[kenspo]

Have you ever used any of these lenses? I cannot fathom what you mean when you say "not as good as they should be". Any way I put it, I cannot help but disagree.

Yes, I have..have access to all Pentax lenses

---------- Post added 10-30-17 at 04:26 PM ----------

"Pentax doesn't have an FF lens line up" is nonsense.

I can agree on they have a Ff line up. I just think its not good enough standard and really needs to be upgraded in many areas

[house]

Anyone who is used to silent focusing lenses would balk at the Pentax FF lineup. It makes the whole system feel less responsive. For some type of work it's a huge deal and it makes the system feel old even if it does the job.

[Kunzite]

I don't understand this dispute.
Surely, people who believe in "good enough" have all those "good enough" lenses to buy and use.
What's missing is true high-end lenses (except the zooms, but even those could be upgraded eventually, with the new ring-type SDM if not optics).

I see no problem with Pentax moving upmarket for any one of us. Even people for whom mid-range is the best would eventually benefit from things like ring-type SDM introduced first in high-end products, or from a second hand market which will eventually exist with such products.

[Fcsnt54]

I dont understand this dispute either. Why do some feel the need to argue on why new lenses are not welcomed? I mean a model T ford will get you from point a to point b, but why not have development on something that extends the range, extends the brand, and updates the line to more modern designs for future advancements?

Curious on the noise of this newer lens, and speed as well.

[normhead]

I dont understand this dispute either. Why do some feel the need to argue on why new lenses are not welcomed? I mean a model T ford will get you from point a to point b, but why not have development on something that extends the range, extends the brand, and updates the line to more modern designs for future advancements?

Curious on the noise of this newer lens, and speed as well.

I don't think we did that. The assertion that the old lenses are somehow less than they were 5 years ago is the issue. New lenses are certainly welcomed. The issue is what lenses work on a K-1 and the effort by some to say old glass is no longer useful and shouldn't count toward the total. Even though older lenses are still in the stores being sold by Pentax.

And the habit of reviewers of saying there is no "modern" glass for Pentax.

I always say, if you can't make your point without trashing something else you really don't have a point. Trashing older glass is counterproductive. Especially with lenses like the FA lids. They were designed to be light weight easily portable options, not to compete with the best test chart lenses out there. They emphasize 3D rendering over test chart performance. Unlike what has been implied in this thread, the release of new heavily corrected, heavy, faster silenter lenses, well, that's not what they were designed to compete with. They are as relevant as ever. That's why they are still in the stores.

Push the new lenses all you want. But, they aren't relevant to a lot of people. And certainly not what you should be holding up as examples of lenses that will replace legacy glass. Those legacy lenses will always have their place. The new lenses take their place beside them, not supplanting them.

[bdery]

Anyone who is used to silent focusing lenses would balk at the Pentax FF lineup. It makes the whole system feel less responsive. For some type of work it's a huge deal and it makes the system feel old even if it does the job.

That I can sort of understand. The perception regarding screw-drive is bad, even though the tech isn't. The noise IS annoying but the speed and accuracy are not really worse. I'm currently testing the three FA Limited and they hold their own against the newer DFA lenses.

I see no problem with Pentax moving upmarket for any one of us.

I agree to that.

I dont understand this dispute either. Why do some feel the need to argue on why new lenses are not welcomed?

New lenses are absolutely welcomed in my opinion. They are necessary.

For my part I argued against the idea that current lenses are particularly bad or inadequate. Not the same thing.

[Kunzite]

There's a problem here. As a manufacturer, how do you promote the new glass, if not by explaining its differences from existing ones?
As a professional, how do you explain your need of modern glass, if not by stating the existing options are not good enough for your needs?

Both you and Kenspo have a point. But, there shouldn't be any conflict between your positions.

[normhead]

For my part I argued against the idea that current lenses are particularly bad or inadequate. Not the same thing.

Apparently to some, saying there is still value in the older lenses in some way devalues the value of the newer designs. All we're doing here is saying the older designs are the same lenses they always were and still have the place even if some say "they aren't what they should be". They are what they are and are still useful. How does one even decide what they should be? How does one make that decision? It's an unsupported opinion from one person's perspective nothing more.

I have so many reports of older designs from Canon and Nikon glass that are being sold, that are also not what they should be, I'm ready for an end to this "pie in the sky" hand holding attempt to lead us all into a "better world". It's not about the new lenses, it's the unscrupulous , lens marketing hype that says, what you have isn't good enough, when by many criteria, weight, size and cost, the old glass is better.

[Kunzite]

That I can sort of understand. The perception regarding screw-drive is bad, even though the tech isn't. The noise IS annoying but the speed and accuracy are not really worse. I'm currently testing the three FA Limited and they hold their own against the newer DFA lenses.

My problem with screw-drive AF is not noise, as much as precision. The often seen micro-adjustments, and occasionally the inability to focus at a certain distance made me decide that all my future lenses will have internal AF motors.

[Rondec]

I'm not sure that there is any reason for argument.

The things we know: (1) There are new lenses coming out. (2) They aren't coming out as soon as those who want them would like. (3) Their goal performance is better than existing lenses in Pentax's line up. (4) Pentax K-1 cameras do have a number of lenses available to shoot with and perform quite well with those lenses.

What we don't know: (1) The exact date of the release of lenses on the lens map. (2) How good they will actually be.

I guess one final thing we know is that regardless of price and performance there will be some dissatisfied people out there.

I really don't think anyone thinks that these lenses aren't needed, although they might argue about in what order the primes should be released. Frankly, if you own, say, the DA *55 and are completely satisfied with it, then there is no big deal. You've just saved yourself a thousand dollars. No reason to be upset over lenses that are in the line up that you don't want.[COLOR="Silver"]

[Kunzite]

Apparently to some, saying there is still value in the older lenses in some way devalues the value of the newer designs. All we're doing here is saying the older designs are the same lenses they always were and still have the place even if some say "they aren't what they should be". They are what they are and are still useful. How does one even decide what they should be? How does one make that decision? It's an unsupported opinion from one person's perspective nothing more.

Old lenses are what they always were, in the same manner as a still functional *istD is what it always was. Perhaps more, as you can get superior results by using them on a newer camera.
That doesn't mean they're OK as top of the line products in 2017.

[normhead]

Old lenses are what they always were, in the same manner as a still functional *istD is what it always was. Perhaps more, as you can get superior results by using them on a newer camera.
That doesn't mean they're OK as top of the line products in 2017.

Top of the line needs to be there. No argument. Middle of the road also needs to be there. Entry level also needs to be there. The ltd and older lenses make an excellent "second tier" lens package. ANd in the case of cost, portability, size and weight are still top of the line. The new lenses do not compete in those fields, with the exception of the 28-105.

---------- Post added 10-30-17 at 01:52 PM ----------

if not by stating the existing options are not good enough for your needs?

You state what your needs are, if you are clear in your statement it's obvious. The need for "Sigma" lenses has been obvious for years. That in no way detracts from what the older line up represented. It just means they aren't for every one. There's no need to talk as if every photographer should be dumping their older stuff and buying the newer stuff. Photographers have different needs. After all that has been said and done, it's still possible someone will prefer a 77 ltd to the new DAF 85 1.4, or a 50 macro to the new 1.4. The older lenses may be better for their circumstances. A categorical "newer is better" ignores a lot of common wisdom. Like "if you can't fit it in your camera bag, it's not really of any use.""The best lens is the one that's with you." and so on and so on.

[Kunzite]

There's no need to talk as if every photographer should be dumping their older stuff and buying the newer stuff.

Nobody's doing that.

[bdery]

My problem with screw-drive AF is not noise, as much as precision. The often seen micro-adjustments, and occasionally the inability to focus at a certain distance made me decide that all my future lenses will have internal AF motors.

Seeing as I have no reference basis to relate with what you write, I'm going to guess that you're referring more to the comparison of PDAF vs CDAF than screw-drive vs anything else.

[Kunzite]

I'm taking about PDAF.