D FA 21 Limited is one of the three.

Sandy Hancock · 04-08-2021, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by OoKU

The aperture value is still quite satisfactory.

Oh, you're such a tease!

OoKU · 04-08-2021, 12:32 AM

With such a filter size and guaranteed optical quality, what aperture do you think is satisfactory?

**Serkevan** · 04-08-2021, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by OoKU

With such a filter size and guaranteed optical quality, what aperture do you think is satisfactory?

Anywhere between f/2.4 and f/2.8 would be plenty for me. Slower than f/2.8 would be a bit disappointing... Not "I'm never buying this", of course, but still.

MMVIII · 04-08-2021, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by OoKU

With such a filter size and guaranteed optical quality, what aperture do you think is satisfactory?

In best case it would round up the FA/HD limiteds with an aperture around f2 (f1.8-2.2)

BarneyL · 04-08-2021, 01:12 AM

Is filter size known?

Prototype SMC 20mm F/1.4 had 77mm

Pancake-like voigtlander color skopar 20mm F/3.5 had 52mm.

Sandy Hancock · 04-08-2021, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by BarneyL

Is filter size known?

The consensus of opinion is 67mm, which is the same as the FA*24/2.0 and FA20/2.8

So a maximum aperture somewhere between those two seems reasonable....

repaap · 04-08-2021, 01:42 AM

Interesting! It is getting closer!

Sandy Hancock · 04-08-2021, 01:46 AM

It might be an expensive few months. I doubt I will able to show any patience when/if the DFA 21/2.x Limited and DA* 16-50/2.8 get a release soon....

thibs · 04-08-2021, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by OoKU

With such a filter size and guaranteed optical quality, what aperture do you think is satisfactory?

Spill it, spill it ! 😁😁😁

house · 04-08-2021, 02:29 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by OoKU

With such a filter size and guaranteed optical quality, what aperture do you think is satisfactory?

For a limited I would prefer optical quality that degrades a bit (in a well controlled and beautiful way!) as you open up to allow faster aperture than very strict * like guarantees would allow. So I'm hoping for f2, with great center sharpness but softish corners that clear up by f4.

In reality I doubt the corners will be as sharp as the recent competition at f4. The lens seems smaller and wont rely as much on software corrections so its a fair trade off.

**Serkevan** · 04-08-2021, 02:46 AM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by house

In reality I doubt the corners will be as sharp as the recent competition at f4. The lens seems smaller and wont rely as much on software corrections so its a fair trade off.

Frankly, for this type of lens I don't much care

, so I very much agree that it's a good trade off... My UWA use seldom requires good corner sharpness, and when it does it's because I'm anyway shooting at f/8 or f/11 because the darned buildings insist on being three-dimensional

The only "but" I could think of, were I a nitpicker, is astro use (I'm guessing coma will be pretty noticeable), but I know I won't be getting an astro-corrected lens here, it's not what it's made for.

MMVIII · 04-08-2021, 02:57 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Serkevan

Frankly, for this type of lens I don't much care

, so I very much agree that it's a good trade off... My UWA use seldom requires good corner sharpness, and when it does it's because I'm anyway shooting at f/8 or f/11 because the darned buildings insist on being three-dimensional

The only "but" I could think of, were I a nitpicker, is astro use (I'm guessing coma will be pretty noticeable), but I know I won't be getting an astro-corrected lens here, it's not what it's made for.

I think this is a very sensible characterisation of such a lens by house and you.
Wide open some smoothness is allowed at the borders, while the center is sharp already. That allows for even more isolation of central object. Somehow a FF character of the GRIII lens, that amazes me with the rendering, sharp but great bokeh. It is somehow wider than the GR, but it could still work.
While it quickly becomes sharp at the borders with a very even performance at f5.6. That is the character of the 20-40 in the wideangle too, and I like the different possibilities this offers.

house · 04-08-2021, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by Serkevan

Frankly, for this type of lens I don't much care

, so I very much agree that it's a good trade off... My UWA use seldom requires good corner sharpness, and when it does it's because I'm anyway shooting at f/8 or f/11 because the darned buildings insist on being three-dimensional

The only "but" I could think of, were I a nitpicker, is astro use (I'm guessing coma will be pretty noticeable), but I know I won't be getting an astro-corrected lens here, it's not what it's made for.

I find edges almost more important for UWA's that for tele. Teles naturally pick things out whilst UWA's show it all. Context tend to become the subject. Tree branches or lines in facades etc. reveal aberrations in a very brutal way when you can't hide the faults in bokeh.The aperture range between say f4 and f11 becomes critical, almost no oof blur at f4 already. At f2 or so you get some oof areas and you start "feeling" the lens a bit and aberrations can form part of the image.

F8 is to late to clear up, shutter speeds become to long in quite a lot of conditions.

**Serkevan** · 04-08-2021, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by house

I find edges almost more important for UWA's that for tele. Teles naturally pick things out whilst UWA's show it all. Context tend to become the subject. Tree branches or lines in facades etc. reveal aberrations in a very brutal way when you can't hide the faults in bokeh.The aperture range between say f4 and f11 becomes critical, almost no oof blur at f4 already. At f2 or so you get some oof areas and you start "feeling" the lens a bit and aberrations can form part of the image.

F8 is to late to clear up, shutter speeds become to long in quite a lot of conditions.

Oh, I understand why you'd want to have the corners pick up quickly - it's just that I personally use my M20/4 for only some specific things... close quarters while hiking, interiors, and architecture. In most of those cases the slight blur that comes from being out of focus and the softness can lead the viewer more to the center of the image - I find the effect similar to the human eye's degradation of IQ around the peripheral view.

With the K-1, f/8 is typically alright in any kind of daylight, particularly with an UWA; 0.3" shutter speed is pretty easy to get right consistently, and I don't really mind ISO 1600 or 3200 either. But of course, I rarely shoot moving subjects with the M20...

EDIT: I forgot to add that where I do find edges important is in lenses around standard length... since I tend to use 28-70mm to shoot landscapes.

repaap · 04-08-2021, 03:27 AM - **1 Like**

I would be quite surprised if edges would not be sharp by f4. It is 'star' lenses which has edges sharp from wide open or a bit stopped down. atleast these new DFA* has.

I dont think hat this new FDA limited will be that much of a compromise. Also 9 rounded blades should give nice smoothness(at close distances) even stopped down to f5.6. even if it is wide lens.

@ f 8 it should be edge to edge sharp and all good. My FA 31 is very sharp from 5.6 to 8 and up.

04-08-2021, 01:12 AM	#1235
BarneyL Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2017 Posts: 899	Is filter size known? Prototype SMC 20mm F/1.4 had 77mm Pancake-like voigtlander color skopar 20mm F/3.5 had 52mm. Last edited by BarneyL; 04-08-2021 at 01:19 AM.

04-08-2021, 03:17 AM	#1244
Serkevan Site Supporter Join Date: May 2019 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,976	Originally posted by house I find edges almost more important for UWA's that for tele. Teles naturally pick things out whilst UWA's show it all. Context tend to become the subject. Tree branches or lines in facades etc. reveal aberrations in a very brutal way when you can't hide the faults in bokeh.The aperture range between say f4 and f11 becomes critical, almost no oof blur at f4 already. At f2 or so you get some oof areas and you start "feeling" the lens a bit and aberrations can form part of the image. F8 is to late to clear up, shutter speeds become to long in quite a lot of conditions. Oh, I understand why you'd want to have the corners pick up quickly - it's just that I personally use my M20/4 for only some specific things... close quarters while hiking, interiors, and architecture. In most of those cases the slight blur that comes from being out of focus and the softness can lead the viewer more to the center of the image - I find the effect similar to the human eye's degradation of IQ around the peripheral view. With the K-1, f/8 is typically alright in any kind of daylight, particularly with an UWA; 0.3" shutter speed is pretty easy to get right consistently, and I don't really mind ISO 1600 or 3200 either. But of course, I rarely shoot moving subjects with the M20... EDIT: I forgot to add that where I do find edges important is in lenses around standard length... since I tend to use 28-70mm to shoot landscapes. Last edited by Serkevan; 04-08-2021 at 03:25 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA 21 or HD DA 21 What's the right price?	brightseal	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	08-13-2019 05:58 AM
I just bought three lenses, I should really sell one, but which one...	dmbaile2	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	01-27-2015 06:42 PM
Wanted - Acquired: FA 43 Limited, DA 21 Limited, DA 15 Limited	jgmankos	Sold Items	0	05-14-2011 10:13 AM
DA 21 LE vs CARL ZEISS DISTAGON T* 21/2.8 ZF	yipchunyu	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	10-06-2009 06:51 PM
One dog. Three portraits. Three different emotions.	Mindaugas	Post Your Photos!	2	05-05-2009 08:33 PM

04-08-2021, 12:03 AM	#1231
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	Originally posted by OoKU The aperture value is still quite satisfactory. Oh, you're such a tease!

04-08-2021, 12:32 AM	#1232
OoKU Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 740	With such a filter size and guaranteed optical quality, what aperture do you think is satisfactory?

04-08-2021, 12:45 AM	#1233
Serkevan Site Supporter Join Date: May 2019 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,976	Originally posted by OoKU With such a filter size and guaranteed optical quality, what aperture do you think is satisfactory? Anywhere between f/2.4 and f/2.8 would be plenty for me. Slower than f/2.8 would be a bit disappointing... Not "I'm never buying this", of course, but still.

04-08-2021, 12:46 AM	#1234
MMVIII Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: EU Posts: 1,121	Originally posted by OoKU With such a filter size and guaranteed optical quality, what aperture do you think is satisfactory? In best case it would round up the FA/HD limiteds with an aperture around f2 (f1.8-2.2)

04-08-2021, 01:23 AM	#1236
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	Originally posted by BarneyL Is filter size known? The consensus of opinion is 67mm, which is the same as the FA*24/2.0 and FA20/2.8 So a maximum aperture somewhere between those two seems reasonable....

04-08-2021, 01:42 AM	#1237
repaap Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,242	Interesting! It is getting closer!

04-08-2021, 01:46 AM	#1238
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	It might be an expensive few months. I doubt I will able to show any patience when/if the DFA 21/2.x Limited and DA* 16-50/2.8 get a release soon....

04-08-2021, 02:12 AM	#1239
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by OoKU With such a filter size and guaranteed optical quality, what aperture do you think is satisfactory? Spill it, spill it ! 😁😁😁

04-08-2021, 02:29 AM - 2 Likes	#1240
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	Originally posted by OoKU With such a filter size and guaranteed optical quality, what aperture do you think is satisfactory? For a limited I would prefer optical quality that degrades a bit (in a well controlled and beautiful way!) as you open up to allow faster aperture than very strict * like guarantees would allow. So I'm hoping for f2, with great center sharpness but softish corners that clear up by f4. In reality I doubt the corners will be as sharp as the recent competition at f4. The lens seems smaller and wont rely as much on software corrections so its a fair trade off.

04-08-2021, 02:46 AM - 3 Likes	#1241
Serkevan Site Supporter Join Date: May 2019 Photos: Albums Posts: 5,976	Originally posted by house In reality I doubt the corners will be as sharp as the recent competition at f4. The lens seems smaller and wont rely as much on software corrections so its a fair trade off. Frankly, for this type of lens I don't much care , so I very much agree that it's a good trade off... My UWA use seldom requires good corner sharpness, and when it does it's because I'm anyway shooting at f/8 or f/11 because the darned buildings insist on being three-dimensional The only "but" I could think of, were I a nitpicker, is astro use (I'm guessing coma will be pretty noticeable), but I know I won't be getting an astro-corrected lens here, it's not what it's made for.

04-08-2021, 02:57 AM - 1 Like	#1242
MMVIII Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: EU Posts: 1,121	Originally posted by Serkevan Frankly, for this type of lens I don't much care , so I very much agree that it's a good trade off... My UWA use seldom requires good corner sharpness, and when it does it's because I'm anyway shooting at f/8 or f/11 because the darned buildings insist on being three-dimensional The only "but" I could think of, were I a nitpicker, is astro use (I'm guessing coma will be pretty noticeable), but I know I won't be getting an astro-corrected lens here, it's not what it's made for. I think this is a very sensible characterisation of such a lens by house and you. Wide open some smoothness is allowed at the borders, while the center is sharp already. That allows for even more isolation of central object. Somehow a FF character of the GRIII lens, that amazes me with the rendering, sharp but great bokeh. It is somehow wider than the GR, but it could still work. While it quickly becomes sharp at the borders with a very even performance at f5.6. That is the character of the 20-40 in the wideangle too, and I like the different possibilities this offers.

04-08-2021, 03:01 AM	#1243
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	Originally posted by Serkevan Frankly, for this type of lens I don't much care , so I very much agree that it's a good trade off... My UWA use seldom requires good corner sharpness, and when it does it's because I'm anyway shooting at f/8 or f/11 because the darned buildings insist on being three-dimensional The only "but" I could think of, were I a nitpicker, is astro use (I'm guessing coma will be pretty noticeable), but I know I won't be getting an astro-corrected lens here, it's not what it's made for. I find edges almost more important for UWA's that for tele. Teles naturally pick things out whilst UWA's show it all. Context tend to become the subject. Tree branches or lines in facades etc. reveal aberrations in a very brutal way when you can't hide the faults in bokeh.The aperture range between say f4 and f11 becomes critical, almost no oof blur at f4 already. At f2 or so you get some oof areas and you start "feeling" the lens a bit and aberrations can form part of the image. F8 is to late to clear up, shutter speeds become to long in quite a lot of conditions.

04-08-2021, 03:27 AM - 1 Like	#1245
repaap Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,242	I would be quite surprised if edges would not be sharp by f4. It is 'star' lenses which has edges sharp from wide open or a bit stopped down. atleast these new DFA* has. I dont think hat this new FDA limited will be that much of a compromise. Also 9 rounded blades should give nice smoothness(at close distances) even stopped down to f5.6. even if it is wide lens. @ f 8 it should be edge to edge sharp and all good. My FA 31 is very sharp from 5.6 to 8 and up.