[jatrax]

as soon as it makes economic sense, I can buy it. That's all that matters tome. I may not buy it, but I could if push came to shove. That's a peace of mind issue, and Pentax addressed it nicely.

Well said.

Just because the K-1 is amazing as a landscape tool, it doesn't mean they shouldn't do, or postpone the 50mm and 85mm. I can't accept any argument in the line of "but nobody would ever want to shoot portraits with Pentax".

I did not say that, you are correct all of the primes are eventually required and arguing over the order of delivery is pointless. My point is that marketing is advertising the K-1 as a "field camera" but engineering is producing portrait lenses. If those are the lenses that are coming out first maybe marketing should have been told and they could have called it a "wedding camera".

[Kunzite]

Why? Marketing wasn't determined by lenses which would not be available for 1-2-n years. And do you think the existence of a portrait lens makes the K-1 a lesser "field camera"?

[jatrax]

Why? Marketing wasn't determined by lenses which would not be available for 1-2-n years. And do you think the existence of a portrait lens makes the K-1 a lesser "field camera"?

Sigh. Why is everything such an argument? All I said was in my opinion if they are going to call it a field camera then they should have communicated that to engineering and produced lenses that suit that function first. Or if those lenses were to be produced first anyway then engineering should have communicated that to marketing and they should have promoted the camera differently.

I really do not care which are produced first, only that the marketing should relate to what is being produced, not what might be produced in 1 to 5 years.

[Kunzite]

There are many participants in this discussion, and I'm trying to force a point. That is, we should not be so hung up on details like the precise order they'd be launching lenses.
Enjoy the moment. Every lens will add something important to the K-mount, regardless if we think it should be top priority or not.

[ffking]

I did not say that, you are correct all of the primes are eventually required and arguing over the order of delivery is pointless. My point is that marketing is advertising the K-1 as a "field camera" but engineering is producing portrait lenses. If those are the lenses that are coming out first maybe marketing should have been told and they could have called it a "wedding camera".

To be honest, I think most (digital) landscape photographers use zooms most of the time - which is what they came out with by launch time - I think they are trying to satisfy as many different types of photographer as they can while they build up their lens armoury, but there are having to be compromises without increased funding - one of which seems to be going for quality over range.

[redpit]

Obviously there are more people shooting the K-1 in this thread than those shooting with the K-1.

[normhead]

The big question, coming form reading a thread comparing the FA* 85 1,4 and the 77 ltd. and how much loved the FA* 85 1.4 is is this lens going to be better than the FA version, if one does't consider the quiet motor? Is the best thing for most of us going to be that with the 85 1.4 coming out will it drop the second hand prices of the FA*? With so many people liking the FA* more than the 77 for portraits, there's a pretty high bar there for this lens.

[clackers]

The big question, coming form reading a thread comparing the FA* 85 1,4 and the 77 ltd. and how much loved the FA* 85 1.4 is is this lens going to be better than the FA version, if one does't consider the quiet motor? Is the best thing for most of us going to be that with the 85 1.4 coming out will it drop the second hand prices of the FA*? With so many people liking the FA* more than the 77 for portraits, there's a pretty high bar there for this lens.

Well, yes, it will most likely have more glass in it, for starters.

[thibs]

The big question, coming form reading a thread comparing the FA* 85 1,4 and the 77 ltd. and how much loved the FA* 85 1.4 is is this lens going to be better than the FA version, if one does't consider the quiet motor? Is the best thing for most of us going to be that with the 85 1.4 coming out will it drop the second hand prices of the FA*? With so many people liking the FA* more than the 77 for portraits, there's a pretty high bar there for this lens.

You're right but I have no doubt personally.
FA*85 will come down, but probably not as much as I'd hope

[normhead]

Well, yes, it will most likely have more glass in it, for starters.

Most of the improvements in better glass is better control of CA and purple fringing... if it does that, it will be better and definitely worth buying for some. With my older glass, if I get purple fringing on a bird shot, no problem, the birds will back at the feeder tomorrow.

But I've never owned a lens that never gives you CA or Purple fringing (well, maybe my DFA 28-105 but I haven't used it that much yet.)... so is that even a thing?

From what I see resolution isn't increasing much, but better control of CA should produce much better micro-contrast.

[clackers]

Most of the improvements in better glass is better control of CA and purple fringing... if it does that, it will be better and definitely worth buying for some. With my older glass, if I get purple fringing on a bird shot, no problem, the birds will back at the feeder tomorrow.

But I've never owned a lens that never gives you CA or Purple fringing (well, maybe my DFA 28-105 but I haven't used it that much yet.)... so is that even a thing?

From what I see resolution isn't increasing much, but better control of CA should produce much better micro-contrast.

I think, the moment you tell a lens designer he's not allowed to go beyond, say, a 52mm filter, you've limited the amount of glass he can put in to bend the light enough to get the scene in without distortion, to keep up resolution (especially away from the dead centre), the maximum aperture, reduce coma and control aberrations both chromatic and spherical.

It's why I have both the DA21 and Samyang 24mm f1.4, for instance.

Now, with the FA*85 vs the upcoming DFA, the old lens had a 67mm filter size and is about 600g, with screw drive, no weather resistance.

This DFA will be a modern, big lens. The Sigma equivalent has an 86mm filter size, nearly double the weight. Compared to the old FA*, it also has an aspherical rear element (my guess is one moulded/ground part, not hybrid) and two elements with rare elements in the glass to lift their light bending power.

This is what you want to reduce your purple fringing.

IQ aside, the new DFA should have a fast in-lens motor and be weather sealed. It'll be a very different animal from the FA*85.

No one says you have to buy it, the whole Kenspo vs Normhead thing.

I've got an FA 77 Ltd already, for instance, which is like a cut-down version of the FA*85. (Hirakawa had previously designed the A*85, IIRC)

[Rondec]

Most of the improvements in better glass is better control of CA and purple fringing... if it does that, it will be better and definitely worth buying for some. With my older glass, if I get purple fringing on a bird shot, no problem, the birds will back at the feeder tomorrow.

But I've never owned a lens that never gives you CA or Purple fringing (well, maybe my DFA 28-105 but I haven't used it that much yet.)... so is that even a thing?

From what I see resolution isn't increasing much, but better control of CA should produce much better micro-contrast.

The FA 77 on full frame doesn't have great border sharpness till you stop down a bit -- f4 is pretty good. I would expect the DFA *85 to be better in that respect. The whole purple fringing thing is a pretty big deal. These are portrait lenses and one nice thing to do is to back light your subject, but with the FA 77 you really end up with a glowing purple line around your subject. The f2.8 DFA zooms have very minimal fringing as does the DA *55. It seems like the older DA * lenses and the FA limiteds struggle with it a whole lot more.

It is fixable, depending on the severity of it, but if it is a few pixels wide, fixing it can leave a gray line around your subject which is about as bad.

[mee]

The FA 77 on full frame doesn't have great border sharpness till you stop down a bit -- f4 is pretty good. I would expect the DFA *85 to be better in that respect. The whole purple fringing thing is a pretty big deal. These are portrait lenses and one nice thing to do is to back light your subject, but with the FA 77 you really end up with a glowing purple line around your subject. The f2.8 DFA zooms have very minimal fringing as does the DA *55. It seems like the older DA * lenses and the FA limiteds struggle with it a whole lot more.

It is fixable, depending on the severity of it, but if it is a few pixels wide, fixing it can leave a gray line around your subject which is about as bad.

CA and purple fringing have been one of the hallmarks to the older lenses.. one advantage to upgrading. Yes on the DA* side the 16-50mm has a bit more fringing than I'd have expected for a * lens. But that design is also a decade old.

The D-FA 85 should be sharp from f/1.4 onward... if it is anything like the Sigma Art version. But even that one has purple and green fringing visible in high contrast bright areas. So I don't think we should too upset if the Pentax one isn't 100% clean.. it is likely going to have minimal, but some, fringing too.

I wonder how much the coatings versus the optical design and glass type is involved in this issue?

[blende8]

The D-FA 85 should be sharp from f/1.4 onward... if it is anything like the Sigma Art version. But even that one has purple and green fringing visible in high contrast bright areas.

In in-focus or in out-of-focus areas?
Abberations are normally counted in-focus only.

[mee]

In in-focus or in out-of-focus areas?
Abberations are normally counted in-focus only.

Of the Sigma? out of focus areas.. in a rather trying setting (close up of a dark table top, transparent-ish gems[think diamonds], bright flash)... review I saw got it to display rather distinct red and green fringing in the bokeh.

The point though is these lenses get talked up to the moon. Then, when they are released, a tidal wave of complaints about how the final product doesn't match their long standing dreams occurs. So I'm saying don't expect it to be perfectly corrected.


If you are speaking of the DA* lens I mentioned, then in and out of focus areas offer a wonderful selection of red and/or green edges in high contrasty areas at no additional charge. That one could use a nice update for the 1000 dollar price at which they list retail.