[monochrome]

On another thread someone posted Pentax is rumored to have closed the Denver Ricoh Imaging offcie and distributed some employees to various Ricoh B2B locations - the principal Ricoh Imaging managers are rumored to be now using a Ricoh B2B location in new Jersey. That would put the Pentax offices in proximity to the other major photographic imaging US industry brand locations.

Perhaps adding FA35/2 back to the USA catalog is related to this (rumored) change - and maybe there is more of this to come.

[clackers]

Honestly. I'm not a seasoned forum member but I'm familiar with Clackers impressive samples and his always constructive and supportive contributions.

Thanks for the show of support, DT.

As you know, I'm a data-driven, evidence-based, kind of guy and think I'm not the only one around here suspicious of keyboard warriors typing stuff that comes into their heads without either fact-checking or direct experience.

@Uluru of course can't produce anything to back up his assertion that the Plastic Fantastics are high school level crap.

They're the two cheapest lenses Pentax sells, and are great ... I reckon their heritage in the M50 f1.7 and FA35 is enviable.

Uluru will have to explain what forum members have done with them ...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/233786-fantastic-fifty-da-50mm-f-1-8-a.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/196639-da35-f2-4-plastic-fantastic-club.html

and why this forum's official comparision review found that the 50, for instance, produced images just as good as more expensive lenses:

Pentax 50mm Prime Lens Shootout Review - Sharpness | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Uluru is certainly being laughable when he tries to compare them to some $600 Tamron SP lens.

[beachgardener]

ignore and move on, end this thread.

[stevebrot]

Uluru is certainly being laughable when he tries to compare them to some $600 Tamron SP lens.

The weird part is that I read photozone's review of the Tamron and while the build is excellent, I am not sure that the optical quality is a step up from the FA 35/2 (remember he dissed that one too) at 60% the price. Regardless of other product on the market, I am happy to have a decent lens with street cred on FF back in the lineup for the Americas.


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 09-06-2016 at 10:44 PM.

[ogl]

By the way, FA35/2 costs 660 USD in Russia....

[Kunzite]

614$ where I live, but that's including a 20% VAT.

[Reed]

614$ where I live, but that's including a 20% VAT.

FA35/2 is 647.99USD tax included(23%) here in Poland. If i had a choice-FA35vsT35 I would go for tammy 35 less than 50$ more. Still I'm quite happy with DA35.

[Kunzite]

754$ for the Tammy around here

---------- Post added 07-09-16 at 10:00 AM ----------

For those of us who've been waiting patiently for the Q mount macro, promises like that mean virtually nothing.

In this case you'll see that it means more than "virtually nothing".

Unfortunately for you, the Q telephoto macro never made it past "Planning", in the roadmap. Some are even questioning the future of the Q line...

[6BQ5]

I wouldn't mind the criticism of an older lens if it were constructive. Show me a sample image and highlight a specific flaw in the rendering of that image. Tell me what ought to be improved and show it to me.

Again, personally, I think the three Limiteds are just fine optically. Leave them alone. I have shot some portraits of my kids with each and was thoroughly satisfied when pixel peeping. The 77 is heavenly. I saw an image come out of my K-1 that looks like what I remember my kids looking like. I will happily take WR seals, faster focus, silent focus, different form factor, etc. Just leave the glass alone inside alone ... and move on. Will I also welcome new lenses in addition to the Limiteds? Sure, bring them on.

[Reed]

754$ for the Tammy around here

---------- Post added 07-09-16 at 10:00 AM ----------


In this case you'll see that it means more than "virtually nothing".

Unfortunately for you, the Q telephoto macro never made it past "Planning", in the roadmap. Some are even questioning the future of the Q line...

Sorry got it without tax Then its around the same-750$ with tax included,its 23%, soo if you can get it with no VAT, or with refund-thats quite a deal
(and tap-console for free included with any SP lens now)

[Borrelli]

Choice of materials is an interesting topic. Most people think that a more weighty object has a higher quality feel -I guess that's why my Audio Research linestage remote has a piece of lead inside it's plastic interior. Resistance to scratches and the tactile feel of a material is also of importance.
Plastic is often derided as a cheaper and lower quality material choice as opposed to an all-metal construction. The problem is, there are so many kinds of plastic that such generalizations are meaningless. I would say a material should be chosen for it's suitability in engineering the product. Clearly this is quite often the case. We musn't forget the price point either.

The point is that optics is quite a well known field of physics, certainly where photographic lenses are concerned. The current focus on edge-to-edge sharpness some reviewers have is not the whole story. The problem lens designers/engineers face is to create a desirable combination of optical traits and handling within the limits of cost, dimensions, etc. This is where plastic can help engineer a cheaper lens which still has desirable optical traits.

I think most of the FA series lenses have quite a solid and durable construction, especially for the price. FA* series builds are excellent, as they should be. I don't really like the DA* series plastic material, as the place where the hood attaches can break of, which it did on my 50-135.
Then again, I don't like the FA31 Limited design choices that much either, with it's integrated metal hood. I just bent one when the camera tumbled of the couch. A removable hood would have been better, and plastic would have absorbed the impact in a less costly way.

I think that the FA35 will stay in the lineup for a while longer. The new prime could very well be a new 24 or 28.

[clackers]

By the way, FA35/2 costs 660 USD in Russia....

Okay, Ogl, but you understand that it's $350 in the United States, right, where the Tamron is $600?

The plight of your local pricing courtesy of your distributor is interesting in its own way, but is not the issue here.

The DA35 is a great substitute if you're looking to save roubles ... as in the FA35, the secret to its sharpness is an aspherical element.

[Rondec]

I thought the DA 35 was based on the FA 35 lens formula, maybe with some tweaks and obviously slowing the aperture a half stop. I think I would probably just get that, since it is full frame too, rather than spending the extra money on the FA 35 -- it isn't as though the builds on the FA 35 or FA 50 are that much better than the builds on the DA 35 or DA 50.

[BigMackCam]

it isn't as though the builds on the FA 35 or FA 50 are that much better than the builds on the DA 35 or DA 50.

I'm a big fan of the DA "plastic fantastic" lenses - both the DA35 f/2.4 and the DA50 f/1.8. That said, when I compare the latter to my FA50 f/1.4, I really do feel that the FA has better build quality. There's still a lot of plastic, yes, but it feels much more solid and robust. I assume the comparison for the 35mm lenses would be similar...

[Reed]

FA35 is very robust, but yet, the build quality, and overall design is 80's style. It's realy time to retire both of the FA's that remain in the lens line. They are nothing like for example canon old 50/1.8II(cheap and weak mechanical design) released same time as FA50/1.4. Both FA50/35 are very solid, but are in almost all terms obsolete. People will still buy them anyway-no one intends to scrap the remaining stock. But fair update should be given to that film era lenses. They are not the FA limiteds.