QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote

Four primes, originally rumored for 2016 but on the road map for 2017.
UWA - 20mm?
WA - 28mm?
Standard - 50mm?
Medium telephoto - 85mm?





QuoteOriginally posted by dcpropilot Quote

Yes, 85 1.4!!!
I still think that "medium telephoto" could be 135mm rather than 85mm, for two reasons:

1) Pentax has no primes in that range (whereas the FA 77 Limited competes directly with 85s)
2) Isn't 85mm usually considered "short" and not "medium" telephoto?

But at the same time, I know a lot of people are clamoring for an 85/1.4; and it seems an odd omission if their aim is to target professionals with the 36x24 lineup. But, if they decided to bring back the FA* 85/1.4 with newer coatings but without changing the optical formula, they might not bother putting that on the roadmap (see also: the HD DA Limiteds) -- so in the best case, the near future might bring us both.

From what I've seen here the A*135 makes superb pictures. I would buy one with autofocus. I find my best portraits outdoors where in the 70-90 mm range with the 50-135 on K-7. If 1.8 is necessary I don't know, I only know that the pics posted from that A* are really good. It would be a waste if they did not revive or improve that lense.
David

[thibs]

Yep, a DFA* 135/1.8 or /2 would one of those statement regarding Pros that I expect from Ricoh.

A normal actually affordable 135/2.4 or /2.8 would be nice too. AFAIK, the FA135 is excellent and not easy to grab at all.

[Scintilla]

From what I've read, the Sony Zeiss Sonnar 135/1.8 is considered one of the "killer app" lenses for Alpha-mount, one that keeps you invested and might get others to switch. And Canon's 135/2 L USM and Nikon's 135/2 D DC are both 20-year-old designs.
If Pentax's lens design team manages to come up with a D FA* 135/1.8 that beats the C/N offerings and matches the ZA (or comes close but weighs less than 1kg, like the A*), and Sony continues to fail to convince anyone that A-mount isn't on life support, might we see more frustrated Sony shooters jumping to the K-1?

[Simen1]

Sony also have a fantastic 135mm lens called Sony 135 F2.8 [T4.5] STF SAL-135F28. This lens is a portrait oriented lens with two aperture diaphragms in order to make a fantastic smooth bokeh. The bokeh is comparable to Fujifilm fujinon XF 56mm f/1.2 APD (with its apodizing element). Fujifilm chooses to make a version without the APD element. Sony didn’t make a single diaphragm version, but they could easily have done that without much added cost.

I hope Pentax will make an 135mm STF or APD lens with f/1,8 or 2,0. This will probably be very expensive and heavy, around 1 kg.

If they see a point in it, they can easily make a non STF/APD version as well. Or make a completely different cheaper and smaller 135mm f/2,8 limited around 400g.

[pathdoc]

Or make a completely different cheaper and smaller 135mm f/2,8 limited around 400g.

I just weighed my FA135/2.8 and it came in at 387g with the front cap on, rear cap off (just took it off the camera and put it on the scale).

AFAIK, the FA135 is excellent and not easy to grab at all.

I got this lens on e-bay last year; the seller was in Japan. I thought it was worth having as the last of the Pentax 135mm primes, and I haven't been disappointed.

Personally I think STF is a bit of a sales gimmick if you're considering an all-rounder lens, but if portrait work is your living then it's probably just the thing for you. I don't think Pentax will touch this one, though - too specialised, and too narrow a market for a relatively niche player. And as far as a D-FA*-135 is concerned... it would be fiendishly expensive, and not too many people would buy it. I know that some have said Pentax don't need an 85mm portrait lens when they already have the FA77, but there's a difference between a film-era FA-series AF lens that was geared toward compactness, quirky rendering and classical build quality and a 2016-vintage D-FA* lens that would be optically tack-sharp, have all the bells and whistles (DC, quickshift, WR/AW, etc) and is sufficiently removed in time from its predecessors that it wouldn't lose any historical lustre by coming out big and beefy rather than small and dainty.

[Simen1]

I don't think Pentax will touch this one, though - too specialised, and too narrow a market for a relatively niche player.

Consider this: If Pentax will make an D-FA 135 f/1,8 or 2,0..

Then an APD or STF version will be a very cheap and easy addition for them. This version will add very little cost, and may sell for a significantly higher price. It will also have much value to their marketing, having a dream portrait lens none of their competitors have. (Sony don’t have that large aperture, Fuji don’t have that portrait focal length, C and N don’t have the APD or STF)

The FA135 have been out of production for 16 years now, and its possibly the ugliest lens Pentax have made. Not that it matters for the images, but I suspect it may have affected the sales and would do that again if it was put into production again. Pentax needs a prettier D-FA 135 lens. Not necessarily a f/2,8 even if that would be a nice lightweight and semi-affordable addition to the f/1,8 or 2,0 version. I think the f/1,8 or 2,0 version is the most important one, partly because its not covered (spec-wise) by any zoom and because STF/APD would be a cheap and logical addition.

If one is so interested in 135mm that one buys a 135mm prime in stead of just including its usage in a 70-200 f/2,8, the chances are high that this person have more then average interest for taking portraits, and wants something more then 135mm f/2,8. Be it bokeh (f/1,8-2,0 APD/STF) or size (Limited WR). I'm just not shure if a f/1,8-2,0 non STF/APD version would make much sense (depends on how well they get the APD/STD version to autofocus).

[thibs]

Personally I think STF is a bit of a sales gimmick if you're considering an all-rounder lens, but if portrait work is your living then it's probably just the thing for you. I don't think Pentax will touch this one, though - too specialised, and too narrow a market for a relatively niche player. And as far as a D-FA*-135 is concerned... it would be fiendishly expensive, and not too many people would buy it. I know that some have said Pentax don't need an 85mm portrait lens when they already have the FA77, but there's a difference between a film-era FA-series AF lens that was geared toward compactness, quirky rendering and classical build quality and a 2016-vintage D-FA* lens that would be optically tack-sharp, have all the bells and whistles (DC, quickshift, WR/AW, etc) and is sufficiently removed in time from its predecessors that it wouldn't lose any historical lustre by coming out big and beefy rather than small and dainty.

Well Pentrax kept on producing 85mm/2.8 soft, including FA version, so go figure but IMO Ricoh would say 'no' until range way better covered otherwise.

---------- Post added 11-04-16 at 13:23 ----------

The FA135 have been out of production for 16 years now, and its possibly the ugliest lens Pentax have made. Not that it matters for the images, but I suspect it may have affected the sales and would do that again if it was put into production again. Pentax needs a prettier D-FA 135 lens. Not necessarily a f/2,8 even if that would be a nice lightweight and semi-affordable addition to the f/1,8 or 2,0 version. I think the f/1,8 or 2,0 version is the most important one, partly because its not covered (spec-wise) by any zoom and because STF/APD would be a cheap and logical addition.

Is it that ugly? The F version certainly the FA... why?

[pathdoc]

Pentax needs a prettier D-FA 135 lens.

I'm not going to argue with you on that. I don't mind the look of mine - it's what's inside that counts - but improvements after that length of time would always be welcomed.

something more then 135mm f/2,8. Be it bokeh (f/1,8-2,0 APD/STF) or size (Limited WR)

Next to the D-FA* 70-200 zoom, the FA 135/2.8 practically IS a Limited, at least in size and weight terms. I don't know what the filter diameter of the 70-200 is, but I'm pretty sure it's significantly larger than 52mm.

Even smaller, of course, is the M 135/3.5, but I think that one would grow a bit if you tried to put AF in it, even screwdrive, to say nothing of WR or DC.

I guess it all comes down to which of our opinions Ricoh values the most.

but IMO Ricoh would say 'no' until range way better covered otherwise.

Yep. Absolutely agree with you.

[UncleVanya]

Forgive me if I'm ignorant here but my impression from online reading is that most pros using Canon and Nikon do not use primes in their day to day portraiture. Most seem to use the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses and that's it. While an 85 f/1.4 has a dreamy lovely appeal - are these actually the tools used by pros?

[Kunzite]

Even if Pentax would re-release a 135mm lens, they won't retool their factory to produce some old (1991), screw driven lens. Yes, the 645 35mm was an exception.
It would be a D FA (or D FA*) with DC motor. It would look like one. Except... their roadmap up to (and including) 2017 seems to be filled, and the medium telephoto is more likely some 85mm.

[pathdoc]

Even if Pentax would re-release a 135mm lens, they won't retool their factory to produce some old (1991), screw driven lens.

Hell, no - if it comes out at all it will be dressed in D-FA clothing and with marked optical improvements, as well as the usual quickshift, WR and probably DC-only (unless they make a Limited out of it and keep screwdrive to minimise size and weight). But if you want a 135mm Pentax AF prime, the FA is the most modern there is. I'm not sure to what extent the F 135 supports all the various MTF bells and whistles. And it depends on what you define as "medium tele" - some would say that means 85, some 135. We shall see in due course. Given that I actually have the FA135, I doubt I'd be buying one unless they manage to squeeze it down to SMC-M 135 dimensions.

[UncleVanya]

Even if Pentax would re-release a 135mm lens, they won't retool their factory to produce some old (1991), screw driven lens. Yes, the 645 35mm was an exception.
It would be a D FA (or D FA*) with DC motor. It would look like one. Except... their roadmap up to (and including) 2017 seems to be filled, and the medium telephoto is more likely some 85mm.

Calling an 85mm a medium telephoto makes sense in APSC but not in FF. That's a short tele at best on FF. Language aside with the FA 77 in the lineup I'm not sure adding an 85 is as much of a priority as adding something in the 135-200 range. Given the fact that the DA 200 is only "mostly FF" not entirely FF I would think maybe a revised 200 or a new 135.

[thibs]

Given that I actually have the FA135, I doubt I'd be buying one unless they manage to squeeze it down to SMC-M 135 dimensions.

Doubtful since the inclusion of modern AF (like DC) tends to add weight and volume. But it would be nice indeed

[pathdoc]

the inclusion of modern AF (like DC) tends to add weight and volume.

They might manage to make it not much bigger if they made it an f/3.5 Limited and stuck with screwdrive. I think that's about the limit, though - any more than that and you're back in FA135/2.8 territory. Which is still smaller than the monstrosities they're coming out with now. Modern polycarbonates would keep the overall weight down without degrading quality too much, but a lens that big NEEDS a metal mount IMO. Plastic is good enough for the DA35/2.4 and DA50/1.8 because they're so short and light, but by the time you're in 135 territory I don't think it'll cut it for long term durability, especially if you're going to hang a hood on the end.

[kenspo]

15-30 will be shipped together with K-1 was latest they told me.