[derekkite]

I'm not at a desktop but that looks like movement blur

[BigMackCam]

See attached picture to illustrate my previous posts:

Attachment 436768

On the left, ALL the pictures I took when I tried 6DII + 100-400II are perfectly focused on the bird.
On the right, focus is not perfectly on the bird. On a typical session with DA300mm, I delete at least 80% of my photos because of focus problem.

Hopefully I get a few pictures perfectly focused like this one: but its very frustrating...
Attachment 436771

In regards to the Pentax 150-450mm, I read somewhere that the focus is really slow but if focus is really more precise than DA300 that would be the way to go... I dream of DA300 mkII with a top notch AF motor!... but I know it is just a dream...

Are you certain that's definitely focus accuracy at fault? I notice the shutter time on your Pentax shot is *much* longer than the Canon shot... 1/250s vs 1/640s... I don't know how good your holding technique is, but with a 300mm lens on APS-C, personally I'd be picking a shutter speed considerably faster than 1/250s. Which isn't to say it can't be done, especially with stabilisation... But I'd pick a faster speed. 1/250s is well below the reciprocal rule once you take crop factor into account, whereas 1/640s on FF with a 400mm lens is comfortably above the rule... and then there's the pixel density, which again has relevance to what I've just mentioned.

[Rondec]

If we want them to do a lot, we have to be prepared to pay realistic prices - rather than imagining they'd be much cheaper than one could reasonably expect.

I agree. I'm not willing to buy stuff I don't want, but I've purchased plenty of new gear from Pentax.

But also, everything Pentax has released has been decently priced. The DFA 70-200 f2.8 is 1500 dollars. This is compared to Sony's which is 2600, Nikon's at 2800, and Canon's which is 1800. And that's just one example. Far from going out and gouging us, Pentax has released gear for slightly less than the competition.

I do find it odd how many folks show up and imagine a product like a digital K1000 and think that the leaving off all the features they don't like, you could end up with a really cheap body. Or take the FA limiteds, up date them, slow the aperture of the FA 31 from f1.8 to f2, make it 3mm wider, and suddenly you have a whole lot cheaper lens and significantly smaller lens.

Pentax has kept the prices of their bodies down in a number of ways -- they use older sensors (that probably have less video capability), they are slower to invest in things like tracking auto focus and video, and they don't spend much on advertising. But Pentaxians tend to make do (but complain while they do) with both older camera bodies and lenses. So that even if there are faster lens and body options out there, people complain that the auto focus on a K5 isn't great with 'x' lens. The issue with SDM lenses isn't that they aren't sharp, but that they are limited by the SDM drive and lenses like the DFA 150-450 will focus circles around them. If you don't need good auto focus, it isn't any big deal, but there are options out there that focus a lot faster than the older lenses that many folks are still using here.

I guess the problem is just that they cost money to buy.

[rawr]

Are you certain that's definitely focus accuracy at fault?

Indeed. Any claims of focus accuracy being exclusively the issue here (vs motion blur/lens softness/UV filters used etc) would need to be supported by details of which focus points were active in the scene. Alongside which AF focusing area mode (Auto 33/ Zone Select 9/ Spot etc, in the case of a K-1) was being used. If the AF point(s) were sitting right on the target, then it would clearly be an AF accuracy fail.

But if the issue of 'AF accuracy' is understood as the ability of the AF to 'deduce' what the focus target should be in a scene, that may often be a different set of issues (and camera settings).

[Rico]

Why do you think the updated FA limiteds would be so cheap? Currently the FA 31 is 1100 dollars, FA 77 is 800 dollars, and the FA 43 is 500 dollars. The DFA 50 f1.4 is 1020 -- cheaper than the current price of the FA 31 limited. These are the prices today on B and H photo. My assumption would be that if Pentax "improved" the FA limiteds that they would increase the pricing by 10 to 15 percent. But even if they left it exactly the same, there is no way your statement "For the price of one of the new lenses you could buy two maybe three DFA limiteds..." is true. And no, I do not think that a brand new design of a 28mm f2 lens is going to be significantly cheaper than the FA 31, where the R and D is already paid for.

Honestly, I would like to see Pentax do a lot, but as I said earlier, I would like to see them fill out their current line up before they turn to updating old designs like the FA limiteds or the DA * lenses.

No offense Rondec but why are you splitting hairs? Seriously. Those prices are definitely "cheap" compared to what Nikon Sony and Canon are charging. You pointed that out in another post comparing the prices of the DFA 70-200 which showed how the Pentax lens was much cheaper from hundreds of dollars to over a thousand dollars cheaper. You just compared the DFA*50 to the FA31 in price when the FA43 is really the comparable lens which is significantly cheaper than the DFA*50 by half.

Pentax already has an optical design for a 28mm ƒ2 lens which is 49mm filter thread. The higher cost of the FA31 is due to the larger lens diameter of 58mm. So yes a DFA 28mm ƒ2 LTD could be made at a much lower cost probably half as much as the FA31 as it would be in line with the same size of the rest of the DA and DFA LTD lenses line up which makes it fit easier into the production process.

[repaap]

No offense Rondec but why is it always splitting hairs with you people? Seriously. Those prices are definitely "cheap" compared to what Nikon Sony and Canon are charging. You pointed that out in another post comparing the prices of the DFA 70-200 which showed how the Pentax lens was much cheaper from hundreds of dollars to over a thousand dollars cheaper. You just compared the DFA*50 to the FA31 in price when the FA43 is really the comparable lens which is significantly cheaper than the DFA*50 by half.

Pentax already has an optical design for a 28mm ƒ2 lens which is 49mm filter thread. The higher cost of the FA31 is due to the larger lens diameter of 58mm. So yes a DFA 28mm ƒ2 LTD could be made at a much lower cost probably half as much as the FA31 as it would be in line with the same size of the rest of the DA and DFA LTD lenses line up which makes it fit easier into the production process.

Yes, but if they would do modern 28/2 lens, with sealings and AF motor. That would make it already larger. Not to mention all correction that they would have to make to get on the level of DFA, let alone if they made it *.

[BigMackCam]

Pentax already has an optical design for a 28mm ƒ2 lens which is 49mm filter thread. The higher cost of the FA31 is due to the larger lens diameter of 58mm. So yes a DFA 28mm ƒ2 LTD could be made at a much lower cost probably half as much as the FA31 as it would be in line with the same size of the rest of the DA and DFA LTD lenses line up which makes it fit easier into the production process.

Are you referring to the formula for the Pentax-A 28mm f/2 (1984 to 1988 model), Rico?

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-10-2019 at 04:01 PM.

[clackers]

See attached picture to illustrate my previous posts:

Dave, those shutter speeds!

I shoot birds and sport all the time side by side with Canon and Nikon shooters, our pictures look the same.

Why?

[Rico]

I do - not because I'm trying to argue with you for the sake of it (I'm really not, I assure you), but because that's what it is. It's not based on any data - it's your opinion. I'm not even saying that opinion is invalid - I'm just saying that it's your opinion rather than irrefutable fact


"What Ricoh should do" again. If you'd said, "In my opinion, Pentax would have been better off modernising their film era FA LTDs", I'd have no quarrel with that, whether I agree or disagree. It's the statement, as if of fact, of what Ricoh should do or should have done - when it's an opinion that isn't based on any hard data. It's also the lack of appreciation that Ricoh might actually know what it's doing and why (detailed reasons that we're almost certainly unaware of)... That's where I quibble with you



I never said they wouldn't be profitable. All I've said is that I believe there's good justification for the D FA* 50 and D FA*85 as priorities in the range, because they're classic focal lengths for serious full frame work, and that's what the rest of the market offers. Fill those requirements, and you're immediately head-to-head - keeping up with, and perhaps edging ahead (if optical quality and pricing are good enough - which is certainly the case with the D FA*50) from the rest of the market. You're not just catering for existing users (quirky bunch that we are, right? ), but for a wider range of potential users too who may not be with the brand right now. Indeed, my personal opinion (that's all it is, and others may strongly disagree with it) is that the 50 and 85 should be rounded out with 28 and 35mm star lenses too.

Hey, I like the idea of refreshed FA Limiteds. If I'm on full frame Pentax by the time Ricoh has delivered to the current lens road map, I'd probably be one of the folks considering them



The day a D FA 43 f/1.7 Limited is released at an official retail price of $550 (fifty bucks lower than the old model) or less, I will disassemble and eat a FA43 Limited, and I'll video the process for our members to enjoy The lens might exist one day (I hope it does!), and I'm sure there'd be plenty of people interested in it. But I suspect they'll need deeper wallets than that... I can't fault your optimism, though

I guess I'd better work on my video techniques, just in case

There is plenty of evidence and data for not only what they should have done but what they needed to have done just in the fact they are still selling the FA LTD's. They wouldn't be producing them if they were not selling. The reason people are still buying them is the fact they have no other choice for Full Frame prime lenses at the FA LTD focal lengths. That is not my opinion. It is just the fact of the situation. I reluctantly bought an FA43 because it was my only choice. I bought it new when it had a price reduction for $465US I think in early 2017. It's on sale now for $495US.

One of the arguments when the K-1 was released there wasn't any prime full frame lenses for it. The FA and FA LTDs were not really considered real FF matchups for the K-1 as they were designed for not only Film but Film era cameras. I think you are a good example. If Ricoh/Pentax had modernized the FA LTD's for the release of the K-1 you may likely already have moved to a K-1 body.

---------- Post added 01-10-19 at 07:13 PM ----------

Yes, but if they would do modern 28/2 lens, with sealings and AF motor. That would make it already larger. Not to mention all correction that they would have to make to get on the level of DFA, let alone if they made it *.

All the more reason not to use AF motor which isn't necessary in such a wide angle lens where infinity focus is anything past 5 feet.

---------- Post added 01-10-19 at 07:16 PM ----------

Are you referring to the formula for the Pentax-A 28mm f/2 (1984 to 1988 model), Rico?

This is the lens I am talking about. If you take the DA21 LTD as an example which is clearly modeled on the M20 they could create a DFA LTD from the A-Series 28 ƒ2 along the same lines.

[clackers]

One of the arguments when the K-1 was released there wasn't any prime full frame lenses for it. The FA and FA LTDs were not really considered real FF matchups for the K-1 as they were designed for not only Film but Film era cameras.

Somebody recently posted a list of interviews with Ricoh/Pentax, Rico.

IIRC in more than one of them it was said that they had to do more production runs, the Limiteds got a burst in sales.

I use the FA77 and FA31 more often than I do my Sigma 85mm and 35mm Art.

[BigMackCam]

There is plenty of evidence and data for not only what they should have done but what they needed to have done just in the fact they are still selling the FA LTD's. They wouldn't be producing them if they were not selling. The reason people are still buying them is the fact they have no other choice for Full Frame prime lenses at the FA LTD focal lengths. That is not my opinion. It is just the fact of the situation.

With respect, I don't see the evidence presented here... I see your perception or interpretation of what's gone before. You could well be right, of course - but there's no data to back that perception up. I'd love to believe you and change my opinion based on data, if you have it. But without that data, your evidence is merely your opinion, not fact. For that reason we'll have to remain in friendly disagreement until one of us comes up with some data... Since I don't see that happening, for my part, I'll leave the discussion there. We'll have to agree to disagree

One of the arguments when the K-1 was released there wasn't any prime full frame lenses for it. The FA and FA LTDs were not really considered real FF matchups for the K-1 as they were designed for not only Film but Film era cameras.

The K-1 was bound to be without modern primes when it was released, as this was a new format for digital Pentax, having been limited to APS-C and smaller for many years. Hence, Ricoh prioritised the main zooms that are considered pretty much a baseline requirement for the format (since they cover a multitude of common use cases), and those they duly produced. Next up, the D FA* 50 f/1.4... a premium quality, fast, normal prime with amazing optical performance. This is what Ricoh deemed most important based on its strategy. And so to the D FA* 85 next, again delivering to that strategy. Etc... etc...

I think you are a good example. If Ricoh/Pentax had modernized the FA LTD's for the release of the K-1 you may likely already have moved to a K-1 body.

Not at all. Despite the announcement of the K-1, I bought an unloved elephant (!!) for my first foray into full-frame digital - a Sony A99-based Hasselblad HV which I acquired as new-old-stock from B&H at a knock-down price, complete with a hand-picked Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8 in Sony A-mount. Within months of buying that, I'd picked up a superb Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 USD (you can see a pattern emerging already here, in terms of common full-frame lenses... 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8). I also bought a Samyang 85mm f/1.4 as a cheap, compact but faster and very capable alternative to the 70-200 for portraiture (manual focus, but that's fine on an SLT camera), and an even cheaper film-era Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 (showing its age optically, but still very good - on a par with the FA50/1.4, I'd say). I've added several other lenses since, such as the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro, and - just today - the well-regarded Samyang 35mm f/1.4 (at a heavily discounted price... should arrive in a couple of days' time - I can't wait! ).

The Hasselblad HV was a completely illogical choice. I already had plenty of great K and M42-mount full-frame glass - mostly manual focus, but some AF too. And I love vintage lens rendering... So I'd have been extremely well catered for with a K-1. And I did think about buying one. But the HV came up at a price I couldn't ignore, and it's the only Hasselblad I'm ever likely to own, even if it's really 90% Sony I've never regretted buying it, despite all of the reasons why I shouldn't have

That aside, perhaps I am, after all, a good example as you suggest (or - at the very least - one equally valid example)... Despite being primarily a Pentax user since 2010 who owns and loves all of the DA Limited lenses at their sometimes unusual focal lengths, when I bought a full-frame camera I ended up with a 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 85mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.7 in that order... Cliched, perhaps, yet for good reasons.

If our discussion should tell us both one thing, it's that there is no "what Ricoh should do" outside of Ricoh's well-though-through corporate and brand strategy, since there are so many varying preferences and priorities across the user base (yours and mine included). If either of us can say with absolute certainty what the right moves are, we should be in senior product management at Ricoh. If - as I believe - all we both have is opinions, however informed we think they are, well... it might be best if we leave Ricoh to it and see what it comes up with

[Rondec]

No offense Rondec but why are you splitting hairs? Seriously. Those prices are definitely "cheap" compared to what Nikon Sony and Canon are charging. You pointed that out in another post comparing the prices of the DFA 70-200 which showed how the Pentax lens was much cheaper from hundreds of dollars to over a thousand dollars cheaper. You just compared the DFA*50 to the FA31 in price when the FA43 is really the comparable lens which is significantly cheaper than the DFA*50 by half.

Pentax already has an optical design for a 28mm ƒ2 lens which is 49mm filter thread. The higher cost of the FA31 is due to the larger lens diameter of 58mm. So yes a DFA 28mm ƒ2 LTD could be made at a much lower cost probably half as much as the FA31 as it would be in line with the same size of the rest of the DA and DFA LTD lenses line up which makes it fit easier into the production process.

I don't know if it is splitting hairs, but your comment was that you could probably buy a trio of the re-done FA limiteds for similar price to the cost of the one DFA *50 that is currently out. I just thought I would point out that those lenses together currently cost 2300 dollars while the DFA *50 costs 1050. I know that small difference isn't much to other folks, but it is quite a bit to me. And these are all really old (20-ish years) designs. Any investment in re-doing them would raise their cost. As for taking a manual lens and refitting it so that it had auto focus, etc. I don't think that is as easy as you seem to think it is. Cost might be a bit less, but I don't know that it would have anything close to the savings you think.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be disagreeable. I own two of the FA limiteds and like them well, but if they were redone, the optics need to be adjusted enough to decrease purple fringing which is a major issue on many film era designs.

[photoptimist]

There is plenty of evidence and data for not only what they should have done but what they needed to have done just in the fact they are still selling the FA LTD's. They wouldn't be producing them if they were not selling. The reason people are still buying them is the fact they have no other choice for Full Frame prime lenses at the FA LTD focal lengths. That is not my opinion. It is just the fact of the situation. I reluctantly bought an FA43 because it was my only choice. I bought it new when it had a price reduction for $465US I think in early 2017. It's on sale now for $495US.

But the fact that the old FA LTDs are still selling is also evidence supporting the opposite opinion that Ricoh does not need to update these lenses!

What we internet pundits (outside the hallowed halls of the company) don't know is the exact engineering and capex cost of updating each lens, the added materials costs of updating each lens, the required upcharge on retail prices for updated lenses and whether enough these higher-priced updated lenses will sell to recover all those additional costs.

Without knowledge of the exact cost structure of updating and decent estimates of updated lens sales (at higher prices), it's impossible to say for a fact what Ricoh should have done or should do now.

[BigMackCam]

Without knowledge of the exact cost structure of updating and decent estimates of updated lens sales (at higher prices), it's impossible to say for a fact what Ricoh should have done or should do now.

Right... and even if we did know the exact costs, and those costs looked appealing to us, we - as laymen and consumers - still wouldn't know if updating the FA Limited lenses would have delivered to Ricoh's (presumably well-thought-out) strategy

[photoptimist]

Right... and even if we did know the exact costs, and those costs looked appealing to us, we - as laymen and consumers - still wouldn't know if updating the FA Limited lenses would have delivered to Ricoh's (presumably well-thought-out) strategy

Exactly!

But worse is the strong likelihood that even Ricoh does not know all this data. Ricoh probably has a decent idea of the incremental costs for engineering, capex, and updated components/materials (barring cost & schedule overruns ). What Ricoh is not likely to know is exactly how many copies of each updated lens would sell at the required higher price. They know that an updated lens at the old price would certainly sell in higher volumes. And they know that a more expensive lens will sell in lower volumes. But whether the added volume for the better lens out-does the lower-volume for the higher price is more a matter of opinion than known fact.

P.S. From what I've seen/read/heard, no company really has an accurate model for estimating sales of new products at new prices (which is one reason why so many new products fail and so many new companies fail). Everyone, even the insiders, only has opinions about the potential sales of potential new products at potential new prices.