[Fat Albert]

Nothing unheard of; even when distributors knew their entire line of mirrorless cameras is discontinued, Ricoh continued selling them not telling end users one word. Whoever bought K-1 in the West, already had some Pentax lenses from the Asahi era, including this ancient 35mm lens. Ricoh just send them more from the pile they had in Japan or elsewhere.
New 35mm is long overdue. 50mm too must be revamped. Current 35 and 50 are all plastic rubbish, in fact all 35 and 50mm are below standard of other DSLR brands. But Pentax users couldn't know for anything better, say, 35/1.4 or 35/2 with silent motors, ultra fast focusing, APO, and 9 or 11 blades? Yeah, dream on.
So they are happy with any antiquity Ricohs throws. But lenses this ancient were long ago discontinued by reputable DSLR brands, and updated several times since.
If they want new customers for the K-1, Ricoh has to move their backsides into action and stop feeding market with lenses older in age and construction than new possible users are.

Bless your heart.

[audiobomber]

IQ of my FA 35mm f2 is every bit the equal of my Zeiss Touit 32mm f1.8. Colour is better on the FA images, but I believe this is due to the K-3 having a more accurate colour balance than the a6000. (PS I shoot raw and have not been able to make colours equal in Lightroom).

The FA 50mm f1.4 is soft wide open, but it is magic for portraits, with amazing character and great bokeh. My Sigma DN 60mm f2.8 Art is tied for sharpest APS-C lens ever, but sharpness isn't everything. I prefer the FA 50 rendering.

BTW, doesn't the DA*55mm work on FF? That's a strong lens.

[a5m]

I think they're kind of rugged. I have all metal lenses, the FA Limited's and Zeiss ZK's and wotnot. But I'm always fearful of scratching the damn things. With the FA 1.4/50 I'm not. I don't have to care and can just get on and shoot.

I agree about this issue with metal lenses. Plastic can still scratch but not so easily and noticeably. This allows you to be a little less careful.

I have noticed that the finishes on the FA Limiteds are of better quality than the DA Limiteds. The DAs anodized finish seems very thin, so a nick will expose the metal underneath right away. This isn't the case with the FAs. The same goes for older Pentax manual lenses as well. Their finishes seem more rugged.

Ironically part of what makes the Limiteds special (metal build) can end up being detrimental. If the Limiteds had builds similar to the plastic DA*s I would like that better.

[HopelessTogger]

I agree about this issue with metal lenses. Plastic can still scratch but not so easily and noticeably. This allows you to be a little less careful.

I have noticed that the finishes on the FA Limiteds are of better quality than the DA Limiteds. The DAs anodized finish seems very thin, so a nick will expose the metal underneath right away. This isn't the case with the FAs. The same goes for older Pentax manual lenses as well. Their finishes seem more rugged.

Ironically part of what makes the Limiteds special (metal build) can end up being detrimental. If the Limiteds had builds similar to the plastic DA*s I would like that better.

Yup! I just wanna shoot and throw it all about. Rugged is what all new lenses should be from now on. Then that's a system that makes sense. Rugged camera with fragile lenses doesn't.

[jddwoods]

My FA 50 1.7 has a metal barrel. As far as I can tell only the aperture ring is plastic.

It seems there is a mix of metal or plastic inner barrels in the F and FA series lenses. I have an FA 50 1.7 and it is all plastic except for the mount. Others, like yourself have versions with metal inner barrels. I also have an F 28 mm 2.8 and it is plastic on the outside but has a metal inner barrel. Others have copies of this lens with a plastic inner barrel. I bought the F 28 mm back around 1989 or 1990 new, I only recently bought the FA 50 mm 1.7 used. My thought is that early copies probably had the metal inner barrels and later copies used plastic throughout. While the metal barrel version feels much more solid, I would think from a picture quality perspective they are the same.

---------- Post added 09-03-16 at 04:00 PM ----------

I'd be happier still if my FA50 f/1.4 was built like the FA43 Having said that, I think we've had reports of barrel wobble on several of the FA and DA Limited primes, so ...

Regarding my DA Limited primes:
Wobbly inner barrel: SMC DA 70
Very slight wobble, barely noticeable: SMC DA 21 and HD 40 limiteds
Absolutely no wobble or play in the inner barrel: SMC DA 15 and SMC DA 35 Macro Limiteds
All are in pristine condition with no marks, dents or paint scrapes, even on the lens caps. 15, 35 Macro and HD 40 bought new, DA 21 and 70 bought used in like new condition.
Optically all are fine.

[stevebrot]

including this ancient 35mm lens

Just because the FA 35/2 was released before you were born does not qualify it for the "ancient" label.*


Steve

* 1999 for the FA 35/2

[stevebrot]

It's pretty harsh ... but true.

I dunno...his comments indicate to me that he has never used and quite possibly has never seen or handled the lenses mentioned in his post. It may well be that he has been dipping into the hootch too.


Steve

[BigMackCam]

It may well be that he has been dipping into the hootch too.

LOL!

[stevebrot]

Plastic, in part, yes - but not rubbish.

Yes, definitely not rubbish. The "plastic = junk" claim is not leveled at current Sigma "Art" lenses. I don't see why it must continually be brought up in regards to the FA 50/1.4 and FA 35/2. I bought my FA 35/2 new in about 2008 and it has logged many thousands of miles in the bag attached to my K10D and lately the K-3. I have no complaints regarding build and the lens has nary a scratch on it despite fairly rough field use. My only complaints are that manual focus is sort of a pain with hood mounted and that the front element is sort exposed when a hood is not used.


Steve

[stevebrot]

The 50 1.4 lens formula goes back to the Super-Takumar.

Not only that, but its general scheme (Planar-derived fast 50) is fairly ubiquitous across brands for that class of lens. For primes, not much has happened in the last 60 years. What we have seen in the last three decades has been a materials and manufacturing revolution that allows for mechanized production of highly uniform product using design features (particularly aspheric elements) that were impractical in the past. The situation is similar in regards to zooms with the added miracle of computerized design that allows for fast calculation and prototyping of complex optics. If there is any virtue to updated designs, it would be with current generation zooms. Amazing, they are.


Steve

[aurele]

Yes, definitely not rubbish. The "plastic = junk" claim is not leveled at current Sigma "Art" lenses. I don't see why it must continually be brought up in regards to the FA 50/1.4 and FA 35/2.

Considering those lenses are mid/ top tiers lenses, i think having this plastic feeling ain't give an idea of durability to people. even if this feeling is a false one.

To me, thoses lenses shoudl clearly drop screw-drive, and have a DC motor, even a WR.

Ricoh do plan to build a new lenses-lineup, with high standard and top quality, which is a good thing. I hope this will be translated in a cosmetic change, and deeper upgrades.

[stevebrot]

Have you had any of them fail on you because of the build quality?

An even better question might be have there been any complaints on this site of build-related failure (lenses falling apart and such) for any FA-series prime?

Steve

[Venom3300]

Nothing unheard of; even when distributors knew their entire line of mirrorless cameras is discontinued, Ricoh continued selling them not telling end users one word. Whoever bought K-1 in the West, already had some Pentax lenses from the Asahi era, including this ancient 35mm lens. Ricoh just send them more from the pile they had in Japan or elsewhere.
New 35mm is long overdue. 50mm too must be revamped. Current 35 and 50 are all plastic rubbish, in fact all 35 and 50mm are below standard of other DSLR brands. But Pentax users couldn't know for anything better, say, 35/1.4 or 35/2 with silent motors, ultra fast focusing, APO, and 9 or 11 blades? Yeah, dream on.
So they are happy with any antiquity Ricohs throws. But lenses this ancient were long ago discontinued by reputable DSLR brands, and updated several times since.
If they want new customers for the K-1, Ricoh has to move their backsides into action and stop feeding market with lenses older in age and construction than new possible users are.

Canon EF 35 F/2 Production dates: 1990-2012. 22 years. Replaced only once by the EF 35 F/2 IS USM.
One of the major upgrades was the IS, which Pentax doesn't need to upgrade to get...

FA 35 F/2 Production dates: 1999-present. 17 years so far. Likely to be replaced in the next year or two by the "wide angle prime" on the road map.

The new DC motors are fast, within hundredths of a second of Canon and Nikon. Plenty of Pentax lenses with low dispersion elements- though these aren't an end-all-be-all, especially in shorter focal lengths where they are less necessary and can ruin bokeh quality. Many Pentax lenses have 9 aperture blades, newer ones are rounded.

So no Pentax can keep refreshing as often on some lenses, and they don't offer many lenses. But hardly are we in the dark age. Do your homework before you post this crap next time.

[stevebrot]

As @a5m said, though, it should be somewhat better considering the retail price.

I consider the current price to be about right, but definitely higher than its historic pricing. The FA 50/1.4 was the value queen when I first joined this forum in 2007. At that time, street price was $160 USD from B&H (MSRP was $200). It was a true bargain and would have found a place in my bag except that I already owned a couple competent fast 50s and did not feel any particularly need for another for APS-C use.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Having said that, I think we've had reports of barrel wobble on several of the FA and DA Limited primes, so ...

I depends on what one's tolerance to wobble is. I find almost all AF lenses a little loose-jointed.


Steve