Report from Brussels Imaging Days (--> DFAs)

**RobA_Oz** · 03-10-2015, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Ishpuini

I seem to remember Ricoh stating in a recent interview that the current AF speed bottle neck was the current lenses and not the K-3 body. And that the two new DFA lenses would be the first to exploit the full speed the K-3 is capable of. That would imply the AF improvement has already been implemented in the K-3. Which doesn't mean there won't be incremental improvements of course.

Wim

That does ring a bell with me, now you mention it. One way or another, it can only mean good things in the future.

thibs · 03-11-2015, 11:16 AM

Just an addon with a couple pictures I forgot to add, 645Z next to a (huge) DA645 28-45 and a size comparison of 40xs, FA50 and new 18-50.

As you can see, the DA28-45 is really huge. Well the DFAs are of the same kind. Told you. BIG.

banep · 03-11-2015, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by thibs

PS: Guys, Ricoh is serious. Really. My left arm still feels it

At finally Pentax lens made for me, I was already bored with that Sigma

6BQ5 · 03-11-2015, 11:58 AM

That picture has been around for a while and it never gets old! I love it!

**todd** · 03-11-2015, 12:50 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by 6BQ5

it never gets old!

Here, I made it full frame compatible for you..

Zygonyx · 03-11-2015, 01:23 PM

I guess its more spectacular to show this pict, than the ones taken with such a non stabilized combo...

Just a fact re. DA28-45 : far bigger than FA 33-55, or even FA 45-85, whereas not covering 645 Full Frame.... a mystery.
I will not buy it just for that dobble-reason.

**Pål Jensen** · 03-11-2015, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Zygonyx

Just a fact re. DA28-45 : far bigger than FA 33-55, or even FA 45-85, whereas not covering 645 Full Frame.... a mystery.
I will not buy it just for that dobble-reason.

It seems like new lenses for digital are massive. The 33-55 weights only 500g. The 28-45 1400g! The new FF lenses are large too; look at the diametre compared to the lens mount. Someone should ask them why these lenses need to so big.

**Ex Finn.** · 03-11-2015, 02:50 PM

Could be that they want to charge according to the weight of the lens.

clawhammer · 03-11-2015, 02:59 PM

Or has digital made it so easy to pixel-peep that they have to make them that big to satisfy all the "photographers" who insist on the sharpest possible lens and avoid getting pummeled by online review sites for not having astronomical quantitative measurements that, after a certain point, have practically no impact on the final image?

Edit: Or, less snarkily, does going big allow them to get good performance quickly rather than spend time/money they don't have on optimizing the design for smaller lenses, thereby allowing them to quickly build up a lens line-up?

**RobA_Oz** · 03-11-2015, 08:59 PM

Given that most of the mass of a good lens resides in the glass, rather than the structure (even if it is made largely of metal) or the drive infrastructure, it surely means only that there are more and larger glass elements in the digital lenses. Again, given that the reason for engineering lens design (as with any design) is principally to produce something that can meet pre-determined specifications at a reasonable cost (ie what the maker judges the market will bear) the optimisation will be complete when those specifications are reached. To further refine the design may result in something lighter and smaller (or not) but it will be more expensive.

thibs · 03-11-2015, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by Zygonyx

I guess its more spectacular to show this pict, than the ones taken with such a non stabilized combo...

Just a fact re. DA28-45 : far bigger than FA 33-55, or even FA 45-85, whereas not covering 645 Full Frame.... a mystery.
I will not buy it just for that dobble-reason.

Well, that's why I posted that picture. This 28-45 gives a very good idea of what the DFAs are.
Regarding size, don't forget the 28-45 is stabilized. But still big though (not as heavy as DFAs fortunately).
I was surprised how the combo 645Z+28-45 is quite easy to handle, in fact. It's just big (and the DA645-55/2.8 is ridiculous next to the 28-45

gr8wings · 03-12-2015, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by Black_Wizards

Hello!

Nice review!

You own a 50-135mm. Me too :-)
Will you say the new 70-200 focus faster than the 50-135 on a K_3? did you try with moving subject?

I really love 50-135mm, but it has the slowest AF in DA* category, it's a well known limitation !

Zygonyx · 03-12-2015, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by thibs

Well, that's why I posted that picture. This 28-45 gives a very good idea of what the DFAs are.
Regarding size, don't forget the 28-45 is stabilized. But still big though (not as heavy as DFAs fortunately).
I was surprised how the combo 645Z+28-45 is quite easy to handle, in fact. It's just big (and the DA645-55/2.8 is ridiculous next to the 28-45

Actually the 55mm is D-FA

Like the first 25mm and the 90mm.
Hence this only DA wide zoom's size mystery.

thibs · 03-12-2015, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Zygonyx

Actually the 55mm is D-FA

Like the first 25mm and the 90mm.
Hence this only DA wide zoom's size mystery.

Indeed .

---------- Post added 12-03-15 at 21:13 ----------

Originally posted by gr8wings

I really love 50-135mm, but it has the slowest AF in DA* category, it's a well known limitation !

Yep. The DFAs are NOT in ANY way comparable (on a K-3).
Think, ist-DL vs K-3. Fair comparison, huh?

**TER-OR** · 03-12-2015, 01:32 PM

That new 18-50 is petite, though. Very nice.

03-11-2015, 12:50 PM - 2 Likes	#35
todd Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,799	Originally posted by 6BQ5 it never gets old! Here, I made it full frame compatible for you.. Attached Images

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hy everybody from Brussels	subfly	Welcomes and Introductions	5	08-17-2014 05:50 AM
Ricoh Imaging Europe S.A.S. - Report of a meeting!	RonHendriks1966	Pentax News and Rumors	243	05-17-2014 11:13 AM
Greetings from Brussels	debakarma	Welcomes and Introductions	7	04-02-2014 06:42 AM
Days ahead of 2013 London show, Ricoh Imaging launches Pentax 35mm FF	Uluru	General Talk	16	08-26-2013 07:34 AM
Greeting every one >>>picture from THAILAND	ballbkk	Post Your Photos!	15	02-05-2009 01:55 PM

03-10-2015, 04:34 AM	#31
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,209	Originally posted by Ishpuini I seem to remember Ricoh stating in a recent interview that the current AF speed bottle neck was the current lenses and not the K-3 body. And that the two new DFA lenses would be the first to exploit the full speed the K-3 is capable of. That would imply the AF improvement has already been implemented in the K-3. Which doesn't mean there won't be incremental improvements of course. Wim That does ring a bell with me, now you mention it. One way or another, it can only mean good things in the future.

03-11-2015, 11:16 AM	#32
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001 Original Poster	Just an addon with a couple pictures I forgot to add, 645Z next to a (huge) DA645 28-45 and a size comparison of 40xs, FA50 and new 18-50. As you can see, the DA28-45 is really huge. Well the DFAs are of the same kind. Told you. BIG.

03-11-2015, 11:41 AM	#33
banep Banned Join Date: Mar 2013 Posts: 360	Originally posted by thibs PS: Guys, Ricoh is serious. Really. My left arm still feels it At finally Pentax lens made for me, I was already bored with that Sigma

03-11-2015, 11:58 AM	#34
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	That picture has been around for a while and it never gets old! I love it!

03-11-2015, 01:23 PM	#36
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	I guess its more spectacular to show this pict, than the ones taken with such a non stabilized combo... Just a fact re. DA28-45 : far bigger than FA 33-55, or even FA 45-85, whereas not covering 645 Full Frame.... a mystery. I will not buy it just for that dobble-reason.

03-11-2015, 02:11 PM	#37
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Zygonyx Just a fact re. DA28-45 : far bigger than FA 33-55, or even FA 45-85, whereas not covering 645 Full Frame.... a mystery. I will not buy it just for that dobble-reason. It seems like new lenses for digital are massive. The 33-55 weights only 500g. The 28-45 1400g! The new FF lenses are large too; look at the diametre compared to the lens mount. Someone should ask them why these lenses need to so big.

03-11-2015, 02:50 PM	#38
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	Could be that they want to charge according to the weight of the lens.

03-11-2015, 02:59 PM	#39
clawhammer Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Logan, Utah Photos: Gallery Posts: 971	Or has digital made it so easy to pixel-peep that they have to make them that big to satisfy all the "photographers" who insist on the sharpest possible lens and avoid getting pummeled by online review sites for not having astronomical quantitative measurements that, after a certain point, have practically no impact on the final image? Edit: Or, less snarkily, does going big allow them to get good performance quickly rather than spend time/money they don't have on optimizing the design for smaller lenses, thereby allowing them to quickly build up a lens line-up?

03-11-2015, 08:59 PM	#40
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,209	Given that most of the mass of a good lens resides in the glass, rather than the structure (even if it is made largely of metal) or the drive infrastructure, it surely means only that there are more and larger glass elements in the digital lenses. Again, given that the reason for engineering lens design (as with any design) is principally to produce something that can meet pre-determined specifications at a reasonable cost (ie what the maker judges the market will bear) the optimisation will be complete when those specifications are reached. To further refine the design may result in something lighter and smaller (or not) but it will be more expensive.

03-11-2015, 10:53 PM	#41
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001 Original Poster	Originally posted by Zygonyx I guess its more spectacular to show this pict, than the ones taken with such a non stabilized combo... Just a fact re. DA28-45 : far bigger than FA 33-55, or even FA 45-85, whereas not covering 645 Full Frame.... a mystery. I will not buy it just for that dobble-reason. Well, that's why I posted that picture. This 28-45 gives a very good idea of what the DFAs are. Regarding size, don't forget the 28-45 is stabilized. But still big though (not as heavy as DFAs fortunately). I was surprised how the combo 645Z+28-45 is quite easy to handle, in fact. It's just big (and the DA645-55/2.8 is ridiculous next to the 28-45

03-12-2015, 05:28 AM	#42
gr8wings New Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Rome (Italy) Posts: 16	Originally posted by Black_Wizards Hello! Nice review! You own a 50-135mm. Me too :-) Will you say the new 70-200 focus faster than the 50-135 on a K_3? did you try with moving subject? I really love 50-135mm, but it has the slowest AF in DA* category, it's a well known limitation !

03-12-2015, 11:07 AM	#43
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	Originally posted by thibs Well, that's why I posted that picture. This 28-45 gives a very good idea of what the DFAs are. Regarding size, don't forget the 28-45 is stabilized. But still big though (not as heavy as DFAs fortunately). I was surprised how the combo 645Z+28-45 is quite easy to handle, in fact. It's just big (and the DA645-55/2.8 is ridiculous next to the 28-45 Actually the 55mm is D-FA Like the first 25mm and the 90mm. Hence this only DA wide zoom's size mystery.

03-12-2015, 01:08 PM	#44
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001 Original Poster	Originally posted by Zygonyx Actually the 55mm is D-FA Like the first 25mm and the 90mm. Hence this only DA wide zoom's size mystery. Indeed . ---------- Post added 12-03-15 at 21:13 ---------- Originally posted by gr8wings I really love 50-135mm, but it has the slowest AF in DA* category, it's a well known limitation ! Yep. The DFAs are NOT in ANY way comparable (on a K-3). Think, ist-DL vs K-3. Fair comparison, huh?

03-12-2015, 01:32 PM	#45
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	That new 18-50 is petite, though. Very nice.