[house]

At no point was I annoyed that it was a full-frame lens;

The size penalty is rather significant though.

[reh321]

You shoot Pentax, which has a not-insignificant number of "designed for crop" primes, which is actually a problem when the K-1 came along and there weren't a lot of OEM lenses available for it. Also I don't see the problem with shooting a full frame lens "in the sweet spot" with a crop body (disregarding the whole digital vs. film lens & coatings differences that exist now with 'modern' lenses). I had my Sigma 28mm f1.8 EX DG out with my K-5 II this past weekend to shoot some wide-portraits and group shots. At no point was I annoyed that it was a full-frame lens; what annoyed me was the hunting AF. If I were to drop some money on a serious improvement to my kit, it would be a fast (f2.0 or faster) prime, preferably a 24mm, and I would want it to be full frame even though I do not intend to move to a K-1 or similar at this time; I love 24mm to 28mm optics on crop. The next move would be to finally update my digital body and make the K-5 II a copy-stand-only unit so that I can have slightly better low-light performance and improved AF. Pentax just doesn't offer this combination at this time and I'm not sure that I want to spend ~$400USD on an FA*24 and I don't really want to pay for a Sigma that might also have hunting/poor AF.

I have three lenses that I use regularly with my KP - none of them 'hunt', including my Sigma 10-20mm.
Come to think of it, neither the Sigma 10-20mm {which I formerly used with my K-30}, nor the Sigma 70-300mm {which I now use with it} 'hunted' noticeably with my K-30.

[pres589]

Yeah, and I don't remember my Sigma 17-70 EX DC hunting on my K100D. I'm told that others here have 28 EX DG's that focus nicely. Mine is all over the place although it's workable via center point focusing and recomposing as needed. It isn't a lot of fun. I do love the optical quality of the thing so I keep it around. Would I replace it with a hot 24mm f2 or faster lens that was designed and built by Pentax? In a heartbeat once I scraped together the cash.

And yes, while this specific full frame lens does come with a size & weight penalty, I still brought it because of the images it can produce and that nice fat f1.8 max aperture which I needed due to literally shooting wedding pictures under a bridge during a rain storm with only street lamps from the bridges above to provide additional lighting (I don't own a good flash which I should also rectify though I honestly don't like using them). That said, my F 50 1.7 is also a full frame lens that is dimensionally similar to my DA 50 1.8 which isn't; there are full-frame lenses that are not much larger than their crop equivalents. DA 35 Macro vs. M 35 f2.8 is another example where the full-frame lens is actually smaller (this is not a perfect apples to apples comparison but it should be obvious what I'm explaining with this example).

[morenjavi]

I did specify "most of the time" - because it's relatively tiny, so I'm more likely to pack it. It is also less intimidating for less experienced models.

Crop:







Full frame:









I love breaking out the FA*85 for planned portraits sessions though. It really is wonderful.

I did specify "most of the time" - because it's relatively tiny, so I'm more likely to pack it. It is also less intimidating for less experienced models.Crop:

Nice portraits.

[TwoUptons]

An updated 24mm either 1.4, 2.0 or 2.8, with a modern motor and coatings would definitely add to my purchase wish list. The updated 85 F1.4 is still coming, hopefully, so they get on to other things on the road map.

I would love a DFA 24mm f2.8 “plastic fantastic” in the same vein as the DA35mm f2.4. It would be a terrific “street normal” on APS and a nice wide on a K1.

And I wouldn’t even care if it never made the roadmap

-Eric

[house]

I would love a DFA 24mm f2.8 “plastic fantastic” in the same vein as the DA35mm f2.4. It would be a terrific “street normal” on APS and a nice wide on a K1.

And I wouldn’t even care if it never made the roadmap

-Eric

My guess is that the plastic fantastics are a bad deal for Pentax. They can earn a lot more by packaging them as limiteds. But I'd love to see more simple primes in the plastic fantastic vein.

[reh321]

My guess is that the plastic fantastics are a bad deal for Pentax. They can earn a lot more by packaging them as limiteds. But I'd love to see more simple primes in the plastic fantastic vein.

Pentax clearly has a need for basic DFA lenses to support K-1ii sales, but I'm not sure what Pentax gains from making new DA(*) lenses.

[monochrome]

Pentax clearly has a need for basic DFA lenses to support K-1ii sales, but I'm not sure what Pentax gains from making new DA(*) lenses.

Per lens? More than they would make selling the two* modern DFA lenses they designed.

* I’m not counting the screwdrive Macros.

[luftfluss]

But the 'DA' is not a "FF" lens, and the others were film lenses built to a different standard
{personally, I like the old standard better, because it resulted in smaller lenses}

Yeah, I was speaking "personally". And like you, I generally prefer smaller lenses, so I'm willing to concede some optical excellence to get what I prefer to use.

[pres589]

I've suggested either a 24ish plastic fantastic or a D-FA*24 before. The couple of folks that came around here that seemed to have solid info on Ricoh's plans for Pentax lenses indicated that plastic fantastics are not really where Ricoh wants to go as they make very little money off of them and margin was more of interest than volume as they don't really see Pentax as a volume camera brand (which is supported by sales numbers).

I'd kind of like a 24mm f2 Limited instead of an f1.8 or faster Star lens that is extremely well corrected and quite large + heavy or a plastic f2.4 or f2.8 "consumer" lens. I do think Ricoh will drive the Pentax group to create a 24mm or so prime in the next few years but no idea which of the above paths it might take and I doubt we get more than one choice of the three.

[house]

I'm not a FF user partially because the lineup of primes at the wide end is to limited. I like the plastics because the are, perhaps counterintuitively, so robust. My limiteds have all turned a bit wobbly whereas the plastics are still solid. They make an awful, awful noise though.

[kiwi_jono]

I would love a DFA 24mm f2.8 “plastic fantastic” in the same vein as the DA35mm f2.4. It would be a terrific “street normal” on APS and a nice wide on a K1.

And I wouldn’t even care if it never made the roadmap

-Eric

+1 here. Would so love a 24mm prime.

[Serkevan]

A 24mm smallish prime would be awesome for hiking. Add a compact standard zoom and a light tele option like (hopefully) the upcoming DFA 70-200 F4 and you're set. Heck, even without the standard zoom.

[reh321]

I'm not a FF user partially because the lineup of primes at the wide end is to limited. I like the plastics because the are, perhaps counterintuitively, so robust. My limiteds have all turned a bit wobbly whereas the plastics are still solid. They make an awful, awful noise though.

Pentaxians tend to distrust 'plastics', and yet even airplanes are made of 'space age materials'. When I was a Canon user I had lenses that seemed to be mostly 'plastic' - even the mount - and yet even though I owned several for ten years or more, I never had one fail on me.

[TwoUptons]

A 24mm smallish prime would be awesome for hiking. Add a compact standard zoom and a light tele option like (hopefully) the upcoming DFA 70-200 F4 and you're set. Heck, even without the standard zoom.

A 24, the 28-105, 70-200f4, 300f4, and a 1.4x would be a really nice FF kit... just sayin’

-Eric