[beholder3]

The interference wouldn't exist if the diffractive optics weren't in the optical path in the first place, so I'd say visual evidence is strongly leaning in favor of them being thought of as a causative factor.

The diffractive optics problems with nasty halos is much more an issue to my taste, since it is a hassle to correct in post.

Look at the massive blue halos in the top left corner around two lights for the Nikon 300 F4E VR:

Nikon_300f4E_VR_f11_73584 | Nikon 300/4.0E VR shot on D810. ? | Flickr

I'd rather have a lens with a couple centimeters more length and some grams than one that damages the images in this way.

The flare / ghosting is also pretty bad: Nikon_300f4E_VR_f4_74508 | Nikon 300/4.0E VR shot on D810 VR? | Flickr

That's ok for a 30 year old $60 lens, but for a 1700 EUR "modern" one. Thank you. No.

[reh321]

The diffractive optics problems with nasty halos is much more an issue to my taste, since it is a hassle to correct in post.

Look at the massive blue halos in the top left corner around two lights for the Nikon 300 F4E VR:

Nikon_300f4E_VR_f11_73584 | Nikon 300/4.0E VR shot on D810. ? | Flickr

I'd rather have a lens with a couple centimeters more length and some grams than one that damages the images in this way.

The flare / ghosting is also pretty bad: Nikon_300f4E_VR_f4_74508 | Nikon 300/4.0E VR shot on D810 VR? | Flickr

That's ok for a 30 year old $60 lens, but for a 1700 EUR "modern" one. Thank you. No.

Flare tends not to be an issue for me because I learned fifty years ago to avoid shooting towards the sun, and even now I avoid it if possible. I never had a hood until the last few years and my habits mean that I seldom use one.

[beholder3]

Flare tends not to be an issue for me because I learned fifty years ago to avoid shooting towards the sun, and even now I avoid it if possible. I never had a hood until the last few years and my habits mean that I seldom use one.

The sun wont be an issue with a 300 mm lens unless you want to burn a hole into your eyes, but in dark situations, all sorts of light sources can get into the frame in many scenarios.

[Chris Mak]

I have used the Canon 400DOII for a year now with 1.4tc and 2.0tc, coming from the DA560.
It's not as simple as dissing diffractive optics or praising them. The DO and PF lenses have strengths as well as weaknesses, but the same was true for the DA560.
In some ways, the DA560 is superior to the 400DOII, and in some ways it is inferior. So it all depends on which strengths you are after in a lens.

For distant rendering in harsh daylight, the DA560 completely crushes the 400DOII+1.4TC. But for waterfowl in normal light, the DOII crushes the DA560, that has a harsh OOF rendering of patterned water, and a truly ugly purple/cyan fringing in the bokeh that is impossible to remove in post.
Color is also a bit better with the 400DOII, less bold and more sophisticated, and also very fine detail is rendered better, where the DA560 excells in plain sharpness and clarity.
And of course, AF acquisition and reliability is of another level alltogether.

All these things way heavily when judging the useability of a lens, and you cannot dismiss diffractive optics with one or another horrible sample of its weakest point. Also, keep cost in mind, going to the supertele focal length is very costly, and brings with it considerable weight. Diffractive optics have no use in wide angle lenses, but in 400 or 500 mm lenses it is a very valuable addition to the lens offerings.

The diffractive optics problems with nasty halos is much more an issue to my taste, since it is a hassle to correct in post.

Look at the massive blue halos in the top left corner around two lights for the Nikon 300 F4E VR:

Nikon_300f4E_VR_f11_73584 | Nikon 300/4.0E VR shot on D810. ? | Flickr

I'd rather have a lens with a couple centimeters more length and some grams than one that damages the images in this way.

The flare / ghosting is also pretty bad: Nikon_300f4E_VR_f4_74508 | Nikon 300/4.0E VR shot on D810 VR? | Flickr

That's ok for a 30 year old $60 lens, but for a 1700 EUR "modern" one. Thank you. No.

[Vantage-Point]

Talking about decent sized lenses, I hope that Ricoh Pentax can work with Tamron to produce their excellent 20 mm f2.8 lens for Pentax with WR and DC or SDM ring motor.

[stevebrot]

The interference wouldn't exist if the diffractive optics weren't in the optical path in the first place, so I'd say visual evidence is strongly leaning in favor of them being thought of as a causative factor.

Steve

[zapp]

70-210/4.0
* 85/1.4
* 35/1.4
ultra-wide prime
consumer 70-300
DA* 16-50 replacement
DA* 50-135 replacement

645 ultra-wide?
Fast 135?

Any other ideas?

FF TCs instead of the 135.
Some tele redesign for TCs.

[pres589]

For some reason I don't feel like a replacement for the 50-135 is in the cards, or at least not at this time. Seems like a prime in the 20's would be of more pressing need; going from something wider that 20 to the 31 feels like too big of a gap. Maybe I'm wrong. A full frame tele designed to work well with the DA 200 and 300 lenses seems like a smart move.


Will be very interesting to see what they do with the 645 system.

[Digitalis]

Well, I just like lenses that are a little smaller in size, but if it has major drawbacks then I suppose that's that.

Catadioptric lenses hold similar advantages in size [but not in weight] as lenses that feature diffractive optics, they have similar drawbacks though I'd say mirror lenses have categorically worse bokeh either DO or even the worst refractive lenses. When catadioptric lenses are used to their strengths people manage to make interesting and eye-catching images with them.

you cannot dismiss diffractive optics with one or another horrible sample of its weakest point.

All lenses have their weaknesses. When people pontificate on some technology they just read about with saccharine idealism that it is going to provide smaller, lighter, faster, telephoto lenses with absolutely no drawbacks at all: I just have to shine a bit of reality on the whole picture to temper their enthusiasm.


Have I used lenses with Diffractive optics? I certainly have. My early impressions are that they are very capable, the reduction in weight Vs a purely refractive lens is certainly welcome, but that comes at the expense of optical quality and that is a trade off i'm not entirely content to make honestly. I'll haul my 400mm f/2.8* lenses around quite happily knowing they will deliver sharp images that require very little effort in post processing to produce an excellent print.

* Canon do make an excellent 400mm f/5.6 if you are truly concerned about size and weight. Pentax made a similar lens, though I recall it had issues with purple fringing which becomes quite problematic when photographing white birds in bright sun.

[nocturnal]

It also matters in purchasing decisions. A member has hacked the K-50 firmware update to include the K-30. I have chosen not to install that on my K-30, with the result that I cannot use KAF4 lenses on my old camera body, but that doesn't matter to me since I have some even older FA lenses to use with it.

The hacked firmware is a treat for K-30, I installed it years back and there are zero problems, infact the camera is more stable as the K-50 firmware must have ironed out more bugs. My K-30 used to crash now and again with firmware 1.06, the hacked K-50 firmware fixed that. Go ahead and install it even if like me you don't own KAF4 lenses

My K-30 has a white solenoid too

[monochrome]

For some reason I don't feel like a replacement for the 50-135 is in the cards, or at least not at this time. Seems like a prime in the 20's would be of more pressing need; going from something wider that 20 to the 31 feels like too big of a gap. Maybe I'm wrong. A full frame tele designed to work well with the DA 200 and 300 lenses seems like a smart move.


Will be very interesting to see what they do with the 645 system.

I’d bet timing of the 16-50 and 50-135 replacements is a function of how many unsold copies of each is in inventory.

[TwoUptons]

I’d bet timing of the 16-50 and 50-135 replacements is a function of how many unsold copies of each is in inventory.

So Ricoh needs to not announce their replacements to encourage sales of the existing models so they can accelerate replacement? Got it...

-Eric

[Rondec]

I’d bet timing of the 16-50 and 50-135 replacements is a function of how many unsold copies of each is in inventory.

It might be. But thinking back to the HD DA limited's release, basically there was a fire sale when the new lenses hit the market and for a month or so, you could get SMC DA limiteds for 25 percent off and then there were only HD DAs for sale.

My guess is that Pentax isn't anywhere near redesigning/releasing DA * zooms and so they keep the prices pretty high -- the DA *50-135 is 1050 on B and H right now, nearly as high as the just released 70-210 f4 -- until they get around to redesigning them. And as I have said before a redesign would mean new coatings, new auto focus motors and taking out the screw drive mechanism -- not just a simple spray on HD lens coatings that we've seen with other lenses, like the HD FA 35.

[sundown]

Has the speculation already started that the next Pentax large aperture wide-angle single focus FF lens seen on the roadmap .pdf will actually be the Tamron SP 35mm F/1.4 Di USD?

[WorksAsIntended]

Has the speculation already started that the next Pentax large aperture wide-angle single focus FF lens seen on the roadmap .pdf will actually be the Tamron SP 35mm F/1.4 Di USD?

Well, now for sure.
I would not mind though, it seems to be an excellent lense.