[angerdan]

Does the Japan price include local sales tax? (10% I believe)

Good point. I updated the table.
Converted with Google, this results in following EUR price with 20% VAT added (in italic is the current EUR price for smc):

• HD FA 31mm: 1291€ (1299€)
• HD FA 43mm: 720€ (703€)
• HD FA 77mm: 994€ (1023€)
  
  
• K-1 II J Limited 01: 3278€ (1775€ for regular K-1 II)

[ThorSanchez]

Some retail prices at launch (in italics within brackets the current price of the smc version retrieved from Ricoh Imaging Japan's online store):

• HD Pentax-FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited: ¥137,800 (¥122,936)
• HD Pentax-FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited: ¥76,800 (¥78,936)
• HD Pentax-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited: ¥105,800 (¥101,750)

• K-1 Mark II J Limited 01: ¥349,800 (K-1 Mark II: ¥258,500; K-1 Mark II Silver Edition: ¥269,500)

Source: Nokishita Camera

Typically, recently the conversion from Ricoh Japan's store pricing to Adorama/B&H pricing is about ¥140 per dollar. So that works out to:

31mm: $984
43mm: $549
77mm: $756
K-1 II J Limited: $2498

[Wheatfield]

Wheatfield: There's a value to me in having FF (or close enough) glass that also have aperture rings; I could use the 77 on my film bodies as well as the K5-II I own to day or the new APS-C body. 77 on crop seems like an awesome portraits focal length. Same as how I use my Sigma 28 on both film and APS-C.

If I wanted the DA 70, and I do think it's good glass, I would buy an SMC version for $300ish USD or less and get better starbursts with my savings. I agree that the M85 isn't the greatest lens although I like it well enough (more on film than digital) and really like the size of the thing. I bought it for the long-end of a three-lens travel lens kit and I think it does pretty well there (although my Tamron 90mm f2.5 macro gets more use).

I'm going to start a little fund for both the HD FA 77 and the K3-3 and hopefully by the end of the year I'll have both in-hand.

Just for you:

These were shot on the K1. Frankly, there isn't much to say between them.

M85 f/2 at f2



FA77 f/1.8 at f1.8



A*85/ f1.4 at f2



D FA* 85/1.4 at f2

[MMVIII]

See them as classic vintage lenses that can be bought new and are fully functional with modern bodies. They have certain qualities that are hard to find in lenses. The finish and built quality is superb. They have the potential of outstanding optical output. The price is reasonable, if not downright cheap for what you get. What is not to like?

Exactly, these are the classic original lenses on whose appearance all the retro-style lenses from Fuji or Olympus want to refer.

[jatrax]

People would like to see genuinely new things. There's nothing wrong with vintage lenses, but slightly modernized versions of them (with all their annoyances like screw driven AF without quick shift) isn't something people get excited about, especially when it means that there won't be any modern equivalent to them (in terms of focal length/max aperture ratio) anytime soon.

Some do. Some don't. Personally I think there are a lot of other things Ricoh should be doing rather than re-developing the 31, 43 and 77. if they can only develop 1 or 2 new lenses per year the FA Limiteds are very, very far down on my list to work on. By updating the coatings (and whatever else they worked on) with these versions they push the need for full new lens development slots for these down the road maybe 5 years at least. Which means they can continue to sell three highly praised lenses without taking up a valuable development time slot.
My guess is that the actual replacements for these will be the same design as the DFA 21mm (DC WR and no aperture ring). So we might eventually get 21, 31, 43, 77, 105 Limiteds. But that is 5 to 10 years away at the current pace of development. Ricoh has a lot of other lenses that need development time before they get to all of those.

[repaap]

Just for you:

These were shot on the K1. Frankly, there isn't much to say between them.

M85 f/2 at f2



FA77 f/1.8 at f1.8



A*85/ f1.4 at f2



D FA* 85/1.4 at f2

Well, I had to look more careful, but there are differences between these photos. Quite subtle, mostly in Bokeh. And towards edges. Even in simple and close focus shot like this. Someone had been careful to match them. But there are things you can’t make like that.

[ehrwien]

1050 Limited

But we've already got that: SMC Pentax-D FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Reviews - D FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[pres589]

Wheatfield: At these sizes, with image compression, and the quality of the monitor I'm seeing those shots on, the M 85 isn't looking that much worse than any of the others. I think it's probably a bit more harsh in how it handled the little blue flowers near the back & out of focus, vs. the D-FA 85 or A* 85. But it isn't exactly glaring (no pun intended) and I don't think it would drive someone away from paying for work that was rendered through that lens. Also seems like blue tones are more saturated with the M 85 than the others. I noticed strong blues through the M 85 when shooting onto color film.

[Wheatfield]

Well, I had to look more careful, but there are differences between these photos. Quite subtle, mostly in Bokeh. And towards edges. Even in simple and close focus shot like this. Someone had been careful to match them. But there are things you can’t make like that.

The post processing for all four went like this: in Photoshop: Auto Contrast, resize, convert to 8 bit sRGB, save as.

---------- Post added Feb 23rd, 2021 at 12:52 PM ----------

Wheatfield: At these sizes, with image compression, and the quality of the monitor I'm seeing those shots on, the M 85 isn't looking that much worse than any of the others. I think it's probably a bit more harsh in how it handled the little blue flowers near the back & out of focus, vs. the D-FA 85 or A* 85. But it isn't exactly glaring (no pun intended) and I don't think it would drive someone away from paying for work that was rendered through that lens. Also seems like blue tones are more saturated with the M 85 than the others. I noticed strong blues through the M 85 when shooting onto color film.

Yeah, the M is actually a pretty decent little lens. I had forgotten how good that little sucker is. I take back all the aspersions I cast on it. There are some real gems in the M line. If you can get your hands on a 150/3.5 it's quite the little sweetheart too, and is a nice focal length on both formats

[pres589]

Wheatfield: Yeah, it's odd, the M 85 seems to attract a lot of negative comments but I never see good proof of why it's so bad. It's not the best optic but it's far from the worst. The M 120 seems pretty interesting as well; I've already got the M 20, M 28 mk2, M 35 f2.8, M 40, M 50 1.4 & 1.7, M 85, and M 75-150. The only lens I don't really love out of them is the M 40; it's so-so wide open and honestly the focus ring is annoyingly small (I knew some folks thought that way before I bought it). I really like the focal length though.

[Wheatfield]

Wheatfield: At these sizes, with image compression, and the quality of the monitor I'm seeing those shots on, the M 85 isn't looking that much worse than any of the others. I think it's probably a bit more harsh in how it handled the little blue flowers near the back & out of focus, vs. the D-FA 85 or A* 85. But it isn't exactly glaring (no pun intended) and I don't think it would drive someone away from paying for work that was rendered through that lens. Also seems like blue tones are more saturated with the M 85 than the others. I noticed strong blues through the M 85 when shooting onto color film.

This should stop you from wanting to spend a pile of money.
All 4 of these were shot at the great equalizer f stop (f8) and are 100% crops.
Do note that this could be all lenses are equal at f/8 or all lenses look equally bad when I shoot with them.

M85



A*85



FA 77



DFA* 85



---------- Post added Feb 23rd, 2021 at 01:19 PM ----------

Wheatfield: Yeah, it's odd, the M 85 seems to attract a lot of negative comments but I never see good proof of why it's so bad. It's not the best optic but it's far from the worst. The M 120 seems pretty interesting as well; I've already got the M 20, M 28 mk2, M 35 f2.8, M 40, M 50 1.4 & 1.7, M 85, and M 75-150. The only lens I don't really love out of them is the M 40; it's so-so wide open and honestly the focus ring is annoyingly small (I knew some folks thought that way before I bought it). I really like the focal length though.

My understanding was that the M40 was pretty much built for the ME/ ME Super, which were very tiny bodies. An ME Super with a 40/2.8 could be carried in a jacket pocket without being overly noticeable. The focus ring takes some getting used to, but on the ME bodies, it's a nice compact lens as a carry around.

[BarneyL]

Ricoh has a lot of other lenses that need development time before they get to all of those.

I dunno. The only obvious gaps in the FF lineup that I see are an UWA prime (so 21mm limited?), a wide fast prime (in 24-28-35mm range) and something like 70-300mm zoom. That's not that much really.

[pres589]

I tried using the M 40 on my Chinon CE-4 this past weekend. I had thin gloves on and it was not fun to focus. I use an imitation DA 40 Ltd hood and it wasn't immediately easy to tell when I was grasping the hood and when I was grasping the focus ring. The M 40 is indeed nice to carry & get in and out of bags on all of my film bodies.

My M 50 1.7 is not nearly so bad to use with gloves on.

[x-country]

Good point. I updated the table.
Converted with Google, this results in following EUR price with 20% VAT added (in italic is the current EUR price for smc):

• HD FA 31mm: 1291€ (1299€)
• HD FA 43mm: 720€ (703€)
• HD FA 77mm: 994€ (1023€)
  
  
• K-1 II J Limited 01: 3278€ (1775€ for regular K-1 II)

I just received my trio and this is what I paid:

FA 43 $578
FA31 $1080
FA77 $798

Now I wait for the 21 mm...

[Wheatfield]

I tried using the M 40 on my Chinon CE-4 this past weekend. I had thin gloves on and it was not fun to focus. I use an imitation DA 40 Ltd hood and it wasn't immediately easy to tell when I was grasping the hood and when I was grasping the focus ring. The M 40 is indeed nice to carry & get in and out of bags on all of my film bodies.

My M 50 1.7 is not nearly so bad to use with gloves on.

The M50/1.7 isn't really that much bigger, is a stop and a third faster, and is a much better lens. IIRC, its about half an inch longer than the 40 and under 3 ounces heavier.