[Sandy Hancock]

So you're saying you would prefer a lens with more characteristic "pixel dust" rather than a super corrected optical formula?

Of course! That is, in essence, the design brief for the entire range of Limited lenses. If Pentax departed from that I would be very disappointed.

A DFA* will come eventually for those who a want a super-corrected, fast wide prime. Meanwhile, the DFA15-30 will have to do.

[torge]

Limiteds are for pixie dust only

[noelpolar]

Limiteds are for pixie dust only

And compact size, metal construction, tactile feel, a dose of quirkyness, visually alluring form....etc etc.

[reh321]

Limiteds are for pixie dust only

And compact size, metal construction, tactile feel, a dose of quirkyness, visually alluring form....etc etc.

The "pixie dust" is there because the "compact size" is unable the provide the 'perfection' that a star lens would deliver by using lots of carefully engineered glass to get rid of any imperpections.

[JPT]

The FA Limited series was supposed to have the following characteristics when Pentax started with the project. This was information from someone involved in the project who gave a presentation at last year's 100-year anniversary events.

Specification characteristics
- The lens should be ready to shoot, with the hood integrated, as soon as the lens cap is pulled off
- The maximum aperture should be f2 or wider
- The lens should be compact, with a filter diameter of 49mm (obviously they broke this requirement for the 31mm already)

Design process
- The objective of the lens design was defined in descriptive terms, not numerical terms. For example, for the FA 77mm "able to depict the glint of a white button on a white shirt"
- Computer modeling was not used in the design process (this was already the norm back in 2000, so it was an unusual decision)
- Results of design iteration were judged by human evaluation of high quality prints

I've never liked the term "pixie dust", because it seems to imply that Pentax has been selling some kind of snake oil, or perpetuate the myth that the lenses were the unrepeatable work of an individual genius. In fact, they were designed quite rigorously by a team, and some of the people who were involved in that process are still with Ricoh Imaging in one capacity or other.

I was interested by the Pentax Forums review of the DFA 85mm review which compared the new lens to the FA 77mm. Aside from holding its ground overall in IQ against the 85mm, the one area where the FA 77mm held a discernable advantage was showing superior gradation in the bright areas of the image. This struck me because it was exactly what the designers intended with the lens. It was no fluke.

As for the new one, I think they will be targeting f2 for the design. Of course, it's possible that they could change the concept of the FA Limited series for the new DFA Limited lens, but I don't think they will reduce the aperture to f2.8. In this day and age, any prime lens with an aperture not wider than a f2.8 zoom is a going to be a hard sell.

[reh321]

The FA Limited series was supposed to have the following characteristics when Pentax started with the project. This was information from someone involved in the project who gave a presentation at last year's 100-year anniversary events.

Specification characteristics
- The lens should be ready to shoot, with the hood integrated, as soon as the lens cap is pulled off
- The maximum aperture should be f2 or wider
- The lens should be compact, with a filter diameter of 49mm (obviously they broke this requirement for the 31mm already)

Design process
- The objective of the lens design was defined in descriptive terms, not numerical terms. For example, for the FA 77mm "able to depict the glint of a white button on a white shirt"
- Computer modeling was not used in the design process (this was already the norm back in 2000, so it was an unusual decision)
- Results of design iteration were judged by human evaluation of high quality prints

I've never liked the term "pixie dust", because it seems to imply that Pentax has been selling some kind of snake oil, or perpetuate the myth that the lenses were the unrepeatable work of an individual genius. In fact, they were designed quite rigorously by a team, and some of the people who were involved in that process are still with Ricoh Imaging in one capacity or other..

I’m sorry to hear you feel that way.

To me, the term “pixie dust” implies that

the design criteria are expressed in words describing the rendition desired {other than in having size size limitations}

instead of having design criteria expressed in numeric criteria, and in pursuing modern goals such as corner-to-corner sharpness,

and in using the design skills of individuals as persons

instead of basing the design on computer modeling - making a lens worthy of the “good old days”.

[JPT]

I’m sorry to hear you feel that way.

To me, the term “pixie dust” implies that

the design criteria are expressed in words describing the rendition desired {other than in having size size limitations}

instead of having design criteria expressed in numeric criteria, and in pursuing modern goals such as corner-to-corner sharpness,

and in using the design skills of individuals as persons

instead of basing the design on computer modeling - making a lens worthy of the “good old days”.

I know the term is used a lot and normally not meant pejoratively. I just think it unnecessarily mystifies they way the lenses were designed and leads some people to question their worth.

It will be interesting to see wherther they use the same way of making the lenses. The fact that they had a event explaining this process last year leads me to think they will use a modern version of the same process this time as well.

It's also worth noting that the DFA* lenses also have a lot of thought put into the rendering. They mentioned in a previous design story that they are careful not to overcorrect those lenses. So I think to some extent it is a philosophy throughout their whole product range to pay attention to subjective aspects as much as measurements.

[TwoUptons]

I've never liked the term "pixie dust", because it seems to imply that Pentax has been selling some kind of snake oil, or perpetuate the myth that the lenses were the unrepeatable work of an individual genius. In fact, they were designed quite rigorously by a team, and some of the people who were involved in that process are still with Ricoh Imaging in one capacity or other.

I was interested by the Pentax Forums review of the DFA 85mm review which compared the new lens to the FA 77mm. Aside from holding its ground overall in IQ against the 85mm, the one area where the FA 77mm held a discernable advantage was showing superior gradation in the bright areas of the image. This struck me because it was exactly what the designers intended with the lens. It was no fluke.

As for the new one, I think they will be targeting f2 for the design. Of course, it's possible that they could change the concept of the FA Limited series for the new DFA Limited lens, but I don't think they will reduce the aperture to f2.8. In this day and age, any prime lens with an aperture not wider than a f2.8 zoom is a going to be a hard sell.

I remember when Minolta used "fuzzy logic" to describe how its metering system worked. It was a wonderful metering system, but I don't want anything "fuzzy" near my photos.
It is inescapably pejorative unless you are talking about children's plush animals...
Intentional softness brought on by lens characteristics is "bokeh", a screwup because my lens is either junk or out of focus is "fuzzy"...

I think f2.8 would be on the slow side for this lens, but I have mixed feelings about speed. The price is already going to be high because it's a Limited lens and it's not the 2000 market any more... I don't want it to be too fast to be too expensive...

-Eric

[dbs]

The D FA 21 ltd is the DA 15 ltd for ff.
It will have ' quirks ' just like the other Ltd's.
As for an updated FA 20 I surmise that thats not possible anymore.( can not get or use the same glass elements and / or dies lost when Japan had the tidal wave ), and other lenses aswell.




Dave

[Mistral75]

I remember when Minolta used "fuzzy logic" to describe how its metering system worked. It was a wonderful metering system, but I don't want anything "fuzzy" near my photos.
It is inescapably pejorative unless you are talking about children's plush animals...
(...)

Fuzzy logic is a mathematical expression, not a marketing one.

Fuzzy logic - Wikipedia

[noelpolar]

Ok... I'm back.... just had to look up "pejoratively"..... I think my wife uses my name pejoratively these days....

---------- Post added 23-12-20 at 06:12 PM ----------

The D FA 21 ltd is the DA 15 ltd for ff.
It will have ' quirks ' just like the other Ltd's.
As for an updated FA 20 I surmise that thats not possible anymore.( can not get or use the same glass elements and / or dies lost when Japan had the tidal wave ), and other lenses aswell.

Dave

Fwiw... the Voigtlander 20/3.5 Color Skopar has really filled this role for me for the last 4 or 5 years ... not sure what I'll do when the limited arrives... of note... can still buy the Skopar new for $599US (weighs 205g)

[Serkevan]

Fwiw... the Voigtlander 20/3.5 Color Skopar has really filled this role for me for the last 4 or 5 years ... not sure what I'll do when the limited arrives... of note... can still buy the Skopar new for $599US (weighs 205g)

The VL 20/3.5 was in my shortlist of UWA lenses that I would be willing to carry around - i.e. pocketable. Either that, one of the old Tamron/Tokina 17mm models, or the Pentax-M 20mm f/4

The 17mm options were optically quite worse so I decided against them unless super cheap (spoilers: no . Cheapest I saw was 150€ or so at the time). I found a good copy of M20/4 for 200€, but the cheapest VL I found back then was about 400€ in K-mount and I'd have to eat a hefty tax as it was in Japan. That made the decision fairly easy

[Rondec]

The FA Limited series was supposed to have the following characteristics when Pentax started with the project. This was information from someone involved in the project who gave a presentation at last year's 100-year anniversary events.

Specification characteristics
- The lens should be ready to shoot, with the hood integrated, as soon as the lens cap is pulled off
- The maximum aperture should be f2 or wider
- The lens should be compact, with a filter diameter of 49mm (obviously they broke this requirement for the 31mm already)

Design process
- The objective of the lens design was defined in descriptive terms, not numerical terms. For example, for the FA 77mm "able to depict the glint of a white button on a white shirt"
- Computer modeling was not used in the design process (this was already the norm back in 2000, so it was an unusual decision)
- Results of design iteration were judged by human evaluation of high quality prints

I've never liked the term "pixie dust", because it seems to imply that Pentax has been selling some kind of snake oil, or perpetuate the myth that the lenses were the unrepeatable work of an individual genius. In fact, they were designed quite rigorously by a team, and some of the people who were involved in that process are still with Ricoh Imaging in one capacity or other.

I was interested by the Pentax Forums review of the DFA 85mm review which compared the new lens to the FA 77mm. Aside from holding its ground overall in IQ against the 85mm, the one area where the FA 77mm held a discernable advantage was showing superior gradation in the bright areas of the image. This struck me because it was exactly what the designers intended with the lens. It was no fluke.

As for the new one, I think they will be targeting f2 for the design. Of course, it's possible that they could change the concept of the FA Limited series for the new DFA Limited lens, but I don't think they will reduce the aperture to f2.8. In this day and age, any prime lens with an aperture not wider than a f2.8 zoom is a going to be a hard sell.

I guess we'll see. To me, the limited are about build quality and small size. I sold my FA 77 and now own the DFA *85 -- mainly because of purple fringing. You could probably fit three FA 77s in one DFA *85 -- and that's not even talking about the hood. The big improvement otherwise with the 85 is in corner sharpness at wider apertures. I own the FA 31 (the only FA limited I currently own) and like it, but once again, it does need to be stopped down some and it fringes pretty fiercely in the wrong situations. I expect those sorts of things to better with the DFA 21.

Having a smaller lens with good flare resistance, excellent colors, and good contrast are the keys here. A stop difference on the maximum aperture isn't going to make or break it. This isn't going to be a lens where you can shoot one eye in focus portraits anyway and high iso capability is good enough on modern Pentax cameras that you'll be able to use this in doors, even if the maximum aperture is f2.8.

[Smolk]

I admit that the small size of the M 4/20mm convinced me on the spot to buy it (but I also paid a good price for it, 60 €). Still, the Limiteds should by definition keep things manageable.
No matter how nice the DFA 85mm - and I just don't want to hear too much about that - it's size, even regardless the price, is an obstacle.

[someasiancameraguy]

I guess we'll see. To me, the limited are about build quality and small size. I sold my FA 77 and now own the DFA *85 -- mainly because of purple fringing. You could probably fit three FA 77s in one DFA *85 -- and that's not even talking about the hood. The big improvement otherwise with the 85 is in corner sharpness at wider apertures. I own the FA 31 (the only FA limited I currently own) and like it, but once again, it does need to be stopped down some and it fringes pretty fiercely in the wrong situations. I expect those sorts of things to better with the DFA 21.

Having a smaller lens with good flare resistance, excellent colors, and good contrast are the keys here. A stop difference on the maximum aperture isn't going to make or break it. This isn't going to be a lens where you can shoot one eye in focus portraits anyway and high iso capability is good enough on modern Pentax cameras that you'll be able to use this in doors, even if the maximum aperture is f2.8.

I don't think either of those perspectives are wrong. The FA limited series is indeed about build quality and compactness too. Your thoughts on the FA 77 are similar to mine. Maybe my copy was bad, but I tried one for 2 weeks and I didn't feel confident delivering the output files to clients.

We will have to wait and see how the 21mm carries the limited name forward.