[Kunzite]

I'm afraid they don't exist - as D FA, or FF-compatible DA lenses.

[eurostar]

The only lenses in the Pentax line that are constantly reworked are the 18-55 (18-50) and 55-300. Those two are the one that are being sold in big numbers. Also we had the upgrading to HD coating of the DA limited lens. Those evidently are also very popular. And we saw the replacing of 16-45 with 17-70 and this one with 16-85, so it looks also those sell well. But all the other lenses are the same of when they appeared, some of them many years ago, even the apparently popular 16-50 and 50-135/2,8, with all their known quirks. I guess they are not actually so pupular, if they keep them as when they were new, without any upgrading along the years. Still selling the first batches, maybe? If this is the case, I don't see how Ricoh could design and engineer F1,2 lenses, or a 300/2,8. How many would buy them?

[thibs]

The DA55 isn't FF compatible?
I must have missed an episode or two...

[Kunzite]

Of course it isn't; not to the minimum level which would make Ricoh Imaging to put it on the list of FF-compatible DA lenses.
While you might get "good enough" results without cropping, this effectively means Ricoh Imaging would have to hurry with a proper, D FA version.

[virusn3t]

Of course it isn't; not to the minimum level which would make Ricoh Imaging to put it on the list of FF-compatible DA lenses.
While you might get "good enough" results without cropping, this effectively means Ricoh Imaging would have to hurry with a proper, D FA version.

But there it is the FA50mm F1.4, still on catalogue.

Why rebrand this with a D__*? I think Pentax need something better and a DFA* 50 F1.2 new designed or improved design of the A50 f1.2 can do better


Edit to add

If Pentax only bring a f1.4 sales can be hurt with, there the DA55 just crop and save the money, or it cant get the * attachmenr and people will say, buy the FA save a lot of money and carry on... Pentax need the Premium * category, prices and press... and a f1.2 can give that

[Kunzite]

The FA 50mm f/1.4 is using a very old optical design. Neither this, nor the DA* are suitable for a mere rebranding.

[virusn3t]

The FA 50mm f/1.4 is using a very old optical design. Neither this, nor the DA* are suitable for a mere rebranding.

I wasnt talking about about design, more about price/value perception

DFA*50mm F1.4, people will compare this lens against DA*55 F1.4, its not "full" 35mm compatible, but it have silent motor (durability in doubt, but that's other theme), weather resistant and pixie dust... does it really gooing to stand out to justify 2 times the price of the DA*? or people will think: Just crop, its not worth that much money.

And against the FA50mm F1.4, 35mm compatible, not silent motor or weather resistant, but hey!, now that the new DFA its gonna be more affordable! Same with the DA*

Just look the comparision of the Tamron 70-200 vs the Pentax 70-200, the Pentax its better, offer silent motor, weather resistance but cost twice the tamron, and as they both have the same focal lenght and aperture, we still recomend the tamron price wise, and only buy the Pentax if their improved specs are worth...

I could be wrong, and Pentax release a DFA or DFA*50mm f1.4, but i dont think it can be different enough to make it worth against the DA* or the FA in price, if Ricoh release a DFA*50mm F1.2, that aperture justify (in buyers mind's) the higher cost, and cant be completly compared against the DA* or FA because is a faster and bigger lens, plus as it will have DC motor and AW, can be see it as a better lens than the FA and the big brother of the DA*...

[Kunzite]

What, do you already know the price?
You realize a D FA 50mm f/1.2 would be much more expensive than a D FA 50mm f/1.4, right? There's a lot of justification needed

Speaking of which: would you actually buy a D FA* 50mm f/1.2 (for, let's say, about 1500$)? I know I won't, but perhaps the fact that you can't directly compare it to the DA* will make you pay?

[virusn3t]

What, do you already know the price?
You realize a D FA 50mm f/1.2 would be much more expensive than a D FA 50mm f/1.4, right? There's a lot of justification needed

I do not know the price, but i know its gonna be more expensive than the DA* even at f1.4, with hope, same price but not a * lens, and they make and promote the 85mm f1.4 as the natural replacement of the DA*55 wich it was suppose to cover that focal lenght in the APS cameras.... what i think is impressive is your statement about the f1.4 and the imposibilitie of a f1.2, if you know something please tell us.

[RobA_Oz]

What, do you already know the price?
You realize a D FA 50mm f/1.2 would be much more expensive than a D FA 50mm f/1.4, right? There's a lot of justification needed

Speaking of which: would you actually buy a D FA* 50mm f/1.2 (for, let's say, about 1500$)? I know I won't, but perhaps the fact that you can't directly compare it to the DA* will make you pay?

Judging by the numbers of K and A50/1.2 lenses owned here and on the market from time to time, I'd say that significant numbers of people in the past were willing to pay the big price difference. With a smaller market now, that may not be sufficient to justify a D-FA variant being produced, at least until the market share picks up substantially. On the other hand, people seem to be taking to the other new high-priced D-FA lenses, so perhaps there would be room for a new 50/1.2.

Our guessing won't make a difference, but perhaps enough people talking about it may prompt Ricoh to do some better research. Other brands have such a lens in their portfolios. Even if they're a loss-making "halo" item, they wouldn't be there unless someone in authority thought they were having an effect.

[monochrome]

Judging by the numbers of K and A50/1.2 lenses owned here and on the market from time to time, I'd say that significant numbers of people in the past were willing to pay the big price difference. With a smaller market now, that may not be sufficient to justify a D-FA variant being produced, at least until the market share picks up substantially. On the other hand, people seem to be taking to the other new high-priced D-FA lenses, so perhaps there would be room for a new 50/1.2.

Our guessing won't make a difference, but perhaps enough people talking about it may prompt Ricoh to do some better research. Other brands have such a lens in their portfolios. Even if they're a loss-making "halo" item, they wouldn't be there unless someone in authority thought they were having an effect.

How much of the final demand for K-mount f/1.2 normals is already met by used K and A50/1.2's? What could justify a $2,000 specialty lens when $450 (K) or $600 (A) buys the extra light and narrow DoF?

Manual focus? Surely f/1.2 lenses will suffer from missed AF on the 2.8 and 5.6 focus points and will need to be touched up with QS anyway, as might the f/1.4's.

[virusn3t]

Speaking of which: would you actually buy a D FA* 50mm f/1.2 (for, let's say, about 1500$)? I know I won't, but perhaps the fact that you can't directly compare it to the DA* will make you pay?

Perhaps.... at 1500usd? Nah... at 999usd (after drop of 1200usd) maybe....

My collection of 50's are a A50mm f1.7, DFA50mm f2.8 Macro and the 43mm Ltd f1.9.... I cant justify the DA*55, i have the 43mm, diferent rendering but similar spec's, all my lenses are great on the K1, so a DFA* f1.4 wont cut it for me, but as a fan of shallow DoF and low light shooter a f1.2 is more appealing (but not a necesity).

Im on the hunt of a good medium all terrain zoom (a 24/28-135 f4 perhaps), maybe a portrait prime (85 or 135) and a WA prime, something beetween 18-21 (maybe 24), in my "someday" list and "if i won the lottery" list, a 200mm Macro, the DFA 50 f1.2 (if it created someday) and the Schnneider 90mm PC tilt/shift (recently discountinued).... of course theres Hasseblad and exotic cameras/lenses there but they are more in the "when hell froze over" list

[RobA_Oz]

How much of the final demand for K-mount f/1.2 normals is already met by used K and A50/1.2's? What could justify a $2,000 specialty lens when $450 (K) or $600 (A) buys the extra light and narrow DoF?

Manual focus? Surely f/1.2 lenses will suffer from missed AF on the 2.8 and 5.6 focus points and will need to be touched up with QS anyway, as might the f/1.4's.

Who indeed? Hence my comment, so Ricoh will, if they think it worthwhile, do their market research and act accordingly. Nonetheless, I wouldn't have thought that the demand for the D-FA 150-450 might be as strong as it seems to have been, either, given that there's a cheaper and (from all accounts) quite satisfactory alternative from Sigma, so there we are.

[Kunzite]

what i think is impressive is your statement about the f1.4 and the imposibilitie of a f1.2, if you know something please tell us.

My statement about what? You're imagining things.
I simply believe that a more affordable ~50mm f/1.4 makes more sense than an expensive f/1.2, that's all. This is an opinion, by the way.
And this opinion is reinforced by your statement that you wouldn't buy the f/1.2 (yes, you say if it's $999, maybe... - but the Canon started at $1600 and it's still $1350 a decade after its introduction).

Judging by the numbers of K and A50/1.2 lenses owned here and on the market from time to time, I'd say that significant numbers of people in the past were willing to pay the big price difference.

Hold your horses; I can find K and A50/1.2 lenses on eekbay, for around 350-380$. A brand new D FA* 50mm f/1.2 is going to cost several times that.
Getting a bargain on the flea market, and paying for a modern, brand new lens? It's not the same; rather, it's the opposite I'd say.

[RobA_Oz]

Hold your horses; I can find K and A50/1.2 lenses on eekbay, for around 350-380$. A brand new D FA* 50mm f/1.2 is going to cost several times that.
Getting a bargain on the flea market, and paying for a modern, brand new lens? It's not the same; rather, it's the opposite I'd say.

You might want to read that again. I was talking about the numbers of people who bought the lens new at a substantial premium, thus making it available subsequently on the secondhand market for a lower price.