[Dipsoid]

Tamron 35, 45, 85 f/1.8 lenses would look lovely in K mount. They aren't Limited size, but they perform very well and are weather sealed.

Aren't Limited size is kind of an understatement, the 45 is close to the size of the 50mm ART and has a slower aperture.

[BigMackCam]

Fact: Pentax had such lenses, and they weren't praised for them (with very few exceptions, e.g. Mike Johnston / The Online Photographer). This "I want to see imperfect lenses" business feels quite disingenuous to me.

Perhaps I'm in the minority then. But so long as you don't count me amongst the disingenuous, I'm OK with that

I used to play acoustic guitar a lot (not so much these days, due to rheumatoid arthritis), and owned a few vintage Gibsons (a couple of Guilds too) from the 60s and 70s, as well as newer models based on the older designs. The vintage guitars generally had a warm, woody, percussive tone, with inconsistent sustain and articulation across the range. The low end was woody and thumpy, even a little "muddy", with mediocre or quite poor sustain; higher registers were somewhat clearer with better sustain, yet never bright and ringing. The modern versions were generally better in terms of articulation and sustain, but retained much of the "earthy" character of the earlier guitars. Yet they were nicer to play and had better neck shapes, better bridges and nuts, better tuners, cleaner internal build etc., and they were easier to look after. I loved the sound of these guitars. Absolutely loved them.

On several occasions, I tried some higher-end Taylor guitars (favoured by a number of well-known musicians), designed and built to a more modern brief. They were amazing in terms of articulation, sustain, tonal balance etc... the materials and hardware were fantastic too, and the finish beyond reproach. They sounded extraordinarily "clean" and "clear"... but I never warmed to them, and never bought one. Technically, though, they were "better" guitars than even the newer Gibsons and Guilds I owned.

I guess I'm just stuck in a past I was born too late for

[RobA_Oz]

You might be overthinking this. I actually own this lens in F mount form (mounted to a D750), without a tripod foot its not a concern.


It is about an inch and a half longer than the DA* 50-135mm and only .3 lbs more heavy while being the same diameter (both take 67mm filters). The DA* lens doesn't even have a foot because it's not a concern.


The K-1 II weighs more than this lens, the K-3 II is about the same as the lens. I find it is a largely an unnecessary expenditure if you're buying it due to stress on the mount.

Since the lens build length moves the center of gravity of the camer-lens-combo to the lens, the lens put's more weight on the mount than the camera.
So an tripod collar makes sense. And Tamron offers one: A034TM

You can check the weight and accesory names in the wikipedia article for the D FA 70-210mm:
Pentax D FA 70?210mm lens - Wikipedia

Strain on the lens mount is the usual concern cited. Having once (many years ago) had my Spotmatic F fitted with the smc Takumar 300/4 on a tripod all knocked flying by an errant small daughter, I can relate to that, but that would have been a problem whether or not it was mounted on the lens or the body (it was mounted on the lens).

However, if you’re using a long lens and want to track or simply minimise your chances of overbalancing, then you’ll use a gimbal head, for which you’ll either use a lens foot or a very long body attachment. Personally, I’d go for the lens foot, in that circumstance.

[house]

Folks the article was illustrated with images shot with Leica glass... its not about crap lenses or all out wierdness.

[mee]

Aren't Limited size is kind of an understatement, the 45 is close to the size of the 50mm ART and has a slower aperture.

400g less weight and 0.70 inch less size than the Pentax 50 f/1.4. Plus it uses 67mm filters vs the Pentax's 72mm. The extra stop down from 1.8 is not really missing in experience. YMMV.


You'll never quite see Limited size again so small in a new design. They relied on outdated screwdrive for focusing and didn't care so much about CA, border resolution, or bokeh quality as it seems the main idea was size then performance back in film days. That's the only reason it can be so small.


The 45 has both IS and AF motors inside and a larger set of elements that mitigate some of the optical limitations of say the 43mm f/1.9 (even though the 45 does still fringe a lot at f/1.8 in hard light if you push it). I suspect a Pentax version would be better in that regard today.


Still impressive for what they could do with such a tiny formfactor as the 43 Limited at the time in history (1998!) when it was designed. I doubt you'll see Ricoh dedicate resources to new ones. The best we can hope for is Tamrons while Ricoh design larger, faster * lenses in house.

[Rondec]

The thing is that the limiteds still exist. In fact, you can get them for sale now. Eventually, their design will be tweaked. Pentax will add in lens micro motors which will increase their size a little bit. they will seal them, but they still will be awesome lenses.

[mee]

The thing is that the limiteds still exist. In fact, you can get them for sale now. Eventually, their design will be tweaked. Pentax will add in lens micro motors which will increase their size a little bit. they will seal them, but they still will be awesome lenses.

Where did you receive this information?

[Paul the Sunman]

You'll never quite see Limited size again so small in a new design.

I doubt you'll see Ricoh dedicate resources to new ones. The best we can hope for is Tamrons while Ricoh design larger, faster * lenses in house.

I hope you are wrong. I have a hefty collection of the new heavy FF lenses (15-30, 50 f/1.4, 70-200, 150-450), and whilst I like them a lot, I still enjoy using the Limited lenses with my K1; DA limiteds in my case. I was shooting with the DA 70 Limited on the K1 yesterday, and it gives very pleasing results with only the extreme edges being weak. I would certainly be in the market for updated DFA Limiteds.

I understand why the first priority for FF was extreme IQ, but I hope the Limited philosophy is still alive and well at Pentax.

[lukulele]

Perhaps I'm in the minority then. But so long as you don't count me amongst the disingenuous, I'm OK with that

I used to play acoustic guitar a lot (not so much these days, due to rheumatoid arthritis), and owned a few vintage Gibsons (a couple of Guilds too) from the 60s and 70s, as well as newer models based on the older designs. The vintage guitars generally had a warm, woody, percussive tone, with inconsistent sustain and articulation across the range. The low end was woody and thumpy, even a little "muddy", with mediocre or quite poor sustain; higher registers were somewhat clearer with better sustain, yet never bright and ringing. The modern versions were generally better in terms of articulation and sustain, but retained much of the "earthy" character of the earlier guitars. Yet they were nicer to play and had better neck shapes, better bridges and nuts, better tuners, cleaner internal build etc., and they were easier to look after. I loved the sound of these guitars. Absolutely loved them.

On several occasions, I tried some higher-end Taylor guitars (favoured by a number of well-known musicians), designed and built to a more modern brief. They were amazing in terms of articulation, sustain, tonal balance etc... the materials and hardware were fantastic too, and the finish beyond reproach. They sounded extraordinarily "clean" and "clear"... but I never warmed to them, and never bought one. Technically, though, they were "better" guitars than even the newer Gibsons and Guilds I owned.

I guess I'm just stuck in a past I was born too late for

Mike, I’m with you on acoustics except mine are/ were vintage ukuleles, taropatchs, and even a WW l ukelele harp. It’s hard to beat the sustain of a 50+ year old crackled lacquer finish mahogany Gibson tenor uke or the Martin or Hawaiian koa brands going back to almost a century ago
For some reason, thumbs don’t seem to work well around small fretboards anymore also. However, the KP seems to feel perfectly comfortable.

[mee]

I hope you are wrong. I have a hefty collection of the new heavy FF lenses (15-30, 50 f/1.4, 70-200, 150-450), and whilst I like them a lot, I still enjoy using the Limited lenses with my K1; DA limiteds in my case. I was shooting with the DA 70 Limited on the K1 yesterday, and it gives very pleasing results with only the extreme edges being weak. I would certainly be in the market for updated DFA Limiteds.

I understand why the first priority for FF was extreme IQ, but I hope the Limited philosophy is still alive and well at Pentax.

I definitely see the desirability of a compact kit. Yet if it does ever happen again, with new designs and not just reheated leftovers, I suspect they will be less Limited. Meaning, small in size but notably larger than the previous examples (to accommodate modern optical accoutrements) .

Theres some tiny modern lenses for mirrorless though...

[Sandy Hancock]

There is room for big, highly corrected lenses and small quirky lenses. Fortunately for Pentax shooters, the latter is amply catered for with our massive back-catalogue of legacy lenses. That is what the CaNikSonyans are all missing, so we can just smile quietly to ourselves.

Looking forward, I don't see why Pentax needs to re-visit those old designs. They'll be out there for generations to come if K-mount doesn't die - and even if it does they'll adapt to mirrorless. New lenses should do what old lenses don't, rather than re-visit the past.

Personally, I seriously doubt the FA Limiteds will ever get a WR DC refresh. We should all get over it.

[repaap]

Umm, they (Ricoh) have tried similar treatment as HD FA 35/2 did get to FA limiteds. And said that it changes it’s unique rendering too much. Some still do think(Me atleast) that limiteds are great as they are! What I would hope is something like HD DA 20-40, but for FF. Could be prime, could be zoom. WR and nice finish and cool focusing ring(takumar style) with DC motor too, while you are at it. I fon’t mind screwdrive, it is completelly fine. And long focusthrow too.

There are coming thos highly corrected DFA* lenses when one think that they need more performance..

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Since the lens build length moves the center of gravity of the camer-lens-combo to the lens, the lens put's more weight on the mount than the camera.
So an tripod collar makes sense. And Tamron offers one: A034TM

It is also handy for anyone how would think of using this lens for stitching, This is from memory for the brief time I used the Tamron version but at 70mm the entrance pupil is around 90mm from the image plane.
You would want to place your point of rotation near this distance from your image plane.

[Sandy Hancock]

Umm, they (Ricoh) have tried similar treatment as HD FA 35/2 did get to FA limiteds.

That was just coatings - not WR and in-lens focus motor.

Some still do think (me at least) that limiteds are great as they are!

As do I. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

What I would hope is something like HD DA 20-40, but for FF. Could be prime, could be zoom. WR and nice finish and cool focusing ring (takumar style) with DC motor too, while you are at it.

If there is anything, I'm willing to bet it will be a new lens (like the DA 20-40 Limited was), not a refresh of the 31, 43 or 77.

[superpowerpinger]

You Tube

You Tube