D-FA* 85mm f1.4 also coming

Kunzite · 06-09-2017, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by D1N0

You are having unreasonable expectations about Pentax lens design. Pentax doesn't just want sharpness so I expect the lens to be a bit softer wide open than the Sigma.

I never said Pentax just want sharpness. I expect the new D FA* primes to be sharp, big and expensive - and have a pleasing rendering.

D1N0 · 06-09-2017, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

I expect the new D FA* primes to be sharp, big and expensive - and have a pleasing rendering.

Yeah but not from 1.4 The D FA* 50 1.4 has a 72mm filter thread, the Sigma 50 1.4 (and also the Samyang BTW) a 77mm one. There will be a price to pay for that. The sigma 85mm F1.4 Takes 86mm Filters. The D FA* probably 82mm or even 77mm if we extrapolate that fact. So unless Ricoh has changed the specs a boring sharp wide open and rendering all bokeh in a boringly smeared smoothness perfection will not appear. I really like the way the 77mm F1.8 renders. Hopefully some of it will be carried over to the 85mm.

mee · 06-09-2017, 05:14 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ffking

clearly not - but it surprises me how many people on this forum think that (cumulatively) everything Pentax do is done better by others

No it is simply a case of what others do is just as good as Pentax. My earlier comment was an obvious exaggeration to match your odd claim of 'soul' in an inanimate object. Yet I'm curious what you find special in the Pentax optics?

Actually, if anything, the older Pentax designs all seem to suffer from heavy CA while others have rather soft corners and need some stopping down to really open up the IQ. I think the K-1 (and future Pentax FF DSLRs) should have better.

Originally posted by ffking

who said anything about that? - I just prefer the rendering of my DFA 70-200 to my DFA 24-70

Are you sure you wouldn't prefer the rendering of the D-FA 24-70 more if you hadn't known the optical design was from Tamron?

**pres589** · 06-09-2017, 05:32 AM

There have been a few statements of the DFA 24-70 having somewhat inferior image quality vs the 28-105. Tamron or not.

The coming Sigma 24-70 sounds like it's going to be a knock out. One of a few lenses from them that would be great to have available.

mee · 06-09-2017, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by pres589

There have been a few statements of the DFA 24-70 having somewhat inferior image quality vs the 28-105. Tamron or not.

The coming Sigma 24-70 sounds like it's going to be a knock out. One of a few lenses from them that would be great to have available.

There have been a few statements that the world is flat too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're true.

The Sigma Art lenses would be nice if only to have multiple Micro-AF adjustment points versus the single one we get with normally.

Winder · 06-09-2017, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by Hattifnatt

To me it seems they are just cautions and take small steps. It's not like some guy in the Ricoh management thinks for a few minutes and then he just decides "Let's just make a lot of lenses, throw them all in and we're fine." Probably there is a lot of thinking, studies etc. before embarking on a new project, to check if it's economical or not. I work for an oil and gas company and you don't wanna know how much work goes into just deciding if we're gonna drill a well or not, before actually drilling the well. I imagine it's similar with Ricoh (perhaps on a smaller scale).

Being undecided and not having direction are basically the same thing. Ricoh was obviously not fully committed to going FF to begin with. We know from interviews that they were split on the decision. Once it was seen as a success they realized they needed to develop new glass. Apparently there was also a lot of division over making them typical F/1.4 primes or going for the Limited concept of smaller and slower but still very high quality. There are obviously not a whole lot of resources committed to lens development. That is not to say that they won't be excellent quality, just that Ricoh is not putting a lot into development compared to other companies.

**ffking** · 06-09-2017, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by mee

Are you sure you wouldn't prefer the rendering of the D-FA 24-70 more if you hadn't known the optical design was from Tamron?

I don't know what assumptions you're making about me or why, but the answer is yes.

Kunzite · 06-09-2017, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Winder

Being undecided and not having direction are basically the same thing. Ricoh was obviously not fully committed to going FF to begin with. We know from interviews that they were split on the decision. Once it was seen as a success they realized they needed to develop new glass. Apparently there was also a lot of division over making them typical F/1.4 primes or going for the Limited concept of smaller and slower but still very high quality. There are obviously not a whole lot of resources committed to lens development. That is not to say that they won't be excellent quality, just that Ricoh is not putting a lot into development compared to other companies.

Titanic was very decided, and was clearly following a direction

---------- Post added 09-06-17 at 04:16 PM ----------

Originally posted by D1N0

Yeah but not from 1.4 The D FA* 50 1.4 has a 72mm filter thread, the Sigma 50 1.4 (and also the Samyang BTW) a 77mm one. There will be a price to pay for that. The sigma 85mm F1.4 Takes 86mm Filters. The D FA* probably 82mm or even 77mm if we extrapolate that fact. So unless Ricoh has changed the specs a boring sharp wide open and rendering all bokeh in a boringly smeared smoothness perfection will not appear. I really like the way the 77mm F1.8 renders. Hopefully some of it will be carried over to the 85mm.

We'll see. I'm taking the D FA* 70-200 as a hint, rather than the old FA Limiteds.

Maybe the Sigmas are unnecessarily larger, because they want to sell you more expensive filters

D1N0 · 06-09-2017, 06:42 AM

Left 24-70 Right 28-105

The Pentax design certainly has more sealings and i would say better sharpness and constrast at the long end. At the wide end center sharpness of the 24-70 is a bit better. Then again the The pentax design doesn't have 24mm or f2.8 and de tamron measurements (because it really is a Tamron) are competitive with the Nikons 24-70 if not Canons L II lens which is sharper. It is not for nothing the lens is D FA and not D FA*.

cyberjunkie · 06-09-2017, 01:26 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by clackers

Yes, I think it's probably the way the company thinks, Pres.

I guess at Ricoh/Pentax they still haven't made up their minds.
IMHO any other specific consideration is not so determinant.

Quote:

Pentaxians are old farts with a weakness for legacy glass, so if they own the glorious FA31, FA43 and FA77 Limiteds which are all in current/recent production, those Tamron SPs may be too similar even with WR and inbuilt focus motors.

However, it's been quite a while since bigger FF Star primes came out ...

Well, i'm not an old fart! I'm vintage... and Limited

I agree, Pentaxofiles tend to be a bit conservative, we love old glasses, and specifically in the 77/90mm range there are a number of options, either still sold new, or available second hand.
I have a personal theory:
unless a high end version of the K-1 is introduced without too much delay, and with a state-of-the-art AF system (more AF points, bulletproof tracking, etc), i don't foresee a great success for primes that will have as main selling point a fast in-lens AF motor. The edge in IQ won't be so great to convince a good number of Pentax users to buy the new primes.
Fast focusing AF primes should go with an equally fast (and super reliable) AF system.
I love my K-1, don't get my wrong, but i don't shoot sports, flying birds, and the like...
I am quite comfortable with MF lenses, and i own a few great 85mm lenses that work well enough for the kind of pictures i take: mainly landscape, portraits and travel photography.
I fancy a nice 77mm Limited, though i have too many optics in this range to justify the expense.
From what i read on this forum i'm not alone. Many other users have some nice, fast primes.
To sell new high end primes with fast internal AF motor, Pentax needs to lure "old farts" with a camera made for action photography, and attract some users from other brands.
Let's not forget that cameras and lenses must work as a whole. Like with hi-fi systems, the weakest component sets the performance of the entire chain.
I don't foresee huge sales of (pricey) D FA primes, unless there is a camera that takes full advantage of their performance.
IMHO a fast lens needs a fast camera. Buffer size/speed and AF tracking are the key, along with a few badly needed accessories (FF converters, for example).

I'm not complaining, personally i'm perfectly fine.
The K-1 is the camera i've been waiting for, since long, long time

It works so well with my vintage glasses!

Though a new sport/wildlife version of the K-1 (plus the new D FA primes) would be tempting....

cheers

Paolo

**monochrome** · 06-09-2017, 01:54 PM - **1 Like**

.@cyberjunkie Ricoh has said they are designing the lenses for the future, not only for the present, which implies they have an understanding of Sony's sensor development path and internally have a FF camera development path in mind. That doesn't mean they plan a true Sports/Action FF camera, but one can infer future cameras' AF systems should be up to the lens motors.

Kunzite · 06-09-2017, 02:06 PM

When (if) Pentax launches a sports/action camera (FF or not), they would want to already have a nice range of suitable lenses. They cannot do that simultaneously; and the camera would be less useful without such lenses (but the lenses would still be highly useful without such a camera!).

Monochrome is spot on, lenses are designed for the future. But those D FAs are also about the present: the K-1 is pairing nicely with sharp, modern lenses.

Kunzite · 06-09-2017, 02:20 PM

He's saying he's judging the lens after its characteristics and not maker/brand.

mee · 06-09-2017, 02:55 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kunzite

He's saying he's judging the lens after its characteristics and not maker/brand.

Well that is what he is claiming. But I still wonder how much brand bias comes into play subconsciously. And that is not a knock on 'ffking' but just in general.

On the other hand, outside of sharpness (to some degree) most of those characteristics are invisible once post processing is applied.

I ran a parlor game / test of this awhile back on the forums where I took the same photo with 4 different lenses at the same focal length and aperture. Then applied a moderate amount of PP to each. Only 1 person got them right (matched image to lens) and they admitted they really couldn't tell and just guessed.

Anyways, I'd rather have the sharpest, clearest image I can get. From there I can go anywhere with it.. from soft, to warm, to cold, to grainy, to vibrant, to muted, etc. But I can't take a soft, murky image and really make it sharp...

I suppose if one doesn't want to do much in the way of PP, then having a lens with it's own characteristics or flaws makes PP a snap (since it is built into the lens). But, as I said before, there are already a ton of old lenses out there with this character.. what we don't have much really is clean glass capable of resolving what the K-1 can output.. much less what Pentax have in store in the future. So I don't see a reason for the argument against the cleaner, more optically correct lenses..

cfraz · 06-09-2017, 10:13 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by mee

On the other hand, outside of sharpness (to some degree) most of those characteristics are invisible once post processing is applied.

Not to my eye. For most lenses, sharpness comes into play in a significant way only in heavy cropping or pixel-peeping situations. I'd be careful of equating character to undesirable optical aberrations. Transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus areas, local effect of highlights, suppression of flaring in direct light sources, etc. are lens-specific attributes which cannot be mimicked by simple post-processing.

If photography is limited to making the most faithful 2D representation of a 3D scene, then I agree sharpness is king. But I think photography for many folks goes way beyond that paradigm.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: FA* 85mm F1.4 SOLD!!!	Cambo	Sold Items	2	04-29-2016 01:11 PM
FA85mm f1.4 and FA28-70mm f2.8 on Gumtree Australia	Des	Pentax Price Watch	7	01-25-2016 04:27 PM
Lens Tournament: FA* 85mm F1.4 vs A* 85mm F1.4	Adam	Pentax Forums Giveaways	5	10-23-2014 10:47 AM

06-09-2017, 04:33 AM	#406
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by D1N0 You are having unreasonable expectations about Pentax lens design. Pentax doesn't just want sharpness so I expect the lens to be a bit softer wide open than the Sigma. I never said Pentax just want sharpness. I expect the new D FA* primes to be sharp, big and expensive - and have a pleasing rendering.

06-09-2017, 05:02 AM	#407
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by Kunzite I expect the new D FA* primes to be sharp, big and expensive - and have a pleasing rendering. Yeah but not from 1.4 The D FA* 50 1.4 has a 72mm filter thread, the Sigma 50 1.4 (and also the Samyang BTW) a 77mm one. There will be a price to pay for that. The sigma 85mm F1.4 Takes 86mm Filters. The D FA* probably 82mm or even 77mm if we extrapolate that fact. So unless Ricoh has changed the specs a boring sharp wide open and rendering all bokeh in a boringly smeared smoothness perfection will not appear. I really like the way the 77mm F1.8 renders. Hopefully some of it will be carried over to the 85mm.

06-09-2017, 05:14 AM - 1 Like	#408
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by ffking clearly not - but it surprises me how many people on this forum think that (cumulatively) everything Pentax do is done better by others No it is simply a case of what others do is just as good as Pentax. My earlier comment was an obvious exaggeration to match your odd claim of 'soul' in an inanimate object. Yet I'm curious what you find special in the Pentax optics? Actually, if anything, the older Pentax designs all seem to suffer from heavy CA while others have rather soft corners and need some stopping down to really open up the IQ. I think the K-1 (and future Pentax FF DSLRs) should have better. Originally posted by ffking who said anything about that? - I just prefer the rendering of my DFA 70-200 to my DFA 24-70 Are you sure you wouldn't prefer the rendering of the D-FA 24-70 more if you hadn't known the optical design was from Tamron?

06-09-2017, 05:32 AM	#409
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	There have been a few statements of the DFA 24-70 having somewhat inferior image quality vs the 28-105. Tamron or not. The coming Sigma 24-70 sounds like it's going to be a knock out. One of a few lenses from them that would be great to have available.

06-09-2017, 05:48 AM	#410
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by pres589 There have been a few statements of the DFA 24-70 having somewhat inferior image quality vs the 28-105. Tamron or not. The coming Sigma 24-70 sounds like it's going to be a knock out. One of a few lenses from them that would be great to have available. There have been a few statements that the world is flat too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're true. The Sigma Art lenses would be nice if only to have multiple Micro-AF adjustment points versus the single one we get with normally.

06-09-2017, 05:49 AM	#411
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by Hattifnatt To me it seems they are just cautions and take small steps. It's not like some guy in the Ricoh management thinks for a few minutes and then he just decides "Let's just make a lot of lenses, throw them all in and we're fine." Probably there is a lot of thinking, studies etc. before embarking on a new project, to check if it's economical or not. I work for an oil and gas company and you don't wanna know how much work goes into just deciding if we're gonna drill a well or not, before actually drilling the well. I imagine it's similar with Ricoh (perhaps on a smaller scale). Being undecided and not having direction are basically the same thing. Ricoh was obviously not fully committed to going FF to begin with. We know from interviews that they were split on the decision. Once it was seen as a success they realized they needed to develop new glass. Apparently there was also a lot of division over making them typical F/1.4 primes or going for the Limited concept of smaller and slower but still very high quality. There are obviously not a whole lot of resources committed to lens development. That is not to say that they won't be excellent quality, just that Ricoh is not putting a lot into development compared to other companies.

06-09-2017, 05:58 AM	#412
ffking Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: Old South Wales Posts: 6,038	Originally posted by mee Are you sure you wouldn't prefer the rendering of the D-FA 24-70 more if you hadn't known the optical design was from Tamron? I don't know what assumptions you're making about me or why, but the answer is yes.

06-09-2017, 06:13 AM	#413
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by Winder Being undecided and not having direction are basically the same thing. Ricoh was obviously not fully committed to going FF to begin with. We know from interviews that they were split on the decision. Once it was seen as a success they realized they needed to develop new glass. Apparently there was also a lot of division over making them typical F/1.4 primes or going for the Limited concept of smaller and slower but still very high quality. There are obviously not a whole lot of resources committed to lens development. That is not to say that they won't be excellent quality, just that Ricoh is not putting a lot into development compared to other companies. Titanic was very decided, and was clearly following a direction ---------- Post added 09-06-17 at 04:16 PM ---------- Originally posted by D1N0 Yeah but not from 1.4 The D FA* 50 1.4 has a 72mm filter thread, the Sigma 50 1.4 (and also the Samyang BTW) a 77mm one. There will be a price to pay for that. The sigma 85mm F1.4 Takes 86mm Filters. The D FA* probably 82mm or even 77mm if we extrapolate that fact. So unless Ricoh has changed the specs a boring sharp wide open and rendering all bokeh in a boringly smeared smoothness perfection will not appear. I really like the way the 77mm F1.8 renders. Hopefully some of it will be carried over to the 85mm. We'll see. I'm taking the D FA* 70-200 as a hint, rather than the old FA Limiteds. Maybe the Sigmas are unnecessarily larger, because they want to sell you more expensive filters

06-09-2017, 06:42 AM	#414
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Left 24-70 Right 28-105 The Pentax design certainly has more sealings and i would say better sharpness and constrast at the long end. At the wide end center sharpness of the 24-70 is a bit better. Then again the The pentax design doesn't have 24mm or f2.8 and de tamron measurements (because it really is a Tamron) are competitive with the Nikons 24-70 if not Canons L II lens which is sharper. It is not for nothing the lens is D FA and not D FA*.

06-09-2017, 01:26 PM - 1 Like	#415
cyberjunkie Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Chiang Mai, Bologna, Amsterdam Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,198	Originally posted by clackers Yes, I think it's probably the way the company thinks, Pres. I guess at Ricoh/Pentax they still haven't made up their minds. IMHO any other specific consideration is not so determinant. Quote: Pentaxians are old farts with a weakness for legacy glass, so if they own the glorious FA31, FA43 and FA77 Limiteds which are all in current/recent production, those Tamron SPs may be too similar even with WR and inbuilt focus motors. However, it's been quite a while since bigger FF Star primes came out ... Well, i'm not an old fart! I'm vintage... and Limited I agree, Pentaxofiles tend to be a bit conservative, we love old glasses, and specifically in the 77/90mm range there are a number of options, either still sold new, or available second hand. I have a personal theory: unless a high end version of the K-1 is introduced without too much delay, and with a state-of-the-art AF system (more AF points, bulletproof tracking, etc), i don't foresee a great success for primes that will have as main selling point a fast in-lens AF motor. The edge in IQ won't be so great to convince a good number of Pentax users to buy the new primes. Fast focusing AF primes should go with an equally fast (and super reliable) AF system. I love my K-1, don't get my wrong, but i don't shoot sports, flying birds, and the like... I am quite comfortable with MF lenses, and i own a few great 85mm lenses that work well enough for the kind of pictures i take: mainly landscape, portraits and travel photography. I fancy a nice 77mm Limited, though i have too many optics in this range to justify the expense. From what i read on this forum i'm not alone. Many other users have some nice, fast primes. To sell new high end primes with fast internal AF motor, Pentax needs to lure "old farts" with a camera made for action photography, and attract some users from other brands. Let's not forget that cameras and lenses must work as a whole. Like with hi-fi systems, the weakest component sets the performance of the entire chain. I don't foresee huge sales of (pricey) D FA primes, unless there is a camera that takes full advantage of their performance. IMHO a fast lens needs a fast camera. Buffer size/speed and AF tracking are the key, along with a few badly needed accessories (FF converters, for example). I'm not complaining, personally i'm perfectly fine. The K-1 is the camera i've been waiting for, since long, long time It works so well with my vintage glasses! Though a new sport/wildlife version of the K-1 (plus the new D FA primes) would be tempting.... cheers Paolo

06-09-2017, 01:54 PM - 1 Like	#416
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	.@cyberjunkie Ricoh has said they are designing the lenses for the future, not only for the present, which implies they have an understanding of Sony's sensor development path and internally have a FF camera development path in mind. That doesn't mean they plan a true Sports/Action FF camera, but one can infer future cameras' AF systems should be up to the lens motors.

06-09-2017, 02:06 PM	#417
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	When (if) Pentax launches a sports/action camera (FF or not), they would want to already have a nice range of suitable lenses. They cannot do that simultaneously; and the camera would be less useful without such lenses (but the lenses would still be highly useful without such a camera!). Monochrome is spot on, lenses are designed for the future. But those D FAs are also about the present: the K-1 is pairing nicely with sharp, modern lenses.

06-09-2017, 02:20 PM	#418
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	He's saying he's judging the lens after its characteristics and not maker/brand.

06-09-2017, 02:55 PM - 1 Like	#419
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by Kunzite He's saying he's judging the lens after its characteristics and not maker/brand. Well that is what he is claiming. But I still wonder how much brand bias comes into play subconsciously. And that is not a knock on 'ffking' but just in general. On the other hand, outside of sharpness (to some degree) most of those characteristics are invisible once post processing is applied. I ran a parlor game / test of this awhile back on the forums where I took the same photo with 4 different lenses at the same focal length and aperture. Then applied a moderate amount of PP to each. Only 1 person got them right (matched image to lens) and they admitted they really couldn't tell and just guessed. Anyways, I'd rather have the sharpest, clearest image I can get. From there I can go anywhere with it.. from soft, to warm, to cold, to grainy, to vibrant, to muted, etc. But I can't take a soft, murky image and really make it sharp... I suppose if one doesn't want to do much in the way of PP, then having a lens with it's own characteristics or flaws makes PP a snap (since it is built into the lens). But, as I said before, there are already a ton of old lenses out there with this character.. what we don't have much really is clean glass capable of resolving what the K-1 can output.. much less what Pentax have in store in the future. So I don't see a reason for the argument against the cleaner, more optically correct lenses..

06-09-2017, 10:13 PM - 1 Like	#420
cfraz Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 521	Originally posted by mee On the other hand, outside of sharpness (to some degree) most of those characteristics are invisible once post processing is applied. Not to my eye. For most lenses, sharpness comes into play in a significant way only in heavy cropping or pixel-peeping situations. I'd be careful of equating character to undesirable optical aberrations. Transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus areas, local effect of highlights, suppression of flaring in direct light sources, etc. are lens-specific attributes which cannot be mimicked by simple post-processing. If photography is limited to making the most faithful 2D representation of a 3D scene, then I agree sharpness is king. But I think photography for many folks goes way beyond that paradigm.