[monochrome]

It's a tricky call.

I suspect that, regettably, even if they 100% retained the external form of the 'classic' FA Ltds, with 'simple' modernization of just individual lens components like the coatings and AF motors in particular, any 'modernized' FA Limiteds would inevitably produce different images. Different 'pixie dust', different allure.

Exactly - which is why I suspect they may offer new/different FL DFA Limiteds (20/4, 28/2.8, 35/2, 55/1.8) with all the modern trimmings and keep making the classic 3 just as they are until people stop buying them.

I also suspect it doesn’t matter either way until stock of the Jan 2016 batch runs out ( was it really that long ago?)

Added: I get it - bring the FA Limiteds into the 21st century, but there’s no denying they would be different. Who knows, maybe they would have their own unique special qualities and then we would be richer in choices.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 04-23-2020 at 08:05 PM.

[Paul the Sunman]

My reading of the history of the FA Limiteds is that the designers were fully aware of their "quirks". They were deliberately designed that way for aesthetic reasons. "Less perfect" MTF curves should not be seen as a failure. Nevertheless, I'm not sure about the "Don't touch anything or the pixie dust will disappear" mantra. I doubt updating the AF and even the coatings would really change much optically.

[MMVIII]

There are two things: the limiteds are a triple with character. They are charming, have their quirks, they are what they are also with their oddness in their focal length 77 43 31 and at f~1.8
The 85 50 f1.4 are classic reference lenses that much more resemble modern approaches, even sharpness wide open, beautiful rendering etc. From my POV the most natural addition would be a 28 f1.4. It would be wide enough for landscape and architecture but also cover astrophotography. I do use Pentax equipment for my job and I really need technically perfect lenses for the application of photogrammetry and image based modelling. The lens of the GR2 was until now the best choice, in APS-C maybe now the 11-18? But I would prefer a sharp across the frame 14 to 18mm prime. The 15mm limited does just not cut it.
And I would see a lot of use of K-1 series in this field (it is perfect due to the ruggedness and field capabilities) with a 28mm prime. Not necessarily 1.4, even f4 would be sufficient, but a 1.4 would complete the modern trinity and cover way more fields.

[Class A]

From my POV the most natural addition would be a 28 f1.4.

This would make the 50/1.4 sit exactly in the middle between a 28/1.4 and the 85/1.4 in terms of angle of view.

So 28mm would make a lot of sense, however, I think I'd prefer a 24mm over a 28mm.

[BROO]

Don't forget the FA Limited range is designed for film cameras.
Ricoh said at the launch of the K-1 that they would focus on the star series primes and then move on to the Limited series.
The UWA prime lens on the road map could well be the start of a new range of Limited lenses.(note it is not a star lens) Maybe an 18mm f 3.5?
I have a Tokina 17 mm f 3.5 and it accompanies the K-1 beautifully. Only the IQ is not stellar.

[repaap]

My reading of the history of the FA Limiteds is that the designers were fully aware of their "quirks". They were deliberately designed that way for aesthetic reasons. "Less perfect" MTF curves should not be seen as a failure. Nevertheless, I'm not sure about the "Don't touch anything or the pixie dust will disappear" mantra. I doubt updating the AF and even the coatings would really change much optically.

I think that this what you wrote is also the key why they do not want to temper with them. One thing would be to make new versions of limiteds all together, and leave these classic lenses be. Lot of people would not care, but a lot could also become angry if they did.


They did already do DA limiteds, why not make DFA frankenstein with FA inheritage and DC motor...and add WR while you are at it

[Wheatfield]

This would make the 50/1.4 sit exactly in the middle between a 28/1.4 and the 85/1.4 in terms of angle of view.

So 28mm would make a lot of sense, however, I think I'd prefer a 24mm over a 28mm.

Ditto. I've found that 28mm gives all the challenges of shooting with a wide angle without giving back enough wide angle to make it worthwhile. In this the 31 is better, but I am comfortable jumping fro 35mm to 24mm, and then to 20mm. The 43 slots in nicely between the 35 and 50, though for me it's a focal length I can't fall in love with. I think if I liked the 43mm focal length more, I would probably find a way to like the 43mm LTD lens as well.

---------- Post added Apr 24th, 2020 at 01:11 AM ----------

Don't forget the FA Limited range is designed for film cameras.
Ricoh said at the launch of the K-1 that they would focus on the star series primes and then move on to the Limited series.
The UWA prime lens on the road map could well be the start of a new range of Limited lenses.(note it is not a star lens) Maybe an 18mm f 3.5?
I have a Tokina 17 mm f 3.5 and it accompanies the K-1 beautifully. Only the IQ is not stellar.

I have that lens too. It's a lot of fun, but don't ask it to be particularly sharp or contrasty.

[house]

A 28mm is rather close to 31mm? I guess it depends on wether Pentax should produce the best glass or pad the lineup. A 28 can be a very nice lens in a way much wider lenses can't. I need a 20-24mm prime lens because quite a few of my shots require it. If I was thinking purely about the lens and it's images in the abstract I would prefer a 28mm.

[MMVIII]

A 28mm is rather close to 31mm? I guess it depends on wether Pentax should produce the best glass or pad the lineup. A 28 can be a very nice lens in a way much wider lenses can't. I need a 20-24mm prime lens because quite a few of my shots require it. If I was thinking purely about the lens and it's images in the abstract I would prefer a 28mm.

I agree with all who would prefer a 24mm lens. But given the fact that it is meant to be large aperture and should be optically corrected over the full field, and preferrably wide open, a wider than 28 lens might be a serious stretch to construct. 28 f1.4 (to be in line with the other new *) might cut it.
And 24 f2 or 20 f2.8 might work as well. This being optically optimal corrected primes. And please add a new version of the DA 14 f2.8. Or add a DFA 16 f4, to give me corner sharpness on APS-C.

[Rondec]

If all the parts of the new FA Limited are interchangeable with all the parts of the old FA Limited then the new FA Limited is the same lens as the old.

But . . . . .

Call the new one a HD Pentax-D FA31/1.8 DC WR.

I certainly would think hard about FA limiteds that simply added sealing and quick shift -- the DFA 100 macro WR treatment, in other words. I really don't mind the screw drive aspect, but I suppose that would have to go if re-doing the lens.

[Sandy Hancock]

To my mind, 35 and 24 are the ideal focal lengths to complete the f/1.4 DFA* prime line.
20, 28, 55/58? and 135 might do well as more compact f/1.8-f/2.8 DFA compliments.

But isn't this thread about the 85?

[Rondec]

To my mind, 35 and 24 are the ideal focal lengths to complete the f/1.4 DFA* prime line.
20, 28, 55/58? and 135 might do well as more compact f/1.8-f/2.8 DFA compliments.

But isn't this thread about the 85?

There is definitely a sense in which once you get something you are immediately looking for the next thing, rather than enjoying the new thing that you just got.

At the same time, I've been waiting for a 20-ish prime from Pentax for awhile. Maybe next year...

[Pål Jensen]

I agree with all who would prefer a 24mm lens. But given the fact that it is meant to be large aperture and should be optically corrected over the full field, and preferrably wide open, a wider than 28 lens might be a serious stretch to construct. 28 f1.4 (to be in line with the other new *) might cut it.
And 24 f2 or 20 f2.8 might work as well. This being optically optimal corrected primes. And please add a new version of the DA 14 f2.8. Or add a DFA 16 f4, to give me corner sharpness on APS-C.

I'm pretty sure there is a D-FA* 24/1.4 in the works. It will be released before the D-FA* 35/1.4, opposite to what was originally planned. I can't remember where I got this from, but I'm pretty convinced that it is correct...

[Reed]

I think that I might be a early adopter of *85, kept myself from buying D-FA*50/1.4 because of that and one of my friends already have it so, there is a room to swap gear around.
I hope we will get to know anything new in next few weeks about both K-New and a new *85/1.4.

[rawr]

maybe they would have their own unique special qualities and then we would be richer in choices

I think that will be key - for example keep the FA77's optical formula, which is what produces it's specific imaging appeal. But get rid of it's unfortunate tendency to purple-fringe by applying the newest Pentax lens coatings to it's glass. Pentax could have done this long ago, if only as a silent upgrade to newly minted FA 31/43/77's.