[beholder3]

So three fifty-ish lenses, of which one available, versus one roadmapped 85mm.

A slow 1.8 version 85mm only, which is worth $450 new and will probably get to the market for $1000.
And I bet it will weight twice as much than the 350g DSLR lens, which itself is already a fat piece of glass compared to the 77mm princess.

[Mistral75]

(...) Pentax should consolidate some of the DA LTD line to cover FF most especially the DA21 which would fill that Ultra Wide angle spot for FF instead of creating an entirely separate UWA FF lens as the lens roadmap has indicated.

Contrary to what you seem to be thinking it would be a total pain in the... bottom to try to morph a (mildly) wide APS-C lens into an ultra-wide 24x36 lens.

Better to start from scratch.

[Rico]

Contrary to what you seem to be thinking it would be a total pain in the... bottom to try to morph a (mildly) wide APS-C lens into an ultra-wide 24x36 lens.

Better to start from scratch.

Um I am pretty certain a 21mm lens is an UWA lens for FF. It might be considered (mildly) wide on APS-C. No morphing is taking place. How on earth does the M20 cover 24x36 without being morphed in some way?

[Trickortreat]

Fuji people might want to pay a premium! I think there are at least a few of us here at Pentax Forums instead of Fuji Forums because we liked the idea of sub-$1000 prosumer bodies and DA limiteds that are $300-500 used (or less - I was patient and got the 15 and the 40 LTDs for less than $500 total).

I looked a number a months ago, and if I sold all my Pentax stuff I'd have just enough to get a good Fuji body and maybe two lenses. It would set me back five years.

Id gladly pay a premium. And to some extent it seems that will be the future. Pentax is trying to sell as a premium brand. I bet if Canon made some lenses like LTDs (with their standard materials) they would be hellavalot cheaper.
So staying with Pentax and trying to get stuff for a low price will just rule out some ppl...

[repaap]

Id gladly pay a premium. And to some extent it seems that will be the future. Pentax is trying to sell as a premium brand. I bet if Canon made some lenses like LTDs (with their standard materials) they would be hellavalot cheaper.
So staying with Pentax and trying to get stuff for a low price will just rule out some ppl...

and they would not be ltd.s. and they would not do those. by the way, it just seems that pentax/ricoh is trying to get more premium stuff out there, to have a premium line going along with prosumer and plastic fantasticks.

[Kunzite]

Um I am pretty certain a 21mm lens is an UWA lens for FF. It might be considered (mildly) wide on APS-C. No morphing is taking place. How on earth does the M20 cover 24x36 without being morphed in some way?

I'm pretty sure designing a lens involves much more than stating a focal length, and even an element count.
As a software developer, I've seen thousands of times people wishing that a certain problem was simple. It never became that way, no matter how hard they were wishing.

The DA 21mm is not an UWA on FF because it doesn't cover that format.

[Rondec]

I'm pretty sure designing a lens involves much more than stating a focal length, and even an element count.
As a software developer, I've seen thousands of times people wishing that a certain problem was simple. It never became that way, no matter how hard they were wishing.

The DA 21mm is not an UWA on FF because it doesn't cover that format.

I think he's saying that the M20 covers full frame (which it does).

The problem is that he is coming up with manual lenses from the past and assuming that Pentax can just take the optical formula and come up with quick auto focus version of said lens. But it isn't that easy. The easy part is coming up with the optical formula. The hard part is making sure all of the components work together and bringing the lens to manufacturing.

[Kunzite]

Wide angles evolved a lot since 1977.

The D FA* 50mm was delayed not because of any issue with its optics - those were truly excellent - but of an implementation issue (the barrel was found not to properly support the glass' weight).
People looking for shortcuts are often "finding" them in the least difficult areas. Designing an ultra wide isn't difficult for a skilled optical engineer; there's software to assist with that, and he has the experience. But making it into a product? Having to met strict requirements, including image quality in its various aspects, price, weight/size, cost, autofocus speed, easy manufacturing, calibration?

[BigMackCam]

I think he's saying that the M20 covers full frame (which it does).

The problem is that he is coming up with manual lenses from the past and assuming that Pentax can just take the optical formula and come up with quick auto focus version of said lens. But it isn't that easy. The easy part is coming up with the optical formula. The hard part is making sure all of the components work together and bringing the lens to manufacturing.

I kind of get where @Rico is coming from with the idea of a D FA 20 / 21 mm (f/4?) Limited, though the practicalities of that idea rely on some big assumptions.

In summary, Ricoh would need to design - @Rico might say "tweak"... let's allow that for now (though I believe it's a much more significant proposition) - the necessarily larger optical elements to assure high performance (i.e. current digital age performance) full frame coverage out to the borders - and not just at f/8 or f/11 like the old M 20, but perhaps f/5.6 too, whilst making a decent fist of things wide open - and fit those elements into a small lens body of roughly the same form factor as the DA21, with its screw drive AF mechanism stuffed in there to boot.

Maybe that's do-able? But I don't see it as a small or even medium-sized task... Not if optical performance away from the frame centre is important, as most folks (I think) would want from this type of lens. And would people buy it? I don't mind screw drive, personally, but I get the feeling from these forums that many folks (if not @Rico himself) want to see an end to it... for reasons I can understand, since Pentax takes a lot of flak for its noisy screw drive lenses, and surely Ricoh is trying to improve the brand's reputation in the wider market ...

[RGlasel]

Funny how this thread devolved into a discussion of what a unicorn should look like and what its retail price should be. First thing to remember is that no one can build a unicorn for any cost, so we have to settle for something that has only some of the traits of a unicorn and accept the decision of someone else as to what the non-unicorn parts will be. Second thing to remember is that given a choice between an improved version of an old thing or a new thing with features that weren't available when the old thing was introduced, people will spend their money on the new thing.

[Not a Number]

The Truth Behind Real Life Unicorns | Mental Floss

The process of making a unicorn goat is patented, but the basic concept involves translating the horn buds from a baby goat onto the center of its head.

[BigMackCam]

The Truth Behind Real Life Unicorns | Mental Floss

Ha ha

Yet it turns out we don't need to graft horns onto creatures. Every little girl's fantasy animal, it seems the unicorn in fact did exist many years ago. But the design didn't quite live up to the fantasy

The Good News Is Unicorns Were Real. The Bad News Is They Were Hideous.

[c.a.m]

Just a further thought reflecting on the interview reported by the OP -- I think it's difficult, if not impossible, to predict the products that Ricoh Imaging will introduce in the near term.

Recall how the KP arrived on the scene: Ricoh surprised everyone with their understated announcement of the KP on January 25th 2017. Preliminary 'leaks' had appeared only a day earlier, and there were virtually no suggestions or indications of the camera in the months leading to its release -- neither by Ricoh nor the online communities.

[Mistral75]

Um I am pretty certain a 21mm lens is an UWA lens for FF. It might be considered (mildly) wide on APS-C. No morphing is taking place. How on earth does the M20 cover 24x36 without being morphed in some way?

The smc Pentax-M 20 mm f/4 covers the 24x36 format because it was designed accordingly. The smc/HD Pentax-DA 21mm f/3.2 AL Limited is a different lens (not deriving from the former) which was designed to cover the APS-C format and that format only. I repeat, it would be a total pain in the bottom to try to morph a (mildly) wide APS-C lens such as the smc/HD Pentax-DA 21mm f/3.2 AL Limited into an ultra-wide 24x36 lens, i.e. to try to 'make' the DA 21mm f/3.2 cover the 24x36 format.

You'd have for instance to change the rear part of the lens to increase its negative power (divergence) to cover a larger format but, in doing so, you'd decrease both the focal length of the lens and its backfocus (i.e. the lens couldn't be used in conjunction with K mount any more). You'd consequently have to increase the positive power (convergence) of the front part (make the lens more retrofocus). In doing so and only so you'd dramatically increase the aberrations, therefore you'd have to add lens elements and/or to use speciality glasses to compensate for this increase. In doing so you'd again change the focal length, therefore you'd have to recalculate the whole lens once again. And so on and so forth.

In the end, you'd have accumulated unnecessary constraints all along the design process and your final lens would yet be very different from your starting point, the DA 21mm f/3.2.

That's why it's better to start from scratch.

[clackers]

I have the Voigtlander 20mm f3.5.

Well built metal pancake, a sort of Full Frame DA21.

But it demonstrates ultimately how counterproductive it can be to put little lenses on big sensored cameras.

It's got a lot of uncorrected distortion, and as the M20 has been described, needs to come down to f8-f11 for sharpness. At that focal length there's an expectation that this be corner to corner, too.

I rarely put it in the bag.

APS-C is all about size and cost cutting, the larger formats and the larger lenses accompanying them are in pursuit of higher IQ and sacrifice both those factors.

I have both. Horses for courses, etc.

I understand for a couple of people it's their unicorn, but it's a mistake to think that of others. We welcome opinions here, but that's far removed from market research.

The twenty something FF prime was not popular in the forum members' poll of desired products. Canon and Nikon have also gone without one in their new mount launches, it's something for the future.