[roentarre]

I personally think Da 35mm f2.8 macro is a silly addition to the lens line-up. Otherwise the rest of the lenses are great!

I will collect both Da* 200 and 300 primes even though I had acquired Fa* 300 f4.5; good to have weather sealed feature when I travell or walk in the busy

The zoom prices are not dear, yet quite reasonable in fact. I would not mind to own one each for a day not bothering to change lenses - far cheaper than the current prices of these Fa lenses on line ...

[Adam]

The 300mm sounds nice to me because of the (half-stop) faster aperture, but I could care less about the 200mm. It's so easy to make for full-frame that Pentax should be ashamed for releasing it as a DA lens (unless, of course, it'll still cover the entire 35mm image circle).

Of the zooms, the 16-50mm is definitely nice. The others feature strange ranges that I don't really like to deal with.

IMO the 35mm is also a mistake- and why not just continue the FA series...

[nosnoop]

I personally think Da 35mm f2.8 macro is a silly addition to the lens line-up.

Well, the whole point of interchangeable lens is to allow you to pick and choose the lens YOU like. If it does not suite your need, don't buy it; quite simple, really. So why is it a "silly addition"?

Since the K50mm f/4 Macro appeared, for the past 32 years history of Pentax K mount lenses, 50mm Macros were released in EVERY series. So this 35mm f/2.8 Macro (52.5mm FOV equilvalent) is just a logical replacement of the DFA 50mm f/2.8 Macro. I am sure that experience has shown Pentax that there was such a demand for a Macro lens at this focal length, otherwise, wouldn't you think they would quit sometime within these 32 years? If this one is silly, wouldn't the same applies to all the 50mm Macros in the past 32 years?

[barondla]

When ordering my DFA100 macro I asked the Pentax rep which sold better 50 or 100 macro. He laughed and said 50. He didn't even have to think before answering. I don't get it. To me 50 is useless as macro except maybe on a copy stand. The 35 LE macro is strange, unless they want to keep the same fov as 35mm cameras. Notice the press release says the first Limited macro. I smell my long awaited 200 macro reappearing ( gonna be so broke this year). It is killing me that there could be a 100 LE macro some day!
Glad they added a tripod collar to the 60-250. They are listening. Would consider this lens except my old 70-210A does pretty well and is also F4.
Hope the little flash is P-ttl. They don't really say. They needed an entry level flash. Hard to sell $200 flash for a ~$600 camera. Two could be nice for macro. Still not mentioning anything bigger than 300mm. Ouch. There are a lot of wildlife photographers out there that need a decent long lens. If these lenses come out in Sept that means longer lenses are even further away.
Still great to see new lens choices. Would still like to see an extension tube with tripod collar and a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter that works with SR. Excited I am.
thanks
barondla

[roentarre]

Well, the whole point of interchangeable lens is to allow you to pick and choose the lens YOU like. If it does not suite your need, don't buy it; quite simple, really. So why is it a "silly addition"?

This is why I said "personally".

I would believe a follow up version after fa 35mm f2 would be something at least as fast or faster rather than f2.8 ...

Da* 16-50 f2.8 would be a much better buy since image quality betwee 35 to 70mm focal length has been outstanding across all competition brands.

A prime lens would be more worthwhile having a faster aperture. Otherwise this is a funny concept having a prime not faster than zooms...

Since the K50mm f/4 Macro appeared, for the past 32 years history of Pentax K mount lenses, 50mm Macros were released in EVERY series. So this 35mm f/2.8 Macro (52.5mm FOV equilvalent) is just a logical replacement of the DFA 50mm f/2.8 Macro. I am sure that experience has shown Pentax that there was such a demand for a Macro lens at this focal length, otherwise, wouldn't you think they would quit sometime within these 32 years? If this one is silly, wouldn't the same applies to all the 50mm Macros in the past 32 years?

Well, the chronicle of 50mm macro is an evolution process and logically there are always some changes with each newer model being introduced into the market.

The concept of having a 35mm macro is making little difference to DFA 50mm macro (which is already a superb lens).

If 35mm macro is in such demand, it would make sense in selling 35mm macro instead of DFA 50mm macro. I doubt that though ...

In the end, 35mm prime is aimed at a faster aperture and it is expected to be at least equally fast as fa 35 f2

Well, it is ok to have more choices (you are absolutely right)

[-=JoN=-]

The 300mm sounds nice to me because of the (half-stop) faster aperture, but I could care less about the 200mm. It's so easy to make for full-frame that Pentax should be ashamed for releasing it as a DA lens (unless, of course, it'll still cover the entire 35mm image circle).

Of the zooms, the 16-50mm is definitely nice. The others feature strange ranges that I don't really like to deal with.

IMO the 35mm is also a mistake- and why not just continue the FA series...

i thought you didnt care much for the 16-50

[Alvin]

But why stop producing them? If the FA series were still in production, we wouldn't have any trouble finding lenses...

I was surfing around for the last while trying to formulate my theories as to why the line was stopped. This is one of them.

Because Pentax is a Japanese company, the company is very environmentally aware. This could be because of government mandates, or their own mandates.

One of the side effects would be reduce waste.

FF uses more glass than a APS-C sensor. So the continuing the lens line, when there are no more plans to create a FF sensor does not make sense. It would create waste.

http://www.pentax.ca/pdf/pentax_social_report.pdf

Another theory is the RoHS (Reduction of Hazardous Substances?) directives implemented in Europe. The FA lenses may not have met these new rules maybe because of lead content in the glass lens, or some material used in the materials of the lens that did not meet RoHS specs.

I think I'm overanalyzing this.

[-=JoN=-]

I was surfing around for the last while trying to formulate my theories as to why the line was stopped. This is one of them.

Because Pentax is a Japanese company, the company is very environmentally aware. This could be because of government mandates, or their own mandates.

One of the side effects would be reduce waste.

FF uses more glass than a APS-C sensor. So the continuing the lens line, when there are no more plans to create a FF sensor does not make sense. It would create waste.

http://www.pentax.ca/pdf/pentax_social_report.pdf

Another theory is the RoHS (Reduction of Hazardous Substances?) directives implemented in Europe. The FA lenses may not have met these new rules maybe because of lead content in the glass lens, or some material used in the materials of the lens that did not meet RoHS specs.

I think I'm overanalyzing this.

yeah, i think you are overanalyzing it.

my short theory, all good things must and will come to an end. and that's simply that, it just came to an end.

[Alvin]

yeah, i think you are overanalyzing it.

my short theory, all good things must and will come to an end. and that's simply that, it just came to an end.

Thanks - now I know I'm not going insane

[Adam]

Interestng report, but yeah, you've going way too deep. The DA*'s employ more optical elements than 90% of the FA series, so I don't think glass usage is decreasing, especially since a large volume of these lenses will be sold.

My ideas include:
-Pentax no longer wishes to use metal in lens design (similar to what you said)
-The market for specialized/pro lenses isn't what it used to be
-Pentax simply feel that the release of a new series would improve sales and marketing

[BrendanPK]

What makes you say they are not using metal in lens design anymore. they DA Limiteds are metal. Are the new DA* lenses a composit or something???
thanks

[barondla]

Even though the lack of quick shift focusing doesn't stop me from using older lenses ( use manual focus ~80%) it is mentioned by many people who try older lenses. It is convenient. The other problem is Pentax needs weather sealed lenses to go along with the K10D. Not sure primes are the best choice here. Pentax also gets kicked around by Olympus for not having many designed for digital lenses. I think they are trying to address all this in one big move. Pentax is working hard to catch up. The new lenses may also be easier to manufacture (doesn't make the quality good or bad). Pentax caught up on lens supply late last year but now seem to be way behind again because of even greater demand. Technology always marches on.
thanks
barondla

[Vulpix]

So does anyone know if the DA* series are going usable on full framed cameras?

[Adam]

So does anyone know if the DA* series are going usable on full framed cameras?

I believe I mentioned this in the article, but no, none of them are, unless you just want a great big circle as your photo The DA series is designed exclusivey for DSLRs.

However, I've heard that the image circle on the DA*'s will be slightly larger than that of the other DA's: 1.3x instead of 1.5x.

The 200 & 300mm lenses were originally planned to be part of the D-FA series, but I guess Pentax changed their minds. Bummer.

[d.bradley]

So are the telephotos weather sealed with this new coating? And I assume since they're DA* they will actually be smaller than comparable 200/300 f2.8 lenses from other brands. Does that stand to reason?