[Serkevan]

I cannot see many people buying this lens for an APS-C camera.
From those who would, I cannot see many of them would afford it yet be unable to upgrade from K-5IIs or older cameras.
And I don't think there will be a single person wishing to buy it for an *istD-series camera.

Agreed 100%, this lens is going to be bought by K-1 owners first and foremost I think.
I was just following the same logic train of "all K-mount cameras"... and extended it to properly include the KX, KM and K2 .

[repaap]

Thanks for your analysis! Your way of thinking here is close to mine.

To start with, each of us can answer these 3 questions:

1. How have I bought Pentax
2. Why (on Earth) am I still using it?
3. If I was given tons of money, would I stay with Pentax or switch the system?

6 years ago in May I got my first "serious" camera, and that was Pentax K-5 ii s + DA 18-135. For money I had I could buy either new APS-C offerings from Canon / Nikon or may be even a used full-frame like 6D with some used prime, but I was young still with hair on my head, afraid of buying a second-hand camera and did't understand using primes. My main reasons for Pentax were:

• Durability. Mechanical things don't live long and prosper in my hands and Pentax is forgiving.
• Colour science. Pentax has that natural and neutral colours many of us like so much.
• Lenses rendering. I love that Pentax kind of rendering and just can't make myself love some other kinds that look different (sorry, Fuji).

After 6 years I'm still there, with K-1, 3 Zeiss lenses and 2 of 3 FA lims in direct access (thanks to an ex-colleague who gives me his 77 when I need it). I don't think it's an unique story, guess many of us think and feel more or less similar.

Trying to think like Pentax reps, I guess their main goals were (at the time of K-1 entering the market) these:

• Keep current Pentax users in the camp. In order to succeed they had to offer the same basic functionality that could be found with other brands, so we got 3 new "holy trinity" zooms and a 150-450. D FA * series lies within the same strategy: to offer modern, technically perfect, clinical lenses sharp as... something not always associated with sharpness wide open. Something like Sigma Art (buy the way, is there anything artistic about them?) but with Pentax weather sealing and coating. So we have a really perfect lens (by the way, DPReview sample gallery with D FA * 50 was one of their best that year) that now costs less than many of competitors (look at Canon R 50 1.2 and Panasonic 50 1.4 prices). And the fact that shots with it are a bit dull and practically indistinguishable with its rivals - well, we live in tough times. From the other hand, I don't think these modern lenses will attract many new users to Pentax camp because they can be found just everywhere, they just don't have to buy Pentax to shoot with them.
• Attract new users. As I see it, Pentax should offer something unique, which cannot be found elsewhere. Here we have that mix of durability and Pentax colours I wrote about which are still there, and one of the components of this are FA lims which give that look and rendering so many of us love so much. Here we have an announcement of D FA 21 lim, I hope new versions of 3 current lims will follow plus something like D FA 115 (+- 20) lim. I'm just very glad that they understand the need of lims development.

And in the end here are some critical thoughts on Pentax strategy and opinions of fellow forum members:

• I see Pentax audience to be primary enthusiasts like me fallen in love with Pentax colours and rendering, landscape / astro photographers and travel photographers (both camera and lenses can survive jungles, salty water drops, sands and so on). But 1 new dedicated landscape lens for the last 5 years (a 15-30 zoom) is not a nice marketing move. In a year or 2 we will have a D FA 21 lim, thanks for that. But for wider primes you need to buy something from 3rd party manufacturers like Samyang of Irix... With Canon, Nikon and Sony you have more native options and / or high quality primes from Sigma (autofocus), Zeiss and modern Samyangs. And also now there's Panasonic on the market with practically Pentax philosophy (robust built, high quality cameras and lenses, natural colours, weird autofocus system) pared with Sigma lenses for L mount.
• Lens lines. It's an interesting situation here, with any other manufacturer there's a choice between modern 1.2-1.4 primes and modern 1.8 primes. With Pentax there's a choice between modern 1.4 primes and film era like 1.8 primes (lims), and I don't think there will be a line of (relatively) cheap modern 1.8 prime offerings from Pentax in near future. Personally I don't see any problems here.
• K-1 as an all-around camera. In my opinion, one is not. You can shot everything with K-1 including sport, flying birds and so on, but there are other offering on the market at more or less the same price point that have better autofocus, buffer, video and in general make life easier than with K-1. I would rather name Sony A7 iii and Nikon Z6 as all around cameras.
• Lens selection. Sony is the best, Canon and (may be) Nikon will follow soon with modern Sigmas and Samyangs available for them, also you can mount practically everything with manual focus on mirrirless cameras (there's even Sony E to Nikon Z adapter to mount loxias and Voigtländers on Nikons). From the other hand, no adapter to mount Pentax lenses to something else with autofocus.
• Price point. With Pentax - practically no 3rd party offerings and no cheap (like 1.8 primes) native lenses. On the other hand, now D FA * 50 costs less than competitors, hope in a year after D FA * 85 enters the market it will be the same with it, too. But man, for something like 1000 USD you can buy 3 modern Samyang primes for Sony E (75, 45 and something like 24) altogether. Full frame and autofocus. These lenses resembles greatly DA lims for Pentax APS-C - compact, modern and nice (and not with the widest apperture possible). So Pentax are either for these for like lenses with character like lims or these who need and can afford the best figh quality modern optics. For these who need modern but not pricy lenses like 1.8 primes - they'd better go with Sony or Canon or Nikon. That's the reality.

While, I think that This kind of discussion should have another thread...I do agree. Only downside would be losing what one has with Pentax. Quite francly, if Image quality is any kind of consern, Pentax can deliver. It always has. After a while, if oneisjust shooting with those cheap and good enough Samyangs(if they get a good copy)/Sigma, there is no reason to choose any brand/ be ’loyal’ to it, unless you get to be in some sort of sponsorship. That is that.

Many will end up with atleast couple OEM lenses and if they want absolute the best, it is usually topgrade and it will cost some.

While I was thinking of Panasonic or Sigma FP for my next photography& video tool I bumped in comparison of lenses for Panasonic. Many did think that 24-105 was okay for what it is, but many lenses are way too expensive for what it is, so Sigma would be the best. They did compare 24-70/2.8 and 24-105/4 and for that price there is a lot in lenscorrection and what not that Just made my belly turnaround. It is mainstream, or a Lot is heading that way. But having these beautiful lenses that are corrected as is/designed to look good out of the box, it make me stay. If I pay for the quality, I want quality. I believe that there are some who does like that too.

Someone said about Limiteds being a great excuse for making compromises in lens design. I’d say thesetechnical marvels(lenses for mirrorless desing) are even better excuse, and you pay the same if not more anyway.

[Wheatfield]

I'm correct, you're the one who's wrong. I said it can be used on every PK-mount camera.
You mean something different, the support of all functions. With very few cameras aperture control isn't possible.

You seem to think loss of aperture control is losing a minor function. Many people would disagree with that.
Being able to mount a lens is not the same thing as being able to effectively put the lens into use.

[Wheatfield]

Yes! I think this is what they are doing, my only hope is such clientele still exists. I've always been impressed with Pentax lenses, in some ways I wonder why they are not just making these lenses for all brand bodies and just be a glass maker? Would that be better for them or company suicide?


.

Such clientele will always exist. What no longer exists is the clientele that buys low end and inexpensive new camera equipment. They are heading off to cell phone land. What is not available to Pentax is the mass market that allows reasonable priced good new equipment to flourish. That requires sales volume to offset limited unit profitability.
Nope, they have found their niche. It isn't especially volume dependent, and it really isn't even customer dependent.
This is a Field of Dreams moment, where if you build it, they will come.

---

Last edited by Wheatfield; 05-30-2020 at 09:46 AM.

[angerdan]

You seem to think loss of aperture control is losing a minor function. Many people would disagree with that.
Being able to mount a lens is not the same thing as being able to effectively put the lens into use.

No, i'm not. I mean what i wrote. But if someone buy's a f1.4 lens for $2k, how big's the chance he don't use f1.4 ?
First you have to separate between the meaning of function and using.
Then you know the difference an can see that bertwert's post isn't true.
The D FA* 85mm can be used on all PK-bodies.
The electromagnetic aperture control is available on all current cameras. Just a few models don't support aperture control but can use the lens with all other functions.
And with shutter speed up to 1/8000s, situations up to EV14 can be shot without overexposure.
Modern Photography/Exposure tables - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

[Serkevan]

No, i'm not. I mean what i wrote. But if someone buy's a f1.4 lens for $2k, how big's the chance he don't use f1.4 ?
First you have to separate between the meaning of function and using.
Then you know the difference an can see that bertwert's post isn't true.
The D FA* 85mm can be used on all PK-bodies.
The electromagnetic aperture control is available on all current cameras. Just a few models don't support aperture control but can use the lens with all other functions.
And with shutter speed up to 1/8000s, situations up to EV14 can be shot without overexposure.
Modern Photography/Exposure tables - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

And how big is the chance they buy a 2000€, 85mm f/1.4 lens that is heavier than the camera just to use it on an APS-C camera? Like Sandy said, this is an argument for the sake of an argument.

It's as if I said that a Takumar can be used without adapter because you can just hold the lens in front of the camera.
Or that a D FA 150-450 can be used on a Pentax MX.

[FozzFoster]

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[normhead]

And how big is the chance they buy a 2000€, 85mm f/1.4 lens that is heavier than the camera just to use it on an APS-C camera?

You do realize many bought FA*85 1.4s and 77 1.8 lenses to use on AP-c?

If you're an APS-c portrait shooter, the new 85 should be just as interesting as it is to an FF shooter.
I'm not convinced every portrait studio has gone full frame.

[zapp]

DFA 50 needed a tele brother in the family. That’s the 85. The lens is a statement by Pentax, showing where they see the brand and the business. It’s big, it’s heavy, it’s great. The whole line of FF lenses tells the same story. Serious, competitive, fun to work with. That is Pentax FF for the years to come. The 645 should ask questions right now.

[Wheatfield]

No, i'm not. I mean what i wrote. But if someone buy's a f1.4 lens for $2k, how big's the chance he don't use f1.4 ?
First you have to separate between the meaning of function and using.
Then you know the difference an can see that bertwert's post isn't true.
The D FA* 85mm can be used on all PK-bodies.
The electromagnetic aperture control is available on all current cameras. Just a few models don't support aperture control but can use the lens with all other functions.
And with shutter speed up to 1/8000s, situations up to EV14 can be shot without overexposure.
Modern Photography/Exposure tables - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

I agree with Sandy, post #116, on this subject.

Answer this, since your entire debate revolves around it: If someone is buying an f1.4 lens for 2K, how big's the chance that he will use it exclusively at f1.4?
After that, we can agree to disagree. I'm not seeing much use for a lens that has no aperture control.
I am seeing the difference between can be used and is useful.
As, I expect, is bertwet.
What you seem to be implying is that Ricoh may as well have saved us a few hundred dollars and just not bothered with an aperture and all the controllers and motors that go along with it, since anyone who buys it will always be using it at f1.4.

Boriscleto

[Serkevan]

You do realize many bought FA*85 1.4s and 77 1.8 lenses to use on AP-c?

If you're an APS-c portrait shooter, the new 85 should be just as interesting as it is to an FF shooter.
I'm not convinced every portrait studio has gone full frame.

The point is that, if you argue that having a lens stuck at f/1.4 is still technically usable, then you don't deserve a lot in the way of logical arguments.

In a more serious note I would argue that spending an extra 1000 bucks on corner sharpness is not really efficient in APS-C land; the FA* 85 and FA77 will do a job almost as good - if not indistinguishably good - for a fraction of the price. Sure, the lens will be gorgeous in crop mode anyway but you're throwing away a lot of the expensive bits .
On another note, a lightly used K-1 won't be much more expensive than a KP (and will probably be cheaper than a K-new); might as well make the D FA* feel right at home.

[bertwert]

I am seeing the difference between can be used and is useful.
As, I expect, is bertwet.

Exactly. I can use a magnifying glass on my camera by holding it in front of the lens mount. Is it useful? Not really.


On second thoughts, I might just go try that...

[normhead]

The point is that, if you argue that having a lens stuck at f/1.4 is still technically usable, then you don't deserve a lot in the way of logical arguments.

In a more serious note I would argue that spending an extra 1000 bucks on corner sharpness is not really efficient in APS-C land; the FA* 85 and FA77 will do a job almost as good - if not indistinguishably good - for a fraction of the price. Sure, the lens will be gorgeous in crop mode anyway but you're throwing away a lot of the expensive bits .
On another note, a lightly used K-1 won't be much more expensive than a KP (and will probably be cheaper than a K-new); might as well make the D FA* feel right at home.

I generally avoid this kind of discussion.

A lightly used K-P will still be quite bit cheaper than a lightly used K-1. You can play this kind of game all night You can get a lightly used K-P for 1/4 the price of aK1 ii and use the extra money for the lens. It goes on forever.

In a more serious note I would argue that spending an extra 1000 bucks on corner sharpness is not really efficient in APS-C land; the FA* 85 and FA77 will do a job almost as good

I would argue it's the reduce CA and smooth out of focus areas and transitions not corner sharpness that are the issues. When the DFA 50 1.4 came out I looked at the DA* 55 1.4. I can see the difference. The out of focus areas aren't as smooth. Based on the 10 or so images I take a year the price difference wasn't worth the 50. If I'm shooting a couple portraits a week , 100 a year and maybe 5000 images a year and every one of my portraits looks better because I used the 50 or 85, that's building quality into my work that can only be achieved one way. The cost is divided into a lot more opportunities and it's cheaper per image.

There is nothing inherently efficient or inefficient about the cost of a lens per se. That can only be based on expected personal value and usage, not by looking at the lens. The cost of my DA 35 2.4 per image is very high because I don't like it and rarely use it. It cost me $200, but it wasn't an efficient use of my money, per image.

My DA*60-250, was $1200, but a much more efficient use of my money given it's 10 years old, and I've probably taken 25,000 images with it. And again, looking at our Sigma 18-250, its the out of focus areas and transitions that make every image I've taken with it better compared to the Sigma. We eventually gave the Sigma away, it wasn't a bad lens, unless you have something better. Then it's weaknesses are readily apparent in every shot.

It's alway wise to avoid the scenario I run into with my Sigma 70-300 images. Once I got better lenses all the images taken with it were throw aways. They were only ever good because I didn't understand what was possible. I have images on my hard drive that are blurry to barely acceptable, but would have been stunning with a better lens. You don't get those opportunities back. If what you are doing is portraits, you're going to do better with a lens designed for the purpose. And it's even more critical on APS-c than it would be on FF. With APS-c you magnify those aberrations.

[bertwert]

Exactly. I can use a magnifying glass on my camera by holding it in front of the lens mount. Is it useful? Not really.


On second thoughts, I might just go try that...

Okay, it's as bad as I thought.... Much better results can be had with a pinhole...

[universalfocus]

Actually I was shocked a bit when I read about the price first, I expected something around 1.500 Euro (maybe it will settle there after a while),


After thinking over it a bit and considering how I could pay off my K-1, how much longer I use lenses compared to cameras and where I´ve been 10 years ago equipment wise, it might be a good aim to save for if you really want it.