[mee]

Why are you feeding him?

[surfar]

Well hes been chasing kangaroos to get a feed and they are getting a bit fast as our springtime starts!

[mee]

Potentially 2,295 thoughts shared and only 5 of those 'lliked' by anyone paints an interesting picture.

[surfar]

Might have something to do with the remoteness of his location,Walkabout Creek isn't on the map anywhere.Google Earth is having a really difficult time finding it as well!

[Uluru]

Myself I am into ltd, and migrated to the FAltd. You'd say they show Pentax can't marke that anymore. But my point is if Sigma, Canon or Nikon were making theses lenses today they be 1.4 or 1.2, they be optically perfect, they be huge. They'd have worse bokeh, they have different colors rendering due to modern coating. That's simply not the same product. It would not be better, just different and even more expensive..

I think DA Ltd and FA Ltd should be the bottom line of Pentax optical performance. And that means setting up a pretty high bottom line.
I call it a bottom line because technologically lenses are from film age (screwdrive), but optically they are unique and very, very good. So on top of that optical performance, make a next step up: keep the optical quality, great build quality, but introduce DC motors and WR, ll new coatings, for example.

And people will react to it, and appreciate.

[BigMackCam]

DA50 f/1.8 is not a lens. That is a K-mount toy lens.
And this is not a joke; when Pentax issued Q with a bunch of toy lenses, Ricoh toyed around with the idea of toy lenses for the K mount. A big, big mistake. In the world of photography only certain things pass as the lenses, but this ain't that, so let's rather forget it.

We obviously have a different definition of toy lenses. The Q's toy lenses are manual focus with slow, fixed apertures; and the fixed apertures, coupled with the Q-line's small sensors, result in diffraction-softened images. The DA50 f/1.8 is auto-focus with semi-fast variable aperture and excellent optical performance. You said in a previous post that it is only "good enough for kids" (or words to that effect), but that was just rhetoric. The facts are there for all to see in the numerous tests and real-world results owners are getting. By your definition, Canon's AF 50 f/1.8 STM lens is also a toy, but like its Pentax cousin, it's great optically. Largely plastic, yes, and inexpensive as a result, but it performs brilliantly. Nikon and Sony both have their own low-cost, high-performance lenses too. If it's the plastic build that makes them toys in your eyes, that's fine. The majority of people simply see them as bargains and get superb results using them

All the same, recoating and repainting of certain lenses in the lineup is not same as issuing new designs. Say, during the 2017, Pentax may come out with DA200/2.8, but which has new coatings, a DC motor and tweaked design: that is a new lens. But same motors (or lack of them — same screwdrive as before), same basic performance, optical formula unchanged, but only changed coating, which is not anything radical .. well, that is still the same lens.

On this, amazingly, you and I actually agree (same with your last post above). The HD Limiteds aren't new designs. Optically, they don't need to be - in my opinion - but I'd love to see the entire range benefit from the same DC motor used in the HD DA20-40, and WR. Screw drive works well, but we really should have silent focusing in all of the lenses by now...

EDIT: The DA Limited and FA Limited lenses are indeed optically very, very good... I agree... and yet, much of the time I choose the DA35 f/2.4 over my DA35 f/2.8 Macro Limited because I actually prefer the rendering.

[Nicolas06]

I think DA Ltd and FA Ltd should be the bottom line of Pentax optical performance. And that means setting up a pretty high bottom line.
I call it a bottom line because technologically lenses are from film age (screwdrive), but optically they are unique and very, very good. So on top of that optical performance, make a next step up: keep the optical quality, great build quality, but introduce DC motors and WR, ll new coatings, for example.

And people will react to it, and appreciate.

To best honest, I appreciate the recent coatings of the DA ltd I tried (DA15, DA21, DA35 macro) and I have seen both HD and SMC coating depending of the lens I still prefer overall the rendering of the FAltd and I think that partially due to the coating in question.

Having used the FA77 for few years already and the FA31 for now something like 1-2 month I can say to you that yes, there a bit chromatic aberation at time that you don't see on the DA (or not as much) and also the flare resistance that is already good on the FA is better on the DA. Still for most photos, the FA just render better.

There maybe an exception for DA15, but that's it for me.

So I wonder, should we put as a standard something that is really necessary in 1% of the shots so that we win review award and get 99% of our shots noticably worse? Is that really progress?

Screw drive allow for smaller design, different focus group (you may have to change the optical formula to adapt in lens motor) and has proven to be VERY robust. My FA ltd lenses focus fine and fast and are nearly silent in practice. No hunting no whatever. Maybe they are not the ultimate best for sports/action but that would be more for me DFA24-70 and DFA70-200 then.

I don't know what Pentax should do with them. Keeping them as they are exactly, look good to me at least while they focus on huge optical perfection of f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses for people that buy specs and not photos (like 99% of the internet enthousiasts theses days). Maybe once they finished the rest, they can carefully update them.

Anyway, that sure that theses lenses should not be considered as the bare minimum, there lot of place for value lenses. Despite all we think here Pentax likely made much more money on 18-55, 50-200, 55-300 and 18-135 than FA31, FA85, FA600 or other exceptional lenses.

It would be quite nice to expend a bit the plastic wonder line for example. The lenses don't have to be perfect, but just "good enough", cheap and small.

Then a limited line that focus on build quality, real optical quality rather than spec sheets, small light again and finally the perfect lenses.

If you have only part of the offering, people will be limited in their choice.

I think Ricoh is aware what the FA ltd are, and there a reason K1 was presented with FA31...

[BigMackCam]

Anyway, that sure that theses lenses should not be considered as the bare minimum, there lot of place for value lenses. Despite all we think here Pentax likely made much more money on 18-55, 50-200, 55-300 and 18-135 than FA31, FA85, FA600 or other exceptional lenses.

It would be quite nice to expend a bit the plastic wonder line for example. The lenses don't have to be perfect, but just "good enough", cheap and small.

Then a limited line that focus on build quality, real optical quality rather than spec sheets, small light again and finally the perfect lenses.

Absolutely. Not everyone wants, or is able, to spend a lot of money on Limited or DA* lenses, and those that do can still appreciate a low-cost lens that is optically effective...

[surfar]

DA 50 F1.8 add a 1.4TC and it becomes 70mm f2.5ish...love the plastic fantastic!

[Uluru]

DA 50 F1.8 add a 1.4TC and it becomes 70mm f2.5ish...love the plastic fantastic!

Only lens worse than those cheap plastic toy lenses for the K-mount is this lens, made from potato chips tube:

[surfar]

Go Walkabout

[BigMackCam]

Only lens worse than those cheap plastic toy lenses for the K-mount is this lens, made from potato chips tube

That's just ridiculous, and what's more, it's inflammatory and trolling - and you know it Say goodbye to the thread...

[D1N0]

Better close this thread. It leads to all kinds of misinformed theories.

[BigMackCam]

Better close this thread. It leads to all kinds of misinformed theories.

Yep. The thread has drifted away from the original topic anyhow...