[Adam G]

My original comment was:
"I just hope Pentax is taking a good look at what Fuji is doing with lenses. Fuji is designing some high quality, modern primes that are fast and compact. Lenses like the 23mm that have the aperture ring on the lens, are fast, and compact."

Which DA LTD has the characteristics of having the "aperture ring, are fast, and compact"?

None of them are very fast. None of them have the aperture ring. They are compact.

They may not have an aperture ring, but at least the DA Ltds have true, mechanical manual focus, as opposed to focus-by-wire. That counts for a lot in my book.

[Uluru]

A prime lens that has a 62mm filter and weighs 0.66 lb is NOT a compact lens. If it was a zoom, then maybe.
Plus, Pentax would never design such a substandard lens body and mechanics for its K-mount. Just compare it to DA20-40 level of refinement.

Pentax won't go that route. There is reason behind SR inside camera, a reason behind compactness for an APS-C DSLR lens. A real photographer would understand Pentax intention immediately, but single-minded faux-photographers can not.

Fast glass for low expectations and low delivery where it really matters : go and buy tons of f/1.2 Voightlanders, Canons and Fujis, and shush, shush, just go and enjoy all the pretence with it.

[ElJamoquio]

A real photographer would understand Pentax intention immediately, but single-minded faux-photographers can not.

Wow...

[mee]

A real photographer would understand everyone (who has a photo taking device) is a photographer..

[lytrytyr]

A real photographer would understand everyone (who has a photo taking device) is a photographer..

Unless the "photo taking device" is one of these:

"Autographer is a new type of camera which has been custom built to enable spontaneous, hands-free image capture.
Its world leading technology includes a custom 136° eye view lens, an ultra small GPS unit and 5 in-built sensors.
These sensors are fused by a sophisticated algorithm to tell the camera exactly the right moments to take photos."

Home - Autographer - The World's First Wearable camera

[Driline]

"Autographer is a new type of camera which has been custom built to enable spontaneous, hands-free image capture.

Cool. As soon as they can surgically implant one into my forehead I'll get one. Good bye DSLR

[Clavius]

A prime lens that has a 62mm filter and weighs 0.66 lb is NOT a compact lens. If it was a zoom, then maybe.
Plus, Pentax would never design such a substandard lens body and mechanics for its K-mount. Just compare it to DA20-40 level of refinement.

Pentax won't go that route. There is reason behind SR inside camera, a reason behind compactness for an APS-C DSLR lens. A real photographer would understand Pentax intention immediately, but single-minded faux-photographers can not.

Fast glass for low expectations and low delivery where it really matters : go and buy tons of f/1.2 Voightlanders, Canons and Fujis, and shush, shush, just go and enjoy all the pretence with it.

Wow! Only a few years ago Pentax was still supplying the market with one of the very best 50/1.2 around. I still know Canon pro's that prefer to use the Pentax 50/1.2 on their Canon's, because the Canon equivelent sucks bigtime. But I guess back then they were a faux-photographer brand then?

In my own honest faux-photographer opinion though, photography-gear is about light and optics, and less so about high ISO oil paintings. Larger apertures are a plus, equally so are higher ISO capabilities. And the combination of the two is very sweet. The 50/1.2 stopped down just a little with a higher but still usable ISO enables me to take very sharp photo's without flash in very low light. Very hard to sacrifice that for the sake of having a smaller lens. What good is removing 1 or maybe 2 centimeters from a lens if it means having to mount a giant powerfull flash?

The small and slow Pentax lenses are an intruiging enigma. Apparently Pentax finds miniaturisation in their lenses so ultimately important that they are even prepared to sacrifice several stops. (Sacrificing valueble low light performance, versatility and even sharpness.) But then comes the paradox: they don't find the same miniaturisation important enough to sacrifice a mirrorbox and mechanism in their cameras. A much smaller sacrifice that doesn't even influence the quality of the images in the slightest bit, only the view through the viewfinder.

I think somewhere in the period between the development of the compact ltd lenses and the CMOS sensor they switched directions again. Compactness no longer being the highest priority: Which resulted in not developing a good mirrorless solution and the developement of the big heavy retro styled DA 20-40.

[gazonk]

Wow! Only a few years ago Pentax was still supplying the market with one of the very best 50/1.2 around. I still know Canon pro's that prefer to use the Pentax 50/1.2 on their Canon's, because the Canon equivelent sucks bigtime. But I guess back then they were a faux-photographer brand then?

I wonder about the discontinued A50/1.2 - is it possible that it was not technically feasible to make an AF version of it? Is there room at all for screw drive AF around that huge back element?

(I almost bought a K50/1.2 a little while ago but decided I'd rather buy the A version when I think I can afford it and find a good offer)

[lister6520]

I have always seen the compactness of Pentax primes as a bit of a paradox given that they are then attached to a camera which is 'huge' in comparison.
I find that Pentax DSLRs do indeed look a bit odd and out of proportion when wearing a Limited lens. While that is of course just a matter of opinion and aesthetics it also in a way implies an imbalance in the 'budget' of space and weigtht allocated to the lens vs the camera body. I cannot help thinking that for the same overall proportions a smaller camera with a larger lens would be capable of capturing better pictures, and of course such cameras probably do exist already.

[Kunzite]

If you're using the f/1.2 lens stopped down a bit - then a cheaper, sharp, modern f/1.4 lens would be a better option IMHO.

Canon 50mm f/1.2 is $1620, by the way.

[lytrytyr]

the developement of the big heavy retro styled DA 20-40.

You surely jest, Mr Clavius.

7.1 cm length is not big,
290 gm is not heavy,
and if was going to be retro-styled,
the ribs on the zoom ring would have been given
the concavity of the Takumar focus rings.

[MadMathMind]

I have always seen the compactness of Pentax primes as a bit of a paradox given that they are then attached to a camera which is 'huge' in comparison.

Kind of. Canon and Nikon put motors in all their lenses because they want to make the body smaller. Stabilization also goes in lenses too because it's cheaper/faster/smaller/lighter to make a body without it. But it has to go somewhere! That's not really a paradox. It's reality.

The major advantage to making the body larger is that you only have one body to carry around. Adding 200g to a body instead of 200-400g to each lens seems a lot better.

Plus, Pentax bodies are made of adamantium! Until the K-1 FF is released. That one will be made of vibranium!

[woodywesty]

Plus, Pentax bodies are made of adamantium! Until the K-1 FF is released. That one will be made of vibranium!

Well..... maybe the K1 FF will be made of "unobtainium" ;-)

[Rondec]

I have always seen the compactness of Pentax primes as a bit of a paradox given that they are then attached to a camera which is 'huge' in comparison.
I find that Pentax DSLRs do indeed look a bit odd and out of proportion when wearing a Limited lens. While that is of course just a matter of opinion and aesthetics it also in a way implies an imbalance in the 'budget' of space and weigtht allocated to the lens vs the camera body. I cannot help thinking that for the same overall proportions a smaller camera with a larger lens would be capable of capturing better pictures, and of course such cameras probably do exist already.

Ergonomically, it is a lot more comfortable to have a small lens on a larger body. You hold on to the body and it has to be big enough to be comfortable. At the same time, if you have too small a body, it make using larger lenses (f2.8 zooms, telephotos) significantly less comfortable.

Pentax has made quite small camera bodies in the past --kx and km were both about as small as you can get while keeping the mirror. I also would say that even the K3 is not particularly large in size. None of these cameras are pocketable, but then again neither are NEX cameras, once you include a lens.

[Alizarine]

Pentax has made quite small camera bodies in the past --kx and km were both about as small as you can get while keeping the mirror.

The Canon 100D is smaller... looks adorable, and feels so toy-ish, more so than both K-x and K-m. Never saw anyone with it in my area...

I think somewhere in the period between the development of the compact ltd lenses and the CMOS sensor they switched directions again. Compactness no longer being the highest priority: Which resulted in not developing a good mirrorless solution and the developement of the big heavy retro styled DA 20-40.

For some reason yeah, the K-r is bigger than the K-x that preceded it, and the K-30, K-50/500 is no smaller either. I guess Pentax realized that just making things smaller wouldn't make them unique (well introducing the Q into the market probably eliminated the need to make DSLRs smaller-- an error, I believe, that Canon followed with the 100D lol). But anyways, the DA20-40 isn't that big - for a 20mm f2.8 lens, nor that heavy (the FA77 was a real lot smaller but only 13 grams lighter).