[BigMackCam]

If Ricoh/Pentax gave us a modern DFA35mm ƒ2 AW who would even seriously entertain buying the HD FA35. Maybe price would be a factor but people worried about price can find the FA35 second hand at the price they are seeking.

An all-new DFA35/2 AW would be expected to render in a similar fashion to the D*FA50/1.4, catering to modern tastes. To achieve that, I suggest it would need to be more complicated optically and therefore bigger, heavier and considerably more expensive as a result.

The old FA35/2 has been a fairly popular lens and Ricoh clearly believes it will continue to sell in sufficient numbers to be a viable product in updated form. Let's be frank, some folks (me included) like the personality of such lenses, they're small and light, and they're relatively inexpensive. Those are significant selling points that, even in light of an all-new DFA35/2 with modern rendering, would still attract a good number of buyers, IMHO.

As for the old FA35/2 vs the new HD FA35/2, sure - folks have a choice. The new lens offers a much nicer focusing ring, better flare and reflection performance due to the HD coating, a more robust SP coating to protect the front element, and - less important, but still nice - a cosmetic finish that's more in-line with today's DSLR bodies.

I had originally pre-ordered the HD model, but cancelled that order after much deliberation... because I shoot APS-C and already have both the plastic-fantastic DA35/2.4 and Sigma 30/1.4 Art. But if I was shooting full frame, I'd undoubtedly have bought that HD lens. It's a mild update, but a decent update nonetheless, that's convincing for the reasons I already stated (though not for everyone, I'd agree).

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 03-17-2019 at 02:39 PM.

[Rico]

It primarily needs better optical performance. I have never come across a copy that showed anywhere decent performance unless heavily stopped down.

It appears that this lens developed a good reputation in the film days when its contrast prowess made it shine while its deficiencies in resolution and aberration control weren't that obious.

The numerous copies I have seen would not be deserving of a "FA*" moniker with today's standards. A complete optical redesign would be well justified.

I agree that a 24/2 would be sufficient, a 24/1.4 seems over the top as we'll have to pay quite a bit extra in increased size, weight, and price. However, the old 24/2 design wouldn't be able to compete in today's landscape.

FWIW, I find that the 31/1.8 is still a stellar lens. By no means all "vintage" lenses are outdated.


There have been polls regarding lens preferences. I can't look them up right now, perhaps somebody else can?

Class A I have several film era Pentax lenses that are stellar on either APS-C or FF. There is no arguing against the image quality of vintage lenses. I could survive with just the A-series lenses I have.

I don't think there are any lens preference polls with responses from all 75,000 members. There is a huge silent majority of users out there that want modern lenses that adhere to the past philosophy of Pentax lens design for the last 25 years. Excellent optical quality in a small robust package.

[photoptimist]

PentaxForums has over 75,000 members. With complete certainty if we polled the entire user base it would be overwhelming in favor for Ricoh/Pentax to have given us a DFA 35mm ƒ2 AW lenses than the nostalgia HD FA35mm ƒ2. The argument that people are still buying such lenses as the FALTD's and the FA35 and FA50 is ridiculous when these are the only lenses we have to buy for FF frame. If Ricoh/Pentax gave us a modern DFA35mm ƒ2 AW who would even seriously entertain buying the HD FA35. Maybe price would be a factor but people worried about price can find the FA35 second hand at the price they are seeking.

Or not.

In the 2018 PF Survey, less than 5% picked a DFA 35/1.8 (priced at 560 Euro) as a top-3 most wanted lens.

The only thing overwhelmingly true of the 75,000 members of PF population is that there's nothing they are overwhelmingly in favor of. Even lens WR (the most popular of the top-5 lens attributes) has a sizable 30% rate of people that don't care about it.

[RonHendriks1966]

The new image processing engine seems to include an 'image processing device' one should pay attention to; Iwasaki-san said that the image quality will be greatly improved, but Tanaka-san expresses doubts about the latter.

Well this is very simply to explain.

- yes IQ will improve greatly compared to the K-3ii (old sensor)
- no IQ probably won't be a great step compared to KP (since that was the bigger step made)

So unless this new model K-3iii will have an aps-h sensor......it will be in the same ballpark as KP.

Still lots to improve, af, processor and what not...

---------- Post added 17-03-19 at 23:16 ----------

The only thing overwhelmingly true of the 75,000 members of PF population is that there's nothing they are overwhelmingly in favor of.

Let's not be to over enthousiast about those 75.000 members. How many have been looking in here over the past 2 years? How many have put the photographic hobby to rest, have gone to Canon or milc or some great smartphone.

Edit...
Correction, since 46.630 members are registrated overhere.

---

Last edited by RonHendriks1966; 03-17-2019 at 03:19 PM.

[RobA_Oz]

An all-new DFA35/2 AW would be expected to render in a similar fashion to the D*FA50/1.4, catering to modern tastes. To achieve that, I suggest it would need to be more complicated optically and therefore bigger, heavier and considerably more expensive as a result.

The old FA35/2 has been a fairly popular lens and Ricoh clearly believes it will continue to sell in sufficient numbers to be a viable product in updated form. Let's be frank, some folks (me included) like the personality of such lenses, they're small and light, and they're relatively inexpensive. Those are significant selling points that, even in light of an all-new DFA35/2 with modern rendering, would still attract a good number of buyers, IMHO.

As for the old FA35/2 vs the new HD FA35/2, sure - folks have a choice. The new lens offers a much nicer focusing ring, better flare and reflection performance due to the HD coating, a more robust SP coating to protect the front element, and - less important, but still nice - a cosmetic finish that's more in-line with today's DSLR bodies.

I had originally pre-ordered the HD model, but cancelled that order after much deliberation... because I shoot APS-C and already have both the plastic-fantastic DA35/2.4 and Sigma 30/1.4 Art. But if I was shooting full frame, I'd undoubtedly have bought that HD lens. It's a mild update, but a decent update nonetheless, that's convincing for the reasons I already stated (though not for everyone, I'd agree).

I find the negativity about the HD FA35/2 in some quarters to be a little puzzling. If the old SMC FA35/2 was still selling, then surely the HD FA35/2 is just a continuation product that should continue to sell at the same or a greater rate. People here, in the past, have rated it well, especially as a budget alternative to the FA31/1.8 Limited, and I would not expect that to change. Given that the FA31/1.8 Limited is still rated highly by many people, why would anyone think that time and money would be put into developing a new 35, when there are numerous other gaps in the Pentax 35FF lens lineup?

[Rico]

An all-new DFA35/2 AW would be expected to render in a similar fashion to the D*FA50/1.4, catering to modern tastes. To achieve that, I suggest it would need to be more complicated optically and therefore bigger, heavier and considerably more expensive as a result.

The old FA35/2 has been a fairly popular lens and Ricoh clearly believes it will continue to sell in sufficient numbers to be a viable product in updated form. Let's be frank, some folks (me included) like the personality of such lenses, they're small and light, and they're relatively inexpensive. Those are significant selling points that, even in light of an all-new DFA35/2 with modern rendering, would still attract a good number of buyers, IMHO.

As for the old FA35/2 vs the new HD FA35/2, sure - folks have a choice. The new lens offers a much nicer focusing ring, better flare and reflection performance due to the HD coating, a more robust SP coating to protect the front element, and - less important, but still nice - a cosmetic finish that's more in-line with today's DSLR bodies.

I had originally pre-ordered the HD model, but cancelled that order after much deliberation... because I shoot APS-C and already have both the plastic-fantastic DA35/2.4 and Sigma 30/1.4 Art. But if I was shooting full frame, I'd undoubtedly have bought that HD lens. It's a mild update, but a decent update nonetheless, that's convincing for the reasons I already stated (though not for everyone, I'd agree).

Why would a DFA35 ƒ2 AW have to render and be like the DFA*50/1.4? Change it to WR then. Some folks may like the personality of nostalgia film era lenses but what Ricoh/Pentax needs to due is produce lenses for the digital age with the personality they are capable of delivering sans the no longer needed aperture ring add QuickShift focus modern lens coatings.

[monochrome]

Why would a DFA35 ƒ2 AW have to render and be like the DFA*50/1.4? Change it to WR then. Some folks may like the personality of nostalgia film era lenses but what Ricoh/Pentax needs to due is produce lenses for the digital age with the personality they are capable of delivering sans the no longer needed aperture ring add QuickShift focus modern lens coatings.

Oh climb down.

Pentax is doing precisely what they believe they need to do and neither you nor I have the information to presume to instruct Pentax on what they should do differently.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 03-17-2019 at 05:54 PM.

[BigMackCam]

Why would a DFA35 ƒ2 AW have to render and be like the DFA*50/1.4?

Because if it didn't, folks would talk about nostalgia

The current trend appears to be for lenses that are extremely sharp across the frame, even wide open, with out-of-focus rendering to match. That's fine - I'm not criticising that. But older, simpler lens designs are generally more variable across the aperture range, especially wide open, and typically display more chromatic aberration and other optical imperfections than lenses designed to excel with the latest and greatest digital cameras. They have fewer elements and are smaller, lighter and less expensive as a result.

Change it to WR then.

Potentially more difficult than you think, since this would almost certainly require significant component re-design to make body parts mate together in a weather resistant manner, and to support the addition of WR seals.

Here's the thing... with the exception of optical coatings, focus ring texturing, external finish and labelling, the new HD FA35/2 is - I'm willing to bet - identical in design and construction to the old FA35/2. It required almost no changes in fundamental design and tooling to produce. It was, I'd suggest, merely a way for Ricoh to continue production of a popular existing lens, leveraging modern optical coatings (because they're both available and advantageous), and improving its usability and appearance along the way. A low cost way of extending the life of an existing product, whilst offering a few advances in coating technology and operability / aesthetic appeal. This is largely confirmed by the retail price, and the fact that it didn't appear on the road-map.

Some folks may like the personality of nostalgia film era lenses but what Ricoh/Pentax needs to due is produce lenses for the digital age with the personality they are capable of delivering sans the no longer needed aperture ring add QuickShift focus modern lens coatings.

You keep mentioning nostalgia... but it's not about "harking back to the good old days" as that term suggests. Some folks just like the way older lenses render. That doesn't mean they're nostalgic about "the way things used to be". They're not trying to "recapture their lost youth". They just have a preference or tolerance for rendering that's different to others. Even if some of them don't, a number of those certainly have a preference or tolerance for paying under $500 instead of $1000+ to get a fast 35mm "full frame" lens.

With respect, what Ricoh / Pentax needs to produce is products that folks will buy in sufficient numbers to make them profitable. Nothing more, nothing less. What you and I individually think it should or would like it to produce is basically irrelevant, unless it's backed by a large majority of other users. So, it might be preferable to you that Ricoh produces an all-new Pentax DFA35/2 with quick-shift manual focus, no aperture ring and an associated uplift in price. But that doesn't speak for the majority... not until those opinions are harvested, at least. Right now, Ricoh is merely extending the life-span of an existing product with a mild refresh... and why not?

[Larrymc]

Oh climb down.

Pentax is doing precisely what they believe they need to do and neither you nor I have the information to presume to instruct Pentax on what’s they should do differently.

Ain't it amazing that some people here know exactly what Pentax needs to do.............ad nauseam

[Rico]

Because if it didn't, folks would talk about nostalgia

The current trend appears to be for lenses that are extremely sharp across the frame, even wide open, with out-of-focus rendering to match. That's fine - I'm not criticising that. But older lens designs are generally more variable across the aperture range, especially wide open, and typically display more chromatic aberration and other optical imperfections than lenses designed to excel with the latest and greatest digital cameras.



Potentially more difficult than you think, since this would almost certainly require significant component re-design to make body parts mate together in a weather resistant manner, and to support the addition of WR seals.

Here's the thing... with the exception of optical coatings, focus ring texturing, external finish and labelling, the new HD FA35/2 is - I'm willing to bet - identical in design and construction to the old FA35/2. It required almost no changes in fundamental design and tooling to produce. It was, I'd suggest, merely a way for Ricoh to continue production of a popular existing lens, leveraging modern optical coatings (because they're both available and advantageous), and improving its usability and appearance along the way. A low cost way of extending the life of an existing product, whilst offering a few advances in coating technology and operability / aesthetic appeal. This is largely confirmed by the retail price, and the fact that it didn't appear on the road-map.



You keep mentioning nostalgia... but it's not about "harking back to the good old days" as that term suggests. Some folks just like the way older lenses render. That doesn't mean they're nostalgic about "the way things used to be". They're not trying to "recapture their lost youth". They just have a preference or tolerance in rendering that's different to others. Even if some of them don't, a number of them certainly have a preference or tolerance between having to pay under $500 instead of $1000 or more to get a fast 35mm lens.

With respect, what Ricoh / Pentax needs to produce is products that folks will buy in sufficient numbers to make them profitable. Nothing more, nothing less. What you and I individually think it should or would like it to produce is basically irrelevant, unless it's backed by a large majority of other users. So, it might be preferable to you that Ricoh produces an all-new Pentax DFA35/2 with quick-shift manual focus, no aperture ring and an associated uplift in price. But that doesn't speak for the majority... not until those opinions are harvested, at least. Right now, Ricoh is merely extending the life-span of an existing product with a mild refresh... and why not?

Sorry BigMackMan you make no sense what so ever. Pentax made modern DA LTD's for digital APS-C but somehow it is impossible for Ricoh/Pentax to deliver similar lenses for FF.

Like I said before if Ricoh/Pentax made modern DFA LTD's every person claiming I should shut up would be buying them.

[BigMackCam]

Sorry BigMackMan you make no sense what so ever. Pentax made modern DA LTD's for digital APS-C but somehow it is impossible for Ricoh/Pentax to deliver similar lenses for FF.

What parts of my posts are you having trouble with? I'll clarify if I can.

I didn't say it's impossible for Ricoh/Pentax to make lenses similar to the DA Ltds for FF. I merely discussed your points on the FA and HD FA 35mm f/2, and an all-new D FA35/2, and outlined why the HD FA35/2 is relevant and a very different proposition to a new non-nostalgic D FA35/2 (without quick shift and aperture ring) such as you proposed.

Like I said before if Ricoh/Pentax made modern DFA LTD's every person claiming I should shut up would be buying them.

I'm certainly not saying you should "shut up", and my apologies if that's how my posts came across. I do, however, believe you present as if you're speaking for the majority based on nothing more than your individual opinion and preferences. I respectfully suggest that Ricoh knows better than both of us, based on its available resources and what it thinks it can sell...

[Rico]

Oh climb down.

Pentax is doing precisely what they believe they need to do and neither you nor I have the information to presume to instruct Pentax on what they should do differently.

monochrome Ricoh/Pentax is doing precisely what they believe they need to do but it doesn't mean it is the right thing.

I'm an end user so I do have the information to instruct Pentax to do it differently.

[monochrome]

monochrome Ricoh/Pentax is doing precisely what they believe they need to do but it doesn't mean it is the right thing.

I'm an end user so I do have the information to instruct Pentax to do it differently.

My goodness. What hubris.

[photoptimist]

monochrome Ricoh/Pentax is doing precisely what they believe they need to do but it doesn't mean it is the right thing.

I'm an end user so I do have the information to instruct Pentax to do it differently.

We are end users and we all have ideas for how Ricoh/Pentax should manage it's business.

And yet, we end users lack even the most basic knowledge of exactly which lenses and bodies are selling in exactly what quantities. We may have hints about what's selling, but no real data. Worse, we totally lack information on the cost structures for design and manufacturing of new lenses and cameras. Is a new DFA 35 easy to design and cheap to make or is it hard? Is quick-shift, WR, different lens motors, etc. an easy change or a really expensive one? And having made that change, exactly how many sell and at what price?

We may have personal opinions about what a lens should be and how much is costs for it to be a success, but we know a lot less about it than Ricoh/Pentax does.

[BigMackCam]

Folks, please let's keep this constructive and respectful, with due consideration to forum rules.

Thank you