[c.a.m]

I think the DA 70 and FA 77 and for that matter, used copies of the Sigma 85 and FA * 85 will be on the market for a variety of prices that are lower than this lens. For many people, those will make more sense, but the thing I have discovered is that it is pretty dissatisfied with gear that is "good enough" but in the back of your mind you know isn't the best.

As I mentioned earlier, the rationalization for this purchase is that my wife does shoot weddings (despite some of the comments earlier in this thread) and she will be more efficient editing photos if she doesn't have a lens (like the FA 77) that is prone to purple fringing.

Reasonable points, I think. Given the price of the new 85, I'd probably be one of those folks who would be comfortable with the 'good enough' DA 70 or 77 Limited (I have neither). The new lens is bound to be relegated to my dream list.

I'm curious about something on your second point concerning post-processing efficiency. It seems that avoiding purple fringing (or any artifacts) would be a good thing. Considering that 'time is money' (or profit), is this a type of purchase for which a business case of some sort could be made? In other words, for the pro or semi-pro shooter, is it possible to estimate how much time could be saved by using a better lens, and hence to determine a value proposition of the expenditure? (Just wondering -- I don't doubt that you and your wife would make excellent use of the lens).

For pro shooters in general, does the new 85 represent a potential for generating more business and higher profit over, say, the 77 Limited or older FA* 85? This is another aspect besides the benefit of the new lens from an intrinsic image quality POV.

- Craig

---

Last edited by c.a.m; 06-01-2020 at 06:26 PM.

[lesmore49]

A good rule of thumb is never make any logistics decisions without clearing it with the War Department first.

You are an uncommonly wise man.

I have to ask you though, how did you acquire such wisdom ?

Your answer maybe of help to poor wretches out there.

[PentaPrime]

Why do the newer star lenses (50mm and 85mm) go no lower than f/16?

[monochrome]

I look at it this way - The A*85//1.4 gets dropped from my Watch List. There’s a pristine copy in the Marketplace for $1500 including hood and case, so this lens is only $500 more (with tax). Had the A* lens been available a year ago I probably would have bought it - then I couldn’t bought have this one.


That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it..

[OoKU]

Why do the newer star lenses (50mm and 85mm) go no lower than f/16?

The new lenses are designed to meet the requirements of future high-pixel body, small aperture diffraction will be large, meaningless.

[clackers]

I don't think they're that bad, but I wouldn't be surprised if the next year is pretty rough for them.

You can see why Tony thinks they're practically terminal. No coming back:

Nikon Releases Brutal Financial Report, Lays Off 700 in Southeast Asia

He has claimed elsewhere (see his extraordinary Nikon losses video) that Nikon made losses in their last two quarters and refused to report their last quarter on time. Covid especially did not need to happen to Nikon!

[Paul the Sunman]

Why do the newer star lenses (50mm and 85mm) go no lower than f/16?

Two points does not a trend make. But you're right: both non-macro FA 50s go to f/22. I guess tolerance for diffraction has decreased in the intervening years.

The DFA* 70-200 goes to f/22.

[dbs]

Why do the newer star lenses (50mm and 85mm) go no lower than f/16?

Hi PentaPrime.

Only a guess, that extra stop is the difference between a star lens and a good lens in how the designers wish the lens to perform...

Dave

[bertwert]

Why do the newer star lenses (50mm and 85mm) go no lower than f/16?

There's not really much need for any lower... focus stacking and ND filters most likely produce better results than having diffraction kick in too much...

[Wheatfield]

You are an uncommonly wise man.

I have to ask you though, how did you acquire such wisdom ?

Your answer maybe of help to poor wretches out there.

He's really, really, really old.

---------- Post added Jun 1st, 2020 at 08:18 PM ----------

There's not really much need for any lower... focus stacking and ND filters most likely produce better results than having diffraction kick in too much...

Focus stacking is your friend. Find the best aperture for the lens in use and shoot at it whenever possible, using focus stacking to acquire the needed depth of field. It's not unusual for me to do 20 or more exposures of a single landscape scene.

---------- Post added Jun 1st, 2020 at 08:19 PM ----------

Ricoh website now displays the new 85mm:

Product Overview | HD PENTAX-D FA 85mmF1.4ED SDM AW | PENTAX STAR LENS | RICOH IMAGING

HD PENTAX-D FA 85mmF1.4ED SDM AW / Telephoto Lenses / K-mount Lenses / Lenses / Products | RICOH IMAGING

Pretty soon time to move the threads from rumors to reality.
I got the email from my pusher this afternoon.
It's on its way.......

[RobA_Oz]

You can see why Tony thinks they're practically terminal. No coming back:

Nikon Releases Brutal Financial Report, Lays Off 700 in Southeast Asia

He has claimed elsewhere (see his extraordinary Nikon losses video) that Nikon made losses in their last two quarters and refused to report their last quarter on time. Covid especially did not need to happen to Nikon!

"Brutal" is the right word here. What's the bet that Hoya jumps in and buys Nikon, so they can asset-strip their Healthcare products and sell the rest to Ricoh?

Just kidding.

[monochrome]

"Brutal" is the right word here. What's the bet that Hoya jumps in and buys Nikon, so they can asset-strip their Healthcare products and sell the rest to Ricoh?

Just kidding.

It isn’t only cameras. Steppers are awful too.

From 2008 - 2018 Nikon went from 40% of the photolithography stepper equipment for semiconductor manufacturing to 10% market share. ASML now has 80% of the market. Stepper revenue was 1/3 of Nikon’s revenue, and highly profitable - in 2018 it lost 218 Billion Yen.

In 2014 Nikon had nearly 500,000 square feet of manufacturing capacity in Thailand, plus major facilities in Japan. If there is an LBO and breakup, healthcare and the real estate is the prize, especially considering demand to move supply chains out of China. I think they could shrink dramatically and purge all cameras and lenses below Professional and Prosumer grade (the Thailand-made stuff).

Nikon’s camera / lens operation is much too large for Ricoh to buy. Feels to me like Ricoh is taking advantage of competitors’ distress to up their game right now. They predicted this outcome in 2013 when they started downsizing.

[PentaPrime]

The DFA* 70-200 goes to f/22.

Yes, I'm aware. I was more curious about the primes. I have older primes that go down to f/32.

[Wheatfield]

I'm not going to say it's a waste, but it's a different niche. When I first bought into Pentax it was because the brand offered a lot of nice features for the money. Now it's more and more that Pentax offers a lot of nice features, but at comparable prices to other brands who also have nice features.


I'm sure they've done surveys and polls and run the math and they think this is best for the brand, and I won't pretend to know any better. But a lot of their customer base is us folks who bought K-3s and K-70s and K-30s and K-S1s, and not too many of us are going to buy $2000 FF portrait lenses. Hopefully they keep building a decent spread of equipment at different price points, like the 55-300 PLM. If they mainly want to play in the Zeiss end of the pool the user base will get pretty small pretty quickly.

This lens is not being marketed to the APS-C crowd. Should I be unhappy because the 11-18mm lens isn't being marketed to the K1 photographers? My guess is that things will continue as per usual for the APS-C users. In this case, you have access to the DA*55/1.4, which is a pretty decent lens, and not all that expensive. No one is saying you need to buy what for you will be a medium telephoto for portraits. Stick with what is marketed to you, and don't worry about what is being marketed to the next size up until you move into it.

---------- Post added Jun 1st, 2020 at 11:10 PM ----------

Yes, I'm aware. I was more curious about the primes. I have older primes that go down to f/32.

Diffraction wasn't considered a mortal enemy half a century ago.

[repaap]

The new lenses are designed to meet the requirements of future high-pixel body, small aperture diffraction will be large, meaningless.

Please, can you be little more precise at here. How much more, and what would you think is the future? 6 months? 12, 24? Thank you.