[angerdan]

1. If one clicks on the link you provided, the actual article has a different title, which specifically avoids any mention of the maximum aperture for the DFA21 Limited. The body of the article also contains no mention.
2. One website's possible typo does not make something a fact, nor does it make someone who disagrees with you wrong.
3. At this stage, it is all speculation.

1. As i'd show in the screenshots, the information is inside the preview body.
2. We don't know if it's a typo or unintentional NDA violation.
3. Yes, we have to wait until Ricoh officially reveals the f-stop.

There's no way DPReview would know the max aperture at this stage.

What knowledge do you have about NDA's?

Who would be so silly that they would not present max aperture, while giving such information, like this out.

A non-disclosure-agreement by Ricoh could be an reason.
Non-disclosure agreement - Wikipedia

---

Last edited by angerdan; 12-13-2020 at 06:51 AM.

[Zygonyx]

If it's great wide open, f/2.8 is just fine by me.
Mind you, it's a LOT bigger then my FA20/2.8, so I hope it has some serious Pixie Dust inside

Reasonnably f/2 though.

[Sandy Hancock]

Reasonnably f/2 though.

I doesn't hurt to dream

[Mistral75]

I'ts mathematical sure that the aperture will be between f2.8 and f3.2:

(...)

Please enlighten us and explain how you deduct the size of the entrance pupil of a retrofocus lens from its outer dimensions.

[Kunzite]

What knowledge do you have about NDA's?

What knowledge do you have about DPR knowing the actual aperture, and signing a NDA?
None whatsoever.

And there's no reason why Ricoh Imaging would tell them. Sending them a K-3 Mark III, yeah, that camera will be launched shortly and Ricoh Imaging would want it previewed; but a lens which isn't finalized nor close to be launched?

A typo is the simplest - thus, most likely correct - explanation.

[Mistral75]

There's no way DPReview would know the max aperture at this stage.

(...)

What knowledge do you have about NDA's?

Having written a few hundred NDAs over the years I have some.

NDAs are used to pass on information (including test items) to a third party which is important for them to know (to take appropriate action without waiting for the information to become public) whilst ensuring the receiving party will maintain the appropriate level of confidentiality for the appropriate duration.

In the case of a website like Digital Photography Review it could be information or equipment sent ahead of an announcement so that they can write a report and publish it on the day (and sometimes hour and minute) of the announcement.

How would it have been important for Digital Photography Review to know as soon as mid-May the max. aperture of the D FA 21mm Limited whilst not being able to do anything with this piece of information for at least the next seven months?

[pres589]

If they had an NDA, DPR would have clearly violated it, and they'd be in court over it. That's the whole purpose of an NDA.

[Serkevan]

If they had an NDA, DPR would have clearly violated it, and they'd be in court over it. That's the whole purpose of an NDA.

And, most importantly, it would have been corrected by now. Why force the signing of an NDA if you're not going to bother enforcing it?

---------- Post added 12-13-20 at 08:07 AM ----------

Having written a few hundred NDAs over the years I have some.

NDAs are used to pass on information (including test items) to a third party which is important for them to know (to take appropriate action without waiting for the information to become public) whilst ensuring the receiving party will maintain the appropriate level of confidentiality for the appropriate duration.

In the case of a website like Digital Photography Review it could be information or equipment sent ahead of an announcement so that they can write a report and publish it on the day (and sometimes hour and minute) of the announcement.

How would it have been important for Digital Photography Review to know as soon as mid-May the max. aperture of the D FA 21mm Limited whilst not being able to do anything with this piece of information for at least the next seven months?

The handful of NDAs I'm under are exactly like that - I need information to be able to work on a given project, but I cannot be blabbering about what projects I'm working on, much less the specifics of it.

I doubt any NDA for a review site would be more than a review embargo - that's why reviews in major sites all pop up at the same time, after all.

[MMVIII]

I'm not particularly worried. Seems likely to be f2.4 or f2.8. The bigger question has to do with wide open performance and that's exactly what the max aperture won't tell you. The DFA * primes are sharp wide open. The FA limiteds tend to need stopping down a bit to get good edge performance. That would be my guess.

My interest is mainly for landscape, so flare resistance and good contrast are more important to me than having an f2 maximum aperture.

Exactly! It is not the domain of the limiteds to offer edge to edge sharpness wide open. With that "deficiency" subject isolation (in the center) and a more pronounced 3D effect might be promoted. If sharpness in the edges is there with F4-5.6 this is pretty beautiful, architecture, landscape and other areas are a domain for higher DOF and closed down aperture. But this characteristic has to be recognised, appreciated by the users, or, harder task, a reviewer. Then it can be used to it's advantage. However, reviews rarely respect such things...

[TwoUptons]

I guess if anyone has used the sample lens on a camera, they could get the maximum aperture from the digital readouts, regardless if it’s printed anywhere on the lens...

I wonder what the extent of testing distribution has occurred... how many people have played with it?

I’m assuming they would all be protected by NDAs, even if Mistral won’t admit to writing them (a NDA on NDAs?)

-Eric

[Mistral75]

I guess if anyone has used the sample lens on a camera, they could get the maximum aperture from the digital readouts, regardless if it’s printed anywhere on the lens...

I wonder what the extent of testing distribution has occurred... how many people have played with it?

I’m assuming they would all be protected by NDAs, even if Mistral won’t admit to writing them (a NDA on NDAs?)

-Eric

I'm not so sure D FA 21 Limited sample lenses are already out for testing. Except by Ricoh Imaging employees of course.

As for NDAs, I have written many but none involving Ricoh Imaging.

[reh321]

Remember, the "Limited" lenses are not gigantic "star" lenses.
The widest aperture is just one of several compromises they juggle to keep the size reasonable.

[TwoUptons]

I'm not so sure D FA 21 Limited sample lenses are already out for testing. Except by Ricoh Imaging employees of course.

As for NDAs, I have written many but none involving Ricoh Imaging.

I wonder if it would be possible in the K-mount as-is to have a change in maximum aperture based on which format camera you had...
If a lens had soft edges wide open on full frame, for example, but was fine on APS-C, could the camera be told to only allow the geometric maximum aperture only on APS-C and stop down a touch on full frame?
Then which would you put on the lens? If it was f2.8 on full frame but f2.5 on APS-C, which would you use on the label?

Not that I'm suggesting specifically that is what was actually done on the DFA 21, just asking if it could be done... are the K-mount lens protocols that sophisticated?

And that's almost exactly the response I would expect if you were under a NDA to Ricoh Imaging

-Eric

[angerdan]

If a lens had soft edges wide open on full frame, for example, but was fine on APS-C, could the camera be told to only allow the geometric maximum aperture only on APS-C and stop down a touch on full frame?

There's the in camera lens correction available for this:
vignetting
diffraction
chromatic abberation

[Belnan]

It's f/4 or brighter since there is a '4' mark on the depth-of-field scale.

I think you are correct, likely f3.?.
Not that it really matters that much. I am wondering if it a similar design to the da 21 limited.