[reh321]

My copy was strongly decentered at 40mm - the right side was much softer than the left, no matter how far I stopped down. Also the autofocus was inconsistent at infinity - sometimes it would lock and sometimes not.

Thank you for the information.
Hopefully that is a rare problem.

[Smolk]

Yes, I hope so too. It is interesting that user reviews are generally positive of the 20-40mm, but the in-depth review here was critical of its sharpness at 40mm. Was it an isolated case, like above, or does it occur more commonly? For the limited zoom range you'd expect stellar performance, even when not at a * level.

[clackers]

Ok, fair enough. I really don't see any digital camera as a being a collectors item that will have any significant residual value, but I suppose a lot of people wouldn't see the value in my Japanese hand saw collection either.

Yep, this is easy money for Ricoh.

For no extra engineering (it's a custom job by a company run by the ex-Pentax employee who designed the K-3), these will completely sell out their production run for lucrative cash.

Very Japanese. They like this transformer crap. Males of a certain age with deep pockets do it to cars over there.

This will be a hit, sitting in the glass cases of wealthy collectors, there's no chance you'll be able to source one. You'll have to make do with those hand saws.

[thibs]

You'll have to make do with those hand saws.

Ouch. Poor Wheatfield.

[Wheatfield]

Ouch. Poor Wheatfield.

It's OK. I can buy more Scotch with the money I save.

[Smolk]

Caol Isla? Royal Brackla?

[Rico]

These types of updates are just a step backwards it is not forward thinking. For the longest time more than ten years really since the inception of PentaxForum's there was a rallying cry not to alter the FA LTD's because they have a certain "character". That is all this update does is change the "character" of the old version with rounded blades and new HD coatings. Why go through the trouble of updating this way instead of adding benefits like Quickswift focus and getting rid of the aperture ring that is no longer needed in modern DSLR photography like they did more than ten years ago when the DFA 100mm Macro WR which is bargain price wise which includes WR. I don't get where Ricoh/Pentax thinks there is some sort of consumer film using demand to warrant updates like this to film era lenses. I doubt the amount of PentaxForum members that shoot a single roll of film once a year is any where close to 1%. Or the use of an aperture ring for DSLR. Other than old manual lenses with no A setting I have never used the aperture ring shooting DSLR.

With this HD FA LTD update Ricoh/Pentax narrowed what I might purchase in new lenses something I haven't done in more than 10 years excluding the FA43LTD I bought for the K-1.

When I bought the K10 in 2007 I also bought the DA40 and the FA77 in hopes of FF in the future. I immediately regretted not getting the DA70 because the FA77 did not have QuickShift focus. The FA77 is an excellent lens not having the ability to manual focus at will is an obstacle to how I shoot.

I since sold both my FA77 and FA43 in hopes of actual updated DSLR versions one day aka DFA100mm macro wr style. What is the real point of anyone owning the old version to update to the new versions to have basically the same lens. If I buy any new Pentax prime lenses my choices are reduced down to the DFA100macroWR the DA*55 and now with some hope from this thread that someone pointed out the DA70LTD actually performs decently on the K-1 in FF mode. The new DFA50 and 85 are top notch but fit no where into my scope of shooting. Again I don't see how those lenses fit into 99% of the average Pentax shooters life. Pro's certainly with Portrait studios etc but how many of those exist using Pentax.

[repaap]

These types of updates are just a step backwards it is not forward thinking. For the longest time more than ten years really since the inception of PentaxForum's there was a rallying cry not to alter the FA LTD's because they have a certain "character". That is all this update does is change the "character" of the old version with rounded blades and new HD coatings. Why go through the trouble of updating this way instead of adding benefits like Quickswift focus and getting rid of the aperture ring that is no longer needed in modern DSLR photography like they did more than ten years ago when the DFA 100mm Macro WR which is bargain price wise which includes WR. I don't get where Ricoh/Pentax thinks there is some sort of consumer film using demand to warrant updates like this to film era lenses. I doubt the amount of PentaxForum members that shoot a single roll of film once a year is any where close to 1%. Or the use of an aperture ring for DSLR. Other than old manual lenses with no A setting I have never used the aperture ring shooting DSLR.

With this HD FA LTD update Ricoh/Pentax narrowed what I might purchase in new lenses something I haven't done in more than 10 years excluding the FA43LTD I bought for the K-1.

When I bought the K10 in 2007 I also bought the DA40 and the FA77 in hopes of FF in the future. I immediately regretted not getting the DA70 because the FA77 did not have QuickShift focus. The FA77 is an excellent lens not having the ability to manual focus at will is an obstacle to how I shoot.

I since sold both my FA77 and FA43 in hopes of actual updated DSLR versions one day aka DFA100mm macro wr style. What is the real point of anyone owning the old version to update to the new versions to have basically the same lens. If I buy any new Pentax prime lenses my choices are reduced down to the DFA100macroWR the DA*55 and now with some hope from this thread that someone pointed out the DA70LTD actually performs decently on the K-1 in FF mode. The new DFA50 and 85 are top notch but fit no where into my scope of shooting. Again I don't see how those lenses fit into 99% of the average Pentax shooters life. Pro's certainly with Portrait studios etc but how many of those exist using Pentax.

I do kind of agree. I have all FA limiteds and will not propably buy in to these new ones. They did how ever say that they did think of doin more modern versions of FA limiteds but it kind of ruined the 'spirit' of them. I shoot a lot with my limiteds and sometimes I wish they had WR too. Some times DC. Now I could also see that having those things could be change to something completelly new and some might not want that. So better to just enhance them and lift attention and mak room for the new era with DFA 21 limited. Who knows perhaps if DFA 21 is succesfull and people ask more of that in old ones, they might do it? Not sure how many of these they do actually sell, new.


About DFA* primes. I would rise that % from 99 to 75. I have couple of people I follow and see their work on this very forum and also in their Flickr. Some just buy it for because you know they love pentax. Some buy it because they know how to use it and they do, very well. I'd say that probably this 10% of high end is what Ricoh was hoping for. because others will see what it is. what can be done. and it does create good buzz. This line of lenses has been absent and very needed. there will be also more normal, like DFA 35/2 is. and possibly even more like so. The thing is that we have had that. DA 35(plastic) DA 50(plastic) then DA limiteds. we know this. and now some nice rebadges and original Pentax design. This is what we have had. DFA* is something what was DA* but now standad has changed. also for DA*. Things like this will be more. as well as budget Zooms ect.

I'm happy that they went for it. I'm happy they did HD versions and I'd love to have some nice classics more. You know there are very nice lenses and most FA lenses suffer from age already, like FA 20/2.8. Not to mention of that 645 line they have. Update those and bring high grade things more, please. This is what I say. I had for example FA 35/2. nice lens. I was tempted to buy DFA 35/2, but I bought FA 31 instead. Why I was tempted by DFA35? because it corrected 95 % of gripe I had with FA. Still I found MIJ FA 31 and went for that. This and FA 77 which I bought new is only ones that I could think of replacing. I do really like FA 31 rendering. I like all of them actually. I think that HD coating and more rounded blades could fix most of problems I have with these lenses. I like them because of that rendering. But this could also be just 10-30 % of all pentaxians who like that. Some might only be with pentax because of that. So it is not really a small thin. High corrected lenses you can find from any brand, really. and they are some what expensive too. this is the thing, not to be underestimated.

[house]

The HD FA Limiteds are quite good marketing I think. The fact that they are a small "set" of lenses that look very good as a group is quite important to the appeal. The fact that they are also small and jewel like by modern standards makes a fair few who see them think about their huge daily beasts. A lot of the dpreview comments were positive for instance.

New DFA limiteds will be more difficult as it's hard to avoid performance comparisons. Selling small lenses will be difficult as they necessarily contain IQ compromises.

DFA 35/2

You mean HD FA 35 f2 in that post right?

[RobA_Oz]

Irix offers two versions of at least some of its lenses, so there's a precedent of sorts to consider in having an "original" design and an "improved" (perhaps "more robust") design, say with in-lens AF drive and WR. Admittedly, they're selling into a broader market, so the economies of scale may be quite different, but I imagine the folks at Pentax have thought about all that. Haven't they?

[repaap]

The HD FA Limiteds are quite good marketing I think. The fact that they are a small "set" of lenses that look very good as a group is quite important to the appeal. The fact that they are also small and jewel like by modern standards makes a fair few who see them think about their huge daily beasts. A lot of the dpreview comments were positive for instance.

New DFA limiteds will be more difficult as it's hard to avoid performance comparisons. Selling small lenses will be difficult as they necessarily contain IQ compromises.



You mean HD FA 35 f2 in that post right?

Yes. HD FA 35/2.

And, yes. DFA limited will face comparison. As have also FA limiteds faced so far. Some fair some unfair. Question is. Will one find this actually what many has(and has not) found with old FA limiteds. I’m really looking forward of this.

[jatrax]

These types of updates are just a step backwards it is not forward thinking.

I think I must disagree with you.
One of the early investments Ricoh made was in new depositing equipment to replace the SMC process with HD. As far as I know SMC is no longer available. FA Limited's do still sell, there was an announcement of a new production run a few years ago in fact. Evidenced by newer ones in Ricoh boxes. If a new production was needed and the SMC machines are no longer in use then Ricoh has the choice of discontinuing the FA limited line, completely redesigning them to DFA standards or "refreshing" them enough that they can be built with the equipment now in use. They chose to "refresh" them. That allows them to push the need for a redesign down the road at least 5 years.

They are in the process of releasing the new DFA Limited 21mm. I believe that over the next 5 years they will develop replacements for all the FA Limiteds that will match the new DFA 21mm. But it was either a "refresh" or being out of stock for 3 to 5 years. That is I think an easy decision.

[MMVIII]

I also think this new version of the 3 FA limited lenses are a good marketing move.
Actually, I bought my first first hand camera when the Mz-5 came out and it was the FA 43 lim that cought my attention.
It has a lot of similarity to the Contax G system.
Contax G2 Camera Review - The Anti-Rangefinder That's in a Class of Its Own - Casual Photophile
Within the limits of a small but well rounded rangfinder lens selection it would have covered all my needs. But the price was out of reach for a student.

The FA limiteds have the same appeal to cover the most important bases and can maybe draw in people or at least get noticed and maybe make think about having them as a secondary kit, that does not need to live up to a full fledged professional system and cover all possibilities.

I currently own just the DA 20-40 limited and, despite some weaknesses, love the rendering. This lens shows that it is possible to use a DC motor with quick shift and WR, but focus by wire and no aperture ring would be compromising the FA lenses by far more than they would gain. IMO

[phoebus]

.....I currently own just the DA 20-40 limited and, despite some weaknesses, love the rendering. This lens shows that it is possible to use a DC motor with quick shift and WR, but focus by wire and no aperture ring would be compromising the FA lenses by far more than they would gain. IMO

Just checked my wife's 20-40 Ltd: definitely NOT 'focus-by-wire'. A proper mechanical connection, with smooth and precise action.

In my experience, focus-by-wire can be fine when implemented well - the Olympus 300/4 for example has very smooth and precise control. However, the focus control on most of the non-Pro M4/3 lenses I've used is fairly horrible. I've not tried the Pentax 18-50 or 55-300 PLM, so can't judge the Pentax versions. I expect the new DA* 16-50/2.8 to have a good feel, and very fast action in autofocus. Available soon.... .....

[MMVIII]

Just checked my wife's 20-40 Ltd: definitely NOT 'focus-by-wire'. A proper mechanical connection, with smooth and precise action.

In my experience, focus-by-wire can be fine when implemented well - the Olympus 300/4 for example has very smooth and precise control. However, the focus control on most of the non-Pro M4/3 lenses I've used is fairly horrible. I've not tried the Pentax 18-50 or 55-300 PLM, so can't judge the Pentax versions. I expect the new DA* 16-50/2.8 to have a good feel, and very fast action in autofocus. Available soon.... .....

Right! I stand corrected! But I agree, it is the Olympus lenses that tried to resemble the traditional style but have just plastic rings without any mechanical coupling and are just disappointing in this regard.