[dangtrangiabao]

thanks.

I have been shooting longer, but around 2018 I went from a K-50 to a K-1 and decided to actually 'get better' (to the point of deriving some income from photography). It's where I felt a strong shift from hobby to work, I needed to get better and it meant taking things more seriously and less casual which meant studying. 2018-2020 has seen the greatest improvements in my photography than all the years that came before. I think it's quite possible to stay at a certain comfortable level for years if content, duration in photography does not equate progression, progression is made through consciously taking steps.

Anyway, back to the lens in question.

There's been quite a bit of chit chat about this DFA 21 and the associated word 'landscape' frequently being used. I must be the only one that's thinking landscape use is not the primary intended purpose of this lens
I say this because of these two signs;

1) Built in hood

2) It's part of the first stage of modernising the 'FA Ltd' range, which are not pure 'landscape' lenses, if anything more 'portrait' orientated with fast apertures. It's more about 3D pop and subject isolation (could be a person, could be an object) and we heard the speaker emphasis bokeh in is introductory speech.

Any lens that comes from Pentax and is intended for landscape I think would allow for square filters, or at the very least step up rings and not come with a fixed built in hood. Just like the FA31 is superb for portraits it can also take fantastic landscape shots, but its not meant to be a super hardcore landscape lens.

I own the FA43 and FA77, they are my workhorses for event work. I've been so close to grabbing the FA31 on a number of occasions but a few things have held me back, price being an obvious one as well as FoV. 31mm might seem ample, but for some event work moments it's still not wide enough, such as large group shots, environmental portrait work, even the entire wedding party etc. So I've been using other lenses in the mean time to fill this focal length whilst deciding on really what to get next. Now that the DFA 21 is in the works I am very excited as I think it will fill that gap in my event work line up nicely and really put a nail in the coffin for the FA31. Just to be sure I went over older event work where I have used focal lengths close to 21mm to confirm my needs and requirements and I thought perhaps it's worth sharing a few of these 'non landscape' images that I think the DFA 21 is actually going to be really well suited for. Hopefully it's an even faster lens than these examples and the aperture can be wider than these shots to place even more emphasis on the subjects... we'll see;

K-1+HD DA 20-40 (FF Mode)@23mm/2.8










K-1+DA 12-24 (FF Mode)@21mm/4








K-1+DA 12-24 (FF Mode)@19mm/4








K-1+HD DA 20-40 (FF Mode)@23mm






K-1+HD DA 20-40 (FF Mode)@24mm











I'm very excited for the DFA21, it will most certainly be my next lens purchase.

Excellent pictures. Didn't know than uwa lens can be that good at taking portraits

[BruceBanner]

Excellent pictures. Didn't know than uwa lens can be that good at taking portraits

Everything is a portrait lens if yer brave enough

(not my image)

Samyang 7.5mm fisheye

Not sure how much I would use a 21mm in a studio however... but I think it still will have it's uses for capturing 'people moments' and more environmental portraits.

[carlb]

Everything is a portrait lens if yer brave enough

(not my image)

Samyang 7.5mm fisheye

Not sure how much I would use a 21mm in a studio however... but I think it still will have it's uses for capturing 'people moments' and more environmental portraits.

Looks like something by Bruce Gilden??

[Digitalis]

I think we are going to see a "D-FA 21 controls my mind" thread in the future...

I own the FA43 and FA77, they are my workhorses for event work.

I use the FA31 K50 and FA77 - those three have been my work companions for over a decade. Zoom lenses come and go but those three Pentax primes remain.

[BruceBanner]

I think we are going to see a "D-FA 21 controls my mind" thread in the future...




I use the FA31 K50 and FA77 - those three have been my work companions for over a decade. Zoom lenses come and go but those three Pentax primes remain.

[house]

thanks.

I have been shooting longer, but around 2018 I went from a K-50 to a K-1 and decided to actually 'get better' (to the point of deriving some income from photography). It's where I felt a strong shift from hobby to work, I needed to get better and it meant taking things more seriously and less casual which meant studying. 2018-2020 has seen the greatest improvements in my photography than all the years that came before. I think it's quite possible to stay at a certain comfortable level for years if content, duration in photography does not equate progression, progression is made through consciously taking steps.

Anyway, back to the lens in question.

There's been quite a bit of chit chat about this DFA 21 and the associated word 'landscape' frequently being used. I must be the only one that's thinking landscape use is not the primary intended purpose of this lens
I say this because of these two signs;

1) Built in hood

2) It's part of the first stage of modernising the 'FA Ltd' range, which are not pure 'landscape' lenses, if anything more 'portrait' orientated with fast apertures. It's more about 3D pop and subject isolation (could be a person, could be an object) and we heard the speaker emphasis bokeh in is introductory speech.

Any lens that comes from Pentax and is intended for landscape I think would allow for square filters, or at the very least step up rings and not come with a fixed built in hood. Just like the FA31 is superb for portraits it can also take fantastic landscape shots, but its not meant to be a super hardcore landscape lens.

I own the FA43 and FA77, they are my workhorses for event work. I've been so close to grabbing the FA31 on a number of occasions but a few things have held me back, price being an obvious one as well as FoV. 31mm might seem ample, but for some event work moments it's still not wide enough, such as large group shots, environmental portrait work, even the entire wedding party etc. So I've been using other lenses in the mean time to fill this focal length whilst deciding on really what to get next. Now that the DFA 21 is in the works I am very excited as I think it will fill that gap in my event work line up nicely and really put a nail in the coffin for the FA31. Just to be sure I went over older event work where I have used focal lengths close to 21mm to confirm my needs and requirements and I thought perhaps it's worth sharing a few of these 'non landscape' images that I think the DFA 21 is actually going to be really well suited for. Hopefully it's an even faster lens than these examples and the aperture can be wider than these shots to place even more emphasis on the subjects... we'll see;

K-1+HD DA 20-40 (FF Mode)@23mm/2.8










K-1+DA 12-24 (FF Mode)@21mm/4








K-1+DA 12-24 (FF Mode)@19mm/4








K-1+HD DA 20-40 (FF Mode)@23mm






K-1+HD DA 20-40 (FF Mode)@24mm











I'm very excited for the DFA21, it will most certainly be my next lens purchase.

Those are very nice images. Mostly the kind of images where the DA 15 excels. (I understand these aren't DA15 images )

For a uwa prime this translates to fairly unambitious* optics that allow small size. The dfa21 looks large enough to be better optically but I do worry about Pentax letting things slip a bit to much with the limited series. Its a perfect alibi for uncorrected lenses. Not saying limiteds are poor just that they allow a different price performance situation.


* not expensive

[repaap]

Uncorrected? What?! Why! .. sigh.. never mind.

[house]

A comparison two Fuji uwas vs Pentax 15mm to clarify what I'm talking about.








There might be advantages to the Pentax way of doing things but the optics are very likely much cheaper to manufacture. Im aware of the differences in aperture.

[Serkevan]

Uncorrected? What?! Why! .. sigh.. never mind.

As House said, the limited lenses (except for the 35 Macro?) don't have their strong point in incredibly corrected aberrations or oversized glass for supreme corner sharpness wide open.
They are sharp in the center (like any non-terrible lens made in the last eighty years or even longer), contrasty and don't have huge aberration issues, but they aren't super test bench monsters.
This is because the Pareto principle also applies to lens design: it's fairly simple to create a design with "manageable" aberrations and more than enough center sharpness like, say, the different nifty fifty variations... but it's very difficult to remove the last bits of fringing and have super sharpness everywhere. Compare the Nifty with the Fat to see the cost... the D FA* 50/1.4 is amazing in every level, but it's 4 times heavier than the F 50/1.4.

[acoufap]

Everything is a portrait lens if yer brave enough

(not my image)

Samyang 7.5mm fisheye

Not sure how much I would use a 21mm in a studio however... but I think it still will have it's uses for capturing 'people moments' and more environmental portraits.

Of course you can use every lens for portraits. But if you‘re going wide or ultra wide you should be aware that the farer your subjects are positioned from the center the more they are distorted - the wider the lens the more distorted. If that‘s your intent, ok.

It simply may look very ugly if people are standing at the border of the frame showing thick heads, legs, ... . So for portraits a DFA21 at FF you IMO shouldn‘t use too often - at least not photographing groups of people filling the frame. There are pro photographers that don‘t go wider than what a FF 24mm offers. But who knows - the selfie culture may change general perceptions.

[repaap]

A comparison two Fuji uwas vs Pentax 15mm to clarify what I'm talking about.








There might be advantages to the Pentax way of doing things but the optics are very likely much cheaper to manufacture. Im aware of the differences in aperture.

As House said, the limited lenses (except for the 35 Macro?) don't have their strong point in incredibly corrected aberrations or oversized glass for supreme corner sharpness wide open.
They are sharp in the center (like any non-terrible lens made in the last eighty years or even longer), contrasty and don't have huge aberration issues, but they aren't super test bench monsters.
This is because the Pareto principle also applies to lens design: it's fairly simple to create a design with "manageable" aberrations and more than enough center sharpness like, say, the different nifty fifty variations... but it's very difficult to remove the last bits of fringing and have super sharpness everywhere. Compare the Nifty with the Fat to see the cost... the D FA* 50/1.4 is amazing in every level, but it's 4 times heavier than the F 50/1.4.

Well, these things one should not compare like this. It is absurd. One lens is designed to do some things one way. Limited are knowN for a lot of things. When was that Fuji WA created? Was it to be done with what precicely in mind. When were FA limiteds done, what were they designed for to do?

And as been said, not only by lens designer him self, DA* and DFA* lenses are made with uncompromised performance, where as limiteds are done for special characteristics. Choose what you prefer. Stop Mumbling about corner to corner performance whereit was not designed to be at the first place, please. There was my ’sigh’ never mind phrase in longer version and it remains to be seen what they will do when Ricoh is with Pentax and we are indeed living 2020. I still think that they are going for the spirit of old FA limiteds, which a lot of people do love and use still.

---------- Post added 05-17-20 at 13:15 ----------

Of course you can use every lens for portraits. But if you‘re going wide or ultra wide you should be aware that the farer your subjects are positioned from the center the more they are distorted - the wider the lens the more distorted. If that‘s your intent, ok.

It simply may look very ugly if people are standing at the border of the frame showing thick heads, legs, ... . So for portraits a DFA21 at FF you IMO shouldn‘t use too often - at least not photographing groups of people filling the frame. There are pro photographers that don‘t go wider than what a FF 24mm offers. But who knows - the selfie culture may change general perceptions.

’Rules are made to be broken’ atleast in the field of art

[Rondec]

As House said, the limited lenses (except for the 35 Macro?) don't have their strong point in incredibly corrected aberrations or oversized glass for supreme corner sharpness wide open.
They are sharp in the center (like any non-terrible lens made in the last eighty years or even longer), contrasty and don't have huge aberration issues, but they aren't super test bench monsters.
This is because the Pareto principle also applies to lens design: it's fairly simple to create a design with "manageable" aberrations and more than enough center sharpness like, say, the different nifty fifty variations... but it's very difficult to remove the last bits of fringing and have super sharpness everywhere. Compare the Nifty with the Fat to see the cost... the D FA* 50/1.4 is amazing in every level, but it's 4 times heavier than the F 50/1.4.

I don't shoot APS-C as much these days, but my impression is that the DA 35, 40, and 70 are all nicely corrected and have excellent edge sharpness wide open. I haven't used the 21 and the 15 definitely has soft corners wide open, but I would struggle to paint the line up with broad strokes.

The FA limiteds were created for film and have a different ethos, but I don't think the design choices made with them had anything to do with money savings but more about creating lenses that have smooth in focus/out of focus transitions and beautiful out of focus rendering.

[Serkevan]

I don't shoot APS-C as much these days, but my impression is that the DA 35, 40, and 70 are all nicely corrected and have excellent edge sharpness wide open. I haven't used the 21 and the 15 definitely has soft corners wide open, but I would struggle to paint the line up with broad strokes.

The FA limiteds were created for film and have a different ethos, but I don't think the design choices made with them had anything to do with money savings but more about creating lenses that have smooth in focus/out of focus transitions and beautiful out of focus rendering.

Oh, they are nicely corrected for sure, my point is that they aren't "top of the charts" in that regard (and they don't need to, IMO), compared to other behemoths. When I say they "don't have super sharp corners wide open" I'm entirely in the realm of splitting hairs - compared to things like the D FA* 50/1.4.

As for cost, I agree; I mentioned the word in the context of the Star lenses (or other manufacturers' heavily corrected ultrasharp lenses) incurring a design cost to get that extra performance.

I mean, I'm super happy with the M20/4 (which has terrible pixelpeep corners) and with the 77 Limited... I haven't even been bothered by the purple fringing that some people want to slam it for

[BruceBanner]

Of course you can use every lens for portraits. But if you‘re going wide or ultra wide you should be aware that the farer your subjects are positioned from the center the more they are distorted - the wider the lens the more distorted. If that‘s your intent, ok.

It simply may look very ugly if people are standing at the border of the frame showing thick heads, legs, ... . So for portraits a DFA21 at FF you IMO shouldn‘t use too often - at least not photographing groups of people filling the frame. There are pro photographers that don‘t go wider than what a FF 24mm offers. But who knows - the selfie culture may change general perceptions.

D FA 21 Limited is one of the three. - Page 15 - PentaxForums.com

^ I show samples of past work between 19-24mm, this is the kinda stuff I'm talking about. I'm hoping the DFA21 will go a step further, faster than f4 and offering smoother in and out of focus areas, better rendering of bokeh etc.

[house]

My comment was a response to this by BruceBanner:

There's been quite a bit of chit chat about this DFA 21 and the associated word 'landscape' frequently being used. I must be the only one that's thinking landscape use is not the primary intended purpose of this lens

My comment was basically saying that I think that it's likely that the dfa20 is better corrected than the previous limiteds and hence better suited to landscape. But I do acknowledge that Bruce might be correct because the limiteds (talking DA's as the FA's are so old that you can't really compare) have the performance characteristics he describes. Unfortunately for me a DA15 for FF will be money down the drain but I have hopes that it will have different compromises.

We have no info about this but do people think the dfa21 was always a limited or that they decide somewhat down the line what the designation it will have. In the video they suggested the old mythical design process of evaluating prints. Do you think this is marketing talk or the main process of coming up with the optical design?

It must be critical for them to choose what category the lens will belong to. DFA or DFA limited in this case. Naturally the limiteds will be more expensive and have better internet buzz but only some can quality. Since many chinese brands now produce limited style barrels and Fuji has also taken up a similar style do you think this will make the ltd price tag a harder sell without cleaning up the aberrations?

D FA 21 Limited is one of the three. - Page 15 - PentaxForums.com

^ I show samples of past work between 19-24mm, this is the kinda stuff I'm talking about. I'm hoping the DFA21 will go a step further, faster than f4 and offering smoother in and out of focus areas, better rendering of bokeh etc.

I think you are basically guaranteed to have a lens perfect for your needs. It won't come cheap though.

I forget do you have the DA15? I really love that lens for environmental "portraits" (i really just mean people doing stuff). When comparing IQ between the 12-24 and the 15 the 12-24 has better resolution but lower contrast and some colour gradation just don't come through. The DA has more resolution in the absolute center and shows even the most subtle colour gradations. The corners have a very ugly smear and resolution is lost quicky as you leave the center.