[Rico]

It only works with a fish-eye lens because with such a lens people are happy with this kind of picture:



It would be a different story with a rectilinear lens...

Source of the above picture, taken with a 'shaved' smc Pentax-DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 Fish-Eye ED [IF] @10mm and a Pentax K-1: Shaving the Pentax SMC DA 10-17mm Fisheye hood for full frame use - PentaxForums.com

I am sure they could "tweak" the DA21 into a D-FA lens. They could do this with most of the DA lenses.

[Bertrand3000]

Ricoh/Pentax needs to do this with all their lenses old and new.

Only this lens has a non removable, non retractable hood.

[Rico]

Only this lens has a non removable, non retractable hood.

The DA*55 has a removable hood that vignettes on the K-1 that could be fixed.

[Mistral75]

I am sure they could "tweak" the DA21 into a D-FA lens. They could do this with most of the DA lenses.

So, if you Rico are sure of that, it's more than certain.

With D-FA tweaked DA lenses and a UHS-II bus in their cameras Pentax are safe with a bright future.

[Rico]

So, if you Rico are sure of that, it's more than certain.

With D-FA tweaked DA lenses and a UHS-II bus in their cameras Pentax are safe with a bright future.

What is the point to this post Mistral that I am wrong which some how makes you right? Someone who post's here like they are in the know and an expert you don't sound like it when you act like UHS-II isn't important. So you don't think Ricoh/Pentax should fix the hood on the DA*55 so it doesn't vignette on FF?

Seriously folks do you really want better equipment? Everything seems to be an argument against that. Right because UHS-II is so not needed.

[TwoUptons]

I am sure they could "tweak" the DA21 into a D-FA lens. They could do this with most of the DA lenses.

The worry is with the size of the image circle. Could the 21mm not just cover the image circle, but cover it well...

When I’ve played with the 16-50 on the K1, there’s an area outside of the APS crop where the optical quality drops precipitously. Even if the vignetting on that lens could be fixed with a hood trick, I would be angry if Pentax tried to call that a full frame lens.

Even if the DA21 does cover full frame with a new front, I’d guess the results are not up to Limited standards...

-Eric

[Larrymc]

What is the point to this post Mistral that I am wrong which some how makes you right? Someone who post's here like they are in the know and an expert you don't sound like it when you act like UHS-II isn't important. So you don't think Ricoh/Pentax should fix the hood on the DA*55 so it doesn't vignette on FF?

Seriously folks do you really want better equipment? Everything seems to be an argument against that. Right because UHS-II is so not needed.

Rico, how do you know Ricoh/Pentax doesn't have revamping many of their older lens with easy fixes in their plans? You act like Ricoh/Pentax has a replicator machine like the "Starship Enterprise" had and all someone has to do is say is "Make it so Mr Sulu" and voila we have a revamped lens never mind that they might have quite a supply of DA21s in their inventory right now. They may be waiting till they have to make another run of DA21s to make changes. Did you ever consider that?

Mind you, its probably a good idea, if it could be done with minimal expense of manpower and funds. Just give it time.

---

Last edited by Larrymc; 07-08-2019 at 11:24 AM.

[Trickortreat]

If you are expecting Ricoh/Pentax to get rid of their Quick-Shift focus you might want to look to another brand.

No, my expectations are something else. You could re read my posts to see exactly what, cause 0 lenses i have issues with have quick shift.
Ill stick for a while but if Ricoh cant get gear i want on the market I'll look elsewhere.

[Kunzite]

So, if you Rico are sure of that, it's more than certain.

With D-FA tweaked DA lenses and a UHS-II bus in their cameras Pentax are safe with a bright future.

Curiosity got the better of me and I had a look.
Wow. I own the DA21, and there's no way this lens could be tweaked into a D FA. With "most of the DA lenses"? No way. Many of them are/starts from ultrawide and show mechanical vignetting on the K-1 without hood.
The DA21 has serious mechanical vignetting with the hood removed. I know; I own one. You don't tweak that out; you completely redesign the lens.

[RonHendriks1966]

With D-FA tweaked DA lenses and a UHS-II bus in their cameras Pentax are safe with a bright future.

Brrrrrrrr, so now the future is bright again......

[BarneyL]

Brrrrrrrr, so now the future is bright again......

That's not what I chose Pentax for. I'm switching to Sony A mount.

[Mistral75]

Curiosity got the better of me and I had a look.
Wow. I own the DA21, and there's no way this lens could be tweaked into a D FA. With "most of the DA lenses"? No way. Many of them are/starts from ultrawide and show mechanical vignetting on the K-1 without hood.
The DA21 has serious mechanical vignetting with the hood removed. I know; I own one. You don't tweak that out; you completely redesign the lens.

Apostate! Thou shalt have no other gods before Rico and thou shalt not bear false witness against Him.

[Mistral75]

Announced. $499.95 / €499.

HD PENTAX-DA FISH-EYE10-17mmF3.5-4.5ED - Ricoh

Ricoh updates Pentax 10-17mm F3.5-4.5 fisheye with new coatings and exterior: Digital Photography Review

[Sandy Hancock]

So you don't think Ricoh/Pentax should fix the hood on the DA*55 so it doesn't vignette on FF?

The DA*55 vignettes (slightly) even without the hood. Changing the hood isn’t going to fix anything.

[c.a.m]

MSRP in Canada is CAD $650.

I had never considered this lens before, but this update -- and the discussions here on PF -- have me thinking about its possibilities.

- Craig