[Pål Jensen]

I disagree. The 31 and 77 are still strong (apart from CA) by todays standard. They are sharp wide open, unlike the 43. Their corner performance is still very good, and combined with beautiful rendering in a small sexy package they would continue to serve as great lenses with minimal optimisation.

The 43 on the over hand should be viewed as a pancake lense where size has been traded for IQ. It still has its place, although photographers do need something better optically, and they are getting it with the DFA*50.

True, but I've yet to see CA on the 77, but then I don't shoot branches against a burned out cloudy sky. The 43 Limited is terriffic from F.4 and smaller apertures and has wonderful 3D qualities..

These lenses are legends in their own lifetimes. No wonder Pentax will continue building on this fact.

[Jonathan Mac]

I wonder if the old M 85 f2.0 optics could be dusted off and re-used as a Limited. HD coatings, rounded aperture blades, DC focusing... It seems to render nicely from what I've seen, and if I end up with a film kit I think I'd like to try a copy. Some pixie dust and small size, what else is really required for the Ltd. badge?

Only if they can get rid of the blue fringing and sharpen it up wide open. It's a great lens with wonderful rendering but those optics in a modern design would get slaughtered in the online reviews in today's climate of huge expensive lenses which need to be sharp wide open.

I've been saying for years that the FA limiteds need to be updated to DFA with in-lens motors and now, KAF4 mount. I still think that's true. I use a K3 so I just scrape into the xone of being able to use a KAF4 mount, though I can't afford the current FA limiteds so DFAs would be off the table. I also use film and, while a new lens being film compatible is a bonus, I like old manual focus for film and I have plenty of gear to satisfy that.

[leekil]

I like what I see on Pentax road maps, but it would be nice if lenses could materialize. Otherwise stop road mapping.

On the other hand, in the last year or so they released lenses that were *not* on the road map, though weren't those a bit more consumer-oriented zooms as opposed to anything special?

[Rondec]

The FA limiteds are good lenses. I don't own the FA 43, but I do own the FA 31 and 77 and they perform admirably on the K-1. They do show a fair amount of CA. It is not unusual to shoot back lit portraits and unfortunately purple fringing shows up quite a bit in those situations. It's fixable in post and isn't a big deal most of the time, but it is there.

As far as in general, it is clear that Pentax needs lenses with slower apertures and smaller size for full frame, not just big behemoths like the DFA * primes. Having high quality, metal build lenses with sealing and in-lens motors is probably the next step for the limited line up. I would be drooling after a DA 15 equivalent for full frame -- something like DFA 20 f4 limited -- small size, sharp wide open and excellent flare resistance. The only unfortunate thing would be that my DFA 15-30 might not see much action if I had such a lens...

[Kunzite]

They're certainly better in real world usage than in technical measurements. Unfortunately, technical measurements are what people are talking about, on gearheads forums.
Did you notice that DPR tested the K-1 with the 77mm Limited? It does well for a film-era lens, but even at f/5.6 you can see it's not as consistently sharp as the more recent competitors. The result? The K-1 is penalized a little.
Do you remember the claims that Pentax cannot design optics on the same level as the Sigma Art? All we have in response is some old article written by Mike Johnston.

Rebuilding their reputation - and hopefully, a bit of hype - as a top optical company means new designs. I'm willing to pay the price of including the FA Limited-like pleasing rendering into a no-weakness design.

A DFA 20mm f/4 Limited (WR DC)? I'd buy it today.

[angerdan]

I've been saying for years that the FA limiteds need to be updated to DFA with in-lens motors and now, KAF4 mount. I still think that's true.
I use a K3 so I just scrape into the xone of being able to use a KAF4 mount, though I can't afford the current FA limiteds so DFAs would be off the table.
I also use film and, while a new lens being film compatible is a bonus, I like old manual focus for film and I have plenty of gear to satisfy that.

Why KAF4?
There are others who still use pre-K-3 models. What would be the advantage of internal motors? It makes the lens more expensive and bigger. Wouldn't make new FA Limiteds as cheap as they are now.
When your gear is already complete, maybe others like to use AF on film cameras.

[Kunzite]

Consistency, more freedom in positioning the aperture, quieter (I'd guess)...
Compatibility with film camera is no longer a design criteria. There are many lenses you can use with film...

[D1N0]

I wouldn't expect any limiteds before 2020/21, as Ricoh still has a 85 and a 35 1.4 lens to produce. I wonder if maybe some of the lenses on the roadmap are said limiteds (Ultra Wide angle Single Focus lens e.g.)

[angerdan]

Consistency, more freedom in positioning the aperture, quieter (I'd guess)...
Compatibility with film camera is no longer a design criteria. There are many lenses you can use with film...

The current screwdrive lenses are at least for my expectations constant enough. I don't position the aperture, but Pentax could do that from the first AF lens designs like the F* 250-600m until now. More quiet isn't always an advantage.
For expensive lenses one can expect it to be fully compatible at least with all seven year old cameras. Pentax didn't offer a firmware update to use the PLM 55-300 on cameras older than K-5 II & K-30.

[savoche]

As far as in general, it is clear that Pentax needs lenses with slower apertures and smaller size for full frame, not just big behemoths like the DFA * primes. Having high quality, metal build lenses with sealing and in-lens motors is probably the next step for the limited line up.

This is, for me, the main reason to shoot Pentax - good quality small primes. The bazookas don't interest me at all.

I would be drooling after a DA 15 equivalent for full frame -- something like DFA 20 f4 limited -- small size, sharp wide open and excellent flare resistance.

Oh yes. With this lens my "primary bag" would be complete. As it is the A 20/2.8 fills that hole, and doing so quite well, but it is no real replacement for the DA 15.

[Rondec]

They're certainly better in real world usage than in technical measurements. Unfortunately, technical measurements are what people are talking about, on gearheads forums.
Did you notice that DPR tested the K-1 with the 77mm Limited? It does well for a film-era lens, but even at f/5.6 you can see it's not as consistently sharp as the more recent competitors. The result? The K-1 is penalized a little.
Do you remember the claims that Pentax cannot design optics on the same level as the Sigma Art? All we have in response is some old article written by Mike Johnston.

Rebuilding their reputation - and hopefully, a bit of hype - as a top optical company means new designs. I'm willing to pay the price of including the FA Limited-like pleasing rendering into a no-weakness design.

A DFA 20mm f/4 Limited (WR DC)? I'd buy it today.

I guess. Pentax needs to have some f1.8 lenses in their line up. For those I'd rather have lenses that do well in real world situations. Most landscapes are shot at f8 to f11 on full frame. You don't need an f1.4 aperture to do that and in fact, the more glass you have in your lens, the more likely you are to have flare.

As far as the FA 77 goes, to me what stands out about it are its transitions from in-focus to out-focus areas, which are exceptionally smooth, and its bokeh which can turn an average photo into something that is pleasant to look at. Micro contrast is also really good.

Gear heads are gear heads and while I can appreciate high end glass with corner to corner sharpness, I hope Pentax continues to turn out lenses that continue the historical ethos of the limited line up. Of course there will be the DFA * line up for those who need large apertures and ultimate sharpness. Hopefully DP Review can get a copy to use on their site.

[normhead]

This is, for me, the main reason to shoot Pentax - good quality small primes. The bazookas don't interest me at all.

Ya, but don't you want one, just to see what it's like? I find myself hoping they come out with either the 85 1.4 or a wide angle like a 20 or 24mm bazooka, just because 50 isn't something I use much.

[pres589]

Only if they can get rid of the blue fringing and sharpen it up wide open. It's a great lens with wonderful rendering but those optics in a modern design would get slaughtered in the online reviews in today's climate of huge expensive lenses which need to be sharp wide open.

Maybe the rules are going to have to change per what makes a Limited a Limited. Not perfect wide open seems fine with me; as long as it's sharp in the center wide open, I think that's probably fine. Fringing is something else, and I don't know that just a comprehensive coatings change is going to be enough to get there, from your statement on fringing. Maybe with a lot of modeling and testing the elements could be tweaked slightly to change this. I don't know, maybe one of the lens designers that hang around here now and then could chime in, if they think element shaping could be enough to reduce fringing.

Limiteds being expensive is accepted. I don't want them to be large as well. I hope that's not where things are headed. If it is, then they're just star lenses with a different label.

[repaap]

I like my limiteds,

And would not mind to have couple bazookas too. Fot that time when I don't are about weight. I must say that I liked my DA *55 on K-3 and I do use it quite a bit also on K-1 now AND I like it really much, also focal what it offers. But I'd love to have nice 20 mm lens and 85 for my K-1 too.

only thing missing, is those lenses and money. But IF I will start saving money now...

[savoche]

Ya, but don't you want one, just to see what it's like?

Nah, my shelf carries too much dead weight as it is

But seriously, no. Big lenses kill the joy of photography for me. That does not mean I'm opposed to Ricoh making bazookas - I don't belong to the "not for me so not for anybody" church