[BigMackCam]

No doubt. But like I said, I'm also a fan of what they did. Either way it's a win in my opinion. There are pros and cons to both possibilities. Also, I guess looking at where the current price of the DFA 100 WR is after 10 years on the market, it's tough to say they could/would have priced the DFA 35 f/2 at $450 vs $399 if it came with QS, WR, and a metal barrel.

Sure. To be clear, I wasn't criticising your view... just adding my 2¢

EDIT: I have the DFA100 WR, and I believe the extending part of the barrel is high quality plastic... so, it's not like it's an all-metal lens

[kooks]

So, i wonder if by having this revamped 34mm would eventually means that the 35 f1.4 will be on hold for who knows how long?? i mean by having this "new" 35mm Ricoh can start feeling gaps, and they focus on something else at least for a while.

[clackers]

I'm referring to Pentax......I don't give a rip about the over priced Nikon gear. The way I read your quoted statement was that a "flagship" (lousy term) APSC Pentax DSLR would cost more than the "flagship" FF Pentax DSLR since obviously there is no entry or midlevel FF Pentax DSLR . Pentax is the only camera system I'm interested in. All the rest can go fly a kite.

Your rage about mirrorless fanatics seeing another opening in this thread must have caused you to miss this post, Larry:

11-18 and revamped 35mm F2 on january 31? - Page 57 - PentaxForums.com

I did ask FozzFoster, so same, would you be a $1500 or $2500 kind of guy?

[Mountain Vision]

Sure. To be clear, I wasn't criticising your view... just adding my 2¢

EDIT: I have the DFA100 WR, and I believe the extending part of the barrel is high quality plastic... so, it's not like it's an all-metal lens

I have it too. It's probably plastic where it extends (I'm not near it now). But the quality of it is definitely somewhere between DA* and DA Limited. No complaints about the lens, really. Sharp, small, well built, weather sealed. Ticks off all my wants.

[BigMackCam]

So, i wonder if by having this revamped 34mm would eventually means that the 35 f1.4 will be on hold for who knows how long?? i mean by having this "new" 35mm Ricoh can start feeling gaps, and they focus on something else at least for a while.

I sincerely doubt that. I think the HD DA35 f/2 is almost a bonus item. Might it allow a couple of months' extra development time for a D*FA35mm f/1.4? Sure... why not? But I don't believe it's a longer-term place-holder, or pretending to be anything it's not...

I think folks are reading more into this lens than is intended. IMHO, it's just a nice, honest update on an existing lens that's equally useful for both APS-C and full-frame users (for different use cases).

[reh321]

I'm referring to Pentax......I don't give a rip about the over priced Nikon gear. The way I read your quoted statement was that a "flagship" (lousy term) APSC Pentax DSLR would cost more than the "flagship" FF Pentax DSLR since obviously there is no entry or midlevel FF Pentax DSLR . Pentax is the only camera system I'm interested in. All the rest can go fly a kite.

It is hard to apply terms like "flagship" to the Pentax line right now - they don't have a "lead" APS product right now, and the K-1ii is probably more of a "mid-level" FF product. Personally I'm expecting three bodies reasonably soon - a K-3ii replacement to lead the APS line and two FF bodies to bracket the K-1ii.

Those thoughts are why I've been watching lens announcements so carefully - I believe the DA* 11-18mm would go best with an APS leader, and the new FA 35mm would be most appropriate for an FF entry camera.

[clackers]

I sincerely doubt that. I think the HD DA35 f/2 is almost a bonus item. Might it allow a couple of months' extra development time for a D*FA35mm f/1.4? Sure... why not? But I don't believe it's a longer-term place-holder, or pretending to be anything it's not...

I think folks are reading more into this lens than is intended. IMHO, it's just a nice, honest update on an existing lens that's equally useful for both APS-C and full-frame users (for different use cases).

And it's great for different use cases on FF, too.

With the K-1, I have it and the massive Sigma 35mm Art, which the DFA* will be similar to … and at times, the little FA with its 49mm filter size gets the gig.

[Ex Finn.]

Sure. To be clear, I wasn't criticising your view... just adding my 2¢

EDIT: I have the DFA100 WR, and I believe the extending part of the barrel is high quality plastic... so, it's not like it's an all-metal lens

I have it too. It's probably plastic where it extends (I'm not near it now). But the quality of it is definitely somewhere between DA* and DA Limited. No complaints about the lens, really. Sharp, small, well built, weather sealed. Ticks off all my wants.

My money is on being aluminum, sure sounds like it when tapping it with my finger-nail but I am not willing to do a scratch-test

[BigMackCam]

I have it too. It's probably plastic where it extends (I'm not near it now). But the quality of it is definitely somewhere between DA* and DA Limited. No complaints about the lens, really. Sharp, small, well built, weather sealed. Ticks off all my wants.

Right. And, recently - here in the UK, at least - priced at between GBP £380 (lowest price at discount in 1 year) and £530 (last quarter of 2018). For a lens that is now ten years old, and based on one much older than that.

The HD FA35mm f/2, by comparison (a difficult one, given that they're such different lenses) is based on a ten year old lens but has significant (if not major) upgrades, and is priced at just US$ / GBP£ 399...

[Mountain Vision]

Right. And, recently - here in the UK, at least - priced at between GBP £380 (lowest price at discount in 1 year) and £530 (last quarter of 2018). For a lens that is now ten years old, and based on one much older than that.

The HD FA35mm f/2, by comparison (a difficult one, given that they're such different lenses) is based on a ten year old lens but has significant (if not major) upgrades, and is priced at just US$ / GBP£ 399...

the FA 35 is actually a ~2001 release, I think. I originally had it and the FA 50 with my K10D back when the K10D was released. But the FA 35 was discontinued and then unofficially just put back into production sometime in the last decade. It's a lens with a complicated history.

[Larrymc]

Your rage about mirrorless fanatics seeing another opening in this thread must have caused you to miss this post, Larry:

I did ask Fozz Foster, so same, would you be a $1500 or $2500 kind of guy?

First of all, My Friend, I read your post when it went up. I'm not taking the bait on your loaded question. My answer is I'm prepared to spend what ever I think is a fair price based upon my determination of what features and improvements will benefit me. BTW, I couldn't care less about 4K video.

[clackers]

First of all, My Friend, I read your post when it went up. I'm not taking the bait on your loaded question. My answer is I'm prepared to spend what ever I think is a fair price based upon my determination of what features and improvements will benefit me. BTW, I couldn't care less about 4K video.

Okay, I'm adding you on my non-scientific list to the 'Bah, humbug, traditional Pentax pennypincher' column, which is what Kenspo used to complain about, the attitudes of owners.

BTW, I'm probably in that column, too. How will Ricoh ever make a profit?

[BigMackCam]

the FA 35 is actually a ~2001 release, I think. I originally had it and the FA 50 with my K10D back when the K10D was released. But the FA 35 was discontinued and then unofficially just put back into production sometime in the last decade. It's a lens with a complicated history.

My point is, the D FA100 WR is a lens with long history. It's based on an older lens that's based on an even older lens, based on a considerably older lens (going back considerably further than 2001, mind you). Even when the current version was released back in 2009, it was more expensive than the new HD FA35mm f/2 is today after inflation, and current pricing is aimed squarely at maintaining reasonable sales of an older (even if very good) model.

The HD DA35mm f/2 may also be based on an older lens, but it's a brand new update. So the release price is surprisingly good, and I expect it will drop in the next year or two...

[Larrymc]

Okay, I'm adding you on my non-scientific list to the 'Bah, humbug, traditional Pentax pennypincher' column, which is what Kenspo used to complain about, the attitudes of owners.

BTW, I'm probably in that column, too. How will Ricoh ever make a profit?

I'll gladly join that group and sit on the front row at the club meetings with you. Ricoh/Pentax will continue to make a profit by doing what they have been doing, develop well thought out nicely featured cameras that offer value for the money asked for the product.

[monochrome]

So, i wonder if by having this revamped 34mm would eventually means that the 35 f1.4 will be on hold for who knows how long?? i mean by having this "new" 35mm Ricoh can start feeling gaps, and they focus on something else at least for a while.

I don’t think so. The people who want and will pay for a DFA*35/1.4 probably don’t want or already have a gap-filler 35 - or the FA31 Limited.

I sincerely doubt that. I think the HD DA35 f/2 is almost a bonus item. Might it allow a couple of months' extra development time for a D*FA35mm f/1.4? Sure... why not? But I don't believe it's a longer-term place-holder, or pretending to be anything it's not...

I think folks are reading more into this lens than is intended. IMHO, it's just a nice, honest update on an existing lens that's equally useful for both APS-C and full-frame users (for different use cases).

Multiply the number of lenses you think they will sell over the next n period (10,000?) x the profit per lens at the factory level you think they will make per lens ($100?). Whatever that number is ($1,000,000?) defines why they did this upgrade.