[Kunzite]

With the amount of money these things cost, knowing whether the aperture will be suitable for what you want might influence your planning of purchases.

Should I make a point that Asahi Optical should've released all the "critical" information for all the future lenses, in November 2019 - so we could plan better?

Sorry, but this isn't about "I'd like to know more about the lens", but some guy angrily shouting "BS!". I'm firmly in the first case.
The truth is, we do know much more about the lens than before the video. We even know it won't be very fast, being a relatively compact D FA Limited rather than a D FA*. (Pal Jensen mentioned this just before) We have a good guess at its build/feeling. With all this, you can do better planning than before.
And what kind of feedback are they getting? "BS!". Getting more information is bad and makes us angry, that's the message.

Last but not least, does - say - "HD Pentax D FA 21mm f:2.4 Limited DC WR" (as opposed to "HD Pentax D FA 21mm Limited DC WR") tell you everything you need to know if you will buy this lens?

---

Last edited by Kunzite; 05-24-2020 at 03:25 AM.

[Jean Poitiers]

I'd rather stay.
And I'm fine with you staying too - this forum is large enough for us both.

Let me be more precise ... "Go away ..." as in, quit quoting me.

And yes, there's plenty of room on this photography forum, especially for those who never post images.

[Kunzite]

Let me be more precise ... "Go away ..." as in, quit quoting me.

And yes, there's plenty of room on this photography forum, especially for those who never post images.

How do I do that?

Oh, you're supporting your "BS" attack on Ricoh with personal attacks against myself. Nice!
I hoped you'd try to understand or at least acknowledge my point of view. Sadly, I was mistaken.

[Mistral75]

Should I make a point that Asahi Optical should've released all the "critical" information for all the future lenses, in November 2019 - so we could plan better?

(...)

A Romanian remake of Back to the Future.

[Serkevan]

Last but not least, does - say - "HD Pentax D FA 21mm f:2.4 Limited DC WR" (as opposed to "HD Pentax D FA 21mm Limited DC WR") tell you everything you need to know if you will buy this lens?

I doesn't tell *me* but I don't presume it won't influence anyone else. If someone had decided to purchase or save for purchasing a, say, FA 20/2.8 (if they ever appear in their market) because it's the closest thing to an AF, fast UWA prime in K-mount, the D FA 21 being f/2.4 instead of, say, f/4 might give them a "huh, I should probably wait and see" moment.

And yes, I'm pretty certain the lens will be f/2.8 or faster just because of the design goals, but they haven't said it and we don't know how they will decide in the end. AFAIK this is the first time that any lens is revealed in such detail while ignoring the very critical characteristic of the aperture - so it's fair to throw the hands up in the air a bit and go "oh come on!". Things might have fizzled out on the spot if you had let them go.

[Sandy Hancock]

I don't understand the angst about the lack of concrete specifications for this lens. The video was a well-intentioned (and IMHO very welcome) teaser. By the time anyone is asked to pay for a DFA 21 Limited, all will be known.

In the meantime, personally I can cover this approximate angle of view on crop (11-18/2.8, 15/4.0), full frame (15-30/2.8, 20/2.8), 645 (25/4.0), and even the Q (08 zoom), and many others can do the same with an abundance of other options.

I hope this new lens will bring something truly refreshing to the table. We know WR, silent AF and Limited build and aesthetic sensibilities are a given, but a maximum aperture of f/2.0 or faster will really bring home the bacon. But I'm not going to get all banged up about it....

[Kunzite]

A Romanian remake of Back to the Future.

Oops! That should've been 1919.

[sundown]

I'd buy this even at f4

[Serkevan]

I'd buy this even at f4

Honestly I'd consider it too , if it isn't too heavy the rendering, WR and auto-exposure alone will make it worth substituting the M20/4.

---------- Post added 05-24-20 at 05:08 AM ----------

By the time anyone is asked to pay for a DFA 21 Limited, all will be known.

I'm pretty sure some of us are already calculating the finances just in case

[Kunzite]

I doesn't tell *me* but I don't presume it won't influence anyone else. If someone had decided to purchase or save for purchasing a, say, FA 20/2.8 (if they ever appear in their market) because it's the closest thing to an AF, fast UWA prime in K-mount, the D FA 21 being f/2.4 instead of, say, f/4 might give them a "huh, I should probably wait and see" moment.

And yes, I'm pretty certain the lens will be f/2.8 or faster just because of the design goals, but they haven't said it and we don't know how they will decide in the end. AFAIK this is the first time that any lens is revealed in such detail while ignoring the very critical characteristic of the aperture - so it's fair to throw the hands up in the air a bit and go "oh come on!". Things might have fizzled out on the spot if you had let them go.

I never said it won't influence people; this isn't my point at all. I'm not fond of being asked to defend a point I'm not making, nor believe in.

Remember the D FA 70-210? How its "critical" specs appeared incorrectly, as a D FA 70-210 f4 at some point?
And in the past roadmaps, many lenses appeared with focal lengths but not the maximum apertures.
This isn't a first-in-the-world, but rather business as usual.

We're in a weird situation where we all want the same (more information - and then, the lens itself) but have very different approaches.
But don't you see it? Getting angry when Ricoh Imaging is doing what you want - releasing information - is basically telling them to stop releasing information in advance. That's self defeating.

[beholder3]

I really hope they make no BS decision and refrain from making this sexy little limited UWA a heavy lens by adding all the glass beyond aperture F4.

They would really hit everything out of the water if they made it f3.1 or something like it in typical limited quality with quick, precise silent AF.

Wasteful faster, heavier lens would be a let-down for a limited.

A clear 2/3 majority of Pentaxians also do not want this focal length faster than f2.8.

[Serkevan]

I really hope they make no BS decision and refrain from making this sexy little limited UWA a heavy lens by adding all the glass beyond aperture F4.

They would really hit everything out of the water if they made it f3.1 or something like it in typical limited quality with quick, precise silent AF.

Wasteful faster, heavier lens would be a let-down for a limited.

A clear 2/3 majority of Pentaxians also do not want this focal length faster than f2.8.

Eh, all current (and the FA 20/2.8) 20mm/2.8-ish lenses are about 300g so there's hope.

[normhead]

Norm, a friendly warning... don't try to start a war with me. I take no prisoners.

The 4 pieces of information I've mentioned for the D FA 21mm ED Limited WR are facts, communicated to us by Ricoh Imaging, in the presentation video.

And about the APS-C camera, it is a fact that neither of both prototypes presented have any sort of an articulated screen.

About the final product, I'm reasoning why it's highly unlikely it will have an articulated screen; I've seen no counterargument other than "but we didn't see the final product".
I will not accept negligible probability as being equal to high probability.

Kunzite, you did it again.
The arguments in favour
1. Every release since the K-70 has had one.
2. The only versions seen were pre-production, and the tilting screen can be added after the basic camera functions have been resolved.
3. No official announcement has said there won't be a back screen
4. A Pentax official said there would be small changes, but did specify what constituted "small".

I pointed out you only see one side of the issue and ignore factors for the other side, and you do it again in the very next post. You're out of control dude.

I have four reasons for reserving judgment.
You only mentioned one.
So how are you any different than the other crazy people going on about this issue?

I see absolutely no value in all you folks jumping in on this. The camera will be what it will be without your input and your ideas, so what is the value of jumping the gun with conclusions like this?

Because you have some magic threshold for accepting speculative information as proof that you expect the rest to adhere to?

The safe thing here is to wait until it's official and the cameras are rolling off the production line, or there's an official release of the final technical specs. How is your approach better? What benefit is there to all this nonsense?

This is just a pissing match among people who should know better. Where trust me, trust my opinions." is pushed as some kind of religious doctrine and "let's wait and see" is characterized as radical. It's pretty disgusting IMHO.

And for me a big factor in deciding who's knowledgeable and who are the bandwagon flakes.Not one person who's judgement I trust has come out with an opinion one way or the other. And this is definitely one where I've moved a number into the "people I don't trust " list.

[carlb]

Goodness me, for a thread that is about a piece of gear that should be welcome news for a lot of people on this forum, it's all got a bit out of hand and uncivil. Settle down people.......it's just a lens!!!!

Maybe a few of the protaganists need to take a chill pill and go out and take photo's.

[BarneyL]

I'm in favour of shutting down the thread, at least until the heat wears off.