iris. From 2.8 to f/2 would add considerable mass like the FA 43 and more iris diameter. At that point you start getting into frame edge issues critical on digital sensors. That is why newer lenses are usually larger than old film era ones. And larger glass = more cost and as we all know prices are already in stupidville. Heavier glass also equals slower AF, especially with screw drive. You simply will not get "minimal" design changes to milk a few mm's of DOF. Not worth it to lose the pancake selling point. I think Pentax already milked the lenses as us with the oddball 3.2 and 2.4 in the 21 and 70. The 21 is IMO an f/4 lens and the 70 a 2.8. Wide open there is discernible softness, but a single click ~1/3 stopping down and they snap in sharp and are glorious. And so, so, so compact and low mass on my K-x.

09-03-2013, 09:40 PM	#139
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	Originally posted by Aristophanes The only way would be to increase the iris. From 2.8 to f/2 would add considerable mass like the FA 43 and more iris diameter. At that point you start getting into frame edge issues critical on digital sensors. That is why newer lenses are usually larger than old film era ones. And larger glass = more cost and as we all know prices are already in stupidville. Heavier glass also equals slower AF, especially with screw drive. You simply will not get "minimal" design changes to milk a few mm's of DOF. Not worth it to lose the pancake selling point. I think Pentax already milked the lenses as us with the oddball 3.2 and 2.4 in the 21 and 70. The 21 is IMO an f/4 lens and the 70 a 2.8. Wide open there is discernible softness, but a single click ~1/3 stopping down and they snap in sharp and are glorious. And so, so, so compact and low mass on my K-x. Ok I think I understand now. However, why do you keep saying the FA 43 is considerably larger than the DA40, I own both and find them very similar in size with the FA being slightly heavier. The extra little length of the lens I think is a non issue

09-04-2013, 03:37 AM	#141
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	HD is the replacement for SMC so far as I know. Eventually all lenses will have it.

09-09-2013, 10:58 PM	#142
Rorschach Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Kuusamo, Finland Photos: Gallery Posts: 652	I really hope that DA wide zoom will be WR. If not, I won't be buying it.

09-10-2013, 03:11 AM	#143
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by Pål Jensen If the Limited zoom is HD why not the 16~85? Both are green on the roadmap. The Limited zoom will be a HD lens like newly updated Limiteds; thats pretty obvious. Note that the DA 560 is not a "" lens maybe because the "" designation is about to be faded out. Hence, the 16-85 could be a HD lens and not "downgraded" at all. That's a possibility, but a premium line of zooms is a useful marketing tool. Fading out the * line would perhaps indicate either Pentax doesn't want to play at the high end any more or that they are not concerned about marketing premium zooms by nomenclature and just on price and features.

09-10-2013, 04:05 AM	#146
TenZ.NL Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Below sealevel Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,100	Originally posted by Fogel70 If this is the case then they will replace * with AW, which probably makes it easier for marketing as they will use the same naming on lenses for all systems. WR = Consumer level weather sealing AW = Pro level weather sealing Pentax AW lenses so far are: 645 SMC D FA 55mm f/2.8 AL IF SDM AW 645 SMC D FA 25mm f/4,0 AL IF SDM AW 645 HD D FA 90mm f/2.8 ED AW SR Macro HD DA 560mm f/5.6 ED AW And Ricoh also used "AW" to describe the weather sealing on new flashes. Aren`t the DA`s also AW? I think someone said it was stated on the box of the DA 16-50 (my 16-50 came w/o a box so I can`t check)

09-10-2013, 04:59 AM	#147
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by TenZ.NL Aren`t the DA`s also AW? I think someone said it was stated on the box of the DA 16-50 (my 16-50 came w/o a box so I can`t check) The * and AW (basically) means the same thing, but it would be confusing if a lens has both in the description. It would imply that the lens has dual pro level weather sealing. I'm pretty sure AW was not in use when the first DA* lenses was releases, so if the box has a AW symbol, it's something they added later.

09-10-2013, 05:05 AM	#148
Rorschach Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Kuusamo, Finland Photos: Gallery Posts: 652	Well, AW level protection would be even better obviously but I'd be happy with just WR if other qualities are good (I am seriously suspicious of SDM for one thing...).

09-10-2013, 05:37 AM	#149
TenZ.NL Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Below sealevel Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,100	Originally posted by Fogel70 The * and AW (basically) means the same thing, but it would be confusing if a lens has both in the description. It would imply that the lens has dual pro level weather sealing. I'm pretty sure AW was not in use when the first DA* lenses was releases, so if the box has a AW symbol, it's something they added later. Hmm, I allways thought that the * was an indication of prograde lenses which happen to have AW-sealing. WR came later as a simplefied variant of the AW-sealing of the DA`s. But nonetheless, shouldn`t the DA`s be included in your list too?

09-10-2013, 06:12 AM	#150
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by TenZ.NL But nonetheless, shouldn`t the DA`s be included in your list too? No, DA is DA, not AW. DA is an older generation lenses that most likely will be replaced by DA AW. As long as DA* lenses do not include "AW" in the name of the lens they are not AW, but they have the same pro specification as AW lenses.