[texandrews]

Let's try to chilly this down a bit, please. Thread bans for all offenders if this continues. It's just unnecessary for these things to get heated.

One more time (yes, again I repeat repeat myself myself again): Do not give offense, and if offended, walk away.

[reh321]

The 55/1.4 was simply atrociously slow. It was good for still lifes and landscapes, but not for anything that had a tendency to move. Even in the studio, where subjects tend to stay still, I had at best a 50% hit rate because of slow AF. I did better focusing manually.
And that made it inadequate. If they had sold it as a manual focus lens and dropped the price a hundred bucks it would have been fine.

Regarding standard lenses, full frame users have one very very good choice that is large, cumbersome and expensive, and a 1980s design that, while it says f/1.4 on the bezel needs to be stopped down to f/4 before it starts to get good. I'm good with the standard lens choices in full frame.
I like the FA*50/1.4, but as a carry around lens, I can see where it would be a problem.

In APS-C Pentax users get an f/1.8, f/2, f/2.4 and an f/2.8 as their standard lens choices, the first two being designs from the 1990s.
Those four lenses may look good to you, but where is the fast standard f/1.4 lens?

Right, we already have four choices, why do we need another one?
If we spend all our time stopped down to f/5.6, then there is no need, but if one wants something with a wider aperture, it's move to another brand time.

I’m basically using Takumars with my K-30 now, but it is long past time for Pentax to put their ‘solenoid problem’ behind them by having an affordable KAF4 option for each choice. Yes, the problem does occur often enough with the K-70 that it still generates business for the replacement industry and still hovers over that tier - and a ‘permanent’ solution is so simple.

[Rondec]

The 55/1.4 was simply atrociously slow. It was good for still lifes and landscapes, but not for anything that had a tendency to move. Even in the studio, where subjects tend to stay still, I had at best a 50% hit rate because of slow AF. I did better focusing manually.
And that made it inadequate. If they had sold it as a manual focus lens and dropped the price a hundred bucks it would have been fine.

Regarding standard lenses, full frame users have one very very good choice that is large, cumbersome and expensive, and a 1980s design that, while it says f/1.4 on the bezel needs to be stopped down to f/4 before it starts to get good. I'm good with the standard lens choices in full frame.
I like the FA*50/1.4, but as a carry around lens, I can see where it would be a problem.

In APS-C Pentax users get an f/1.8, f/2, f/2.4 and an f/2.8 as their standard lens choices, the first two being designs from the 1990s.
Those four lenses may look good to you, but where is the fast standard f/1.4 lens?

Right, we already have four choices, why do we need another one?
If we spend all our time stopped down to f/5.6, then there is no need, but if one wants something with a wider aperture, it's move to another brand time.
To get a fast standard when I was shooting APS-C I had to buy into a different brand, something I was happy to do because I could both afford it and because the Fuji equipment ran circles around what Pentax had on the market (I had one of the craptastic K5's that was unrepairable) and the Fuji lenses are gems that are head and shoulders ahead of the Pentax APS-C lenses. For me, the real eye opener with Fuji was getting equipment that actually worked as intended, something I had never had before in a digital ILC camera.
Since giving up on the Pentax APS-C format as being inadequate, I only had to wait a year and a half to get what I wanted in that particular angle of view, though I still use the Fuji when I want something portable.

I can make a good picture with anything, including a shoebox with a sheet of film at one end and a pinhole at the other, but this doesn't mean I have to like inadequate equipment. It just means I have to work around it's failings.
As a Pentax user for some 35 years, I've gotten quite good at that.

I feel like the DA *55 is a tough portrait lens. I have only been consistently able to focus it with live view -- facial recognition mode. It works decently there, but otherwise, it focuses everywhere but on the eyes. Tip of the nose, hairline are all possibilities. It is sharp enough when it locks on right, but that doesn't happen.

[Wheatfield]

I’m basically using Takumars with my K-30 now, but it is long past time for Pentax to put their ‘solenoid problem’ behind them by having an affordable KAF4 option for each choice. Yes, the problem does occur often enough with the K-70 that it still generates business for the replacement industry and still hovers over that tier - and a ‘permanent’ solution is so simple.

A KAF4 option would be good, but what they need to do is come up with a reliable solenoid for cameras that use them, and to stop using the solenoids entirely going forward.
Changing the lens mount to one that is not functional with an entire class of cameras would be something of a slap in the face for users of those cameras.

[biz-engineer]

A KAF4 option would be good, but what they need to do is come up with a reliable solenoid for cameras that use them, and to stop using the solenoids entirely going forward.

Not any time soon, out of my 9 D-FA lenses, only one is K-AF4, meaning my 8 other lenses will stop working with newer body. It will take 20 years until those lenses are all being replaced by K-AF4 lenses, so that Ricoh can release a K-AF4 only camera body. Ricoh should have made all their new D-FA lenses K-AF4 already in 2016, now it's took late to switch to a K-AF4 body without aperture lever. Only 3 lenses are K-AF4: D-FA* 50 1.4 was the first one, then D-FA*85 and D-FA 70-210.

[Wheatfield]

I feel like the DA *55 is a tough portrait lens. I have only been consistently able to focus it with live view -- facial recognition mode. It works decently there, but otherwise, it focuses everywhere but on the eyes. Tip of the nose, hairline are all possibilities. It is sharp enough when it locks on right, but that doesn't happen.

I tend to blame the inability to focus on an eye on the focus sensors themselves being too big and too approximate. I have a similar problem with the K1 and FA*85/1.4 if I shoot wide open.
At least it focuses quickly enough that it only takes a small amount of care to get it right.
My problem with the 55 was that it was so slow to AF that any subject movement was enough to throw the AF into hunt mode, which made getting fleeting expressions between difficult and impossible.
I also found the bokeh to be on the busy side, so it wasn't much good as an f/1.4 lens if there was anything in the background.
As an f/4 or slower product or landscape lens it was good enough, but I didn't get the use out of it that I thought I would in the studio.
It just wasn't there.
I bought the 56/1.2 for my other system and all the problems I had with the DA*55/1.4 were solved.
Sharp wide open, beautiful out of focus rendering, and cameras that would focus on what they were pointed at was what Fuji gave me.
When the K3 came along, I found the AF to be improved greatly, but the 55/1.4 continued to disappoint because of how slow it was.
The K1 and D FA* 50 and 85mm lenses are beyond satisfactory image wise, but portability isn't part of that package.

[reh321]

A KAF4 option would be good, but what they need to do is come up with a reliable solenoid for cameras that use them, and to stop using the solenoids entirely going forward.
Changing the lens mount to one that is not functional with an entire class of cameras would be something of a slap in the face for users of those cameras.

They have tried and tried to modify the solenoid design - the new design seems to be better, but they still have problems.
Using KAF4 would not be a ‘slap in the face’ just as the DA 55-300mm PLM, and other new lenses, are not.
People who insist on still using K-30, K-5. and other old cameras can use old lenses

[Wheatfield]

They have tried and tried to modify the solenoid design - the new design seems to be better, but they still have problems.
Using KAF4 would not be a ‘slap in the face’ just as the DA 55-300mm PLM, and other new lenses, are not.
People who insist on still using K-30, K-5. and other old cameras can use old lenses

Fair enough. And really, cameras have become a semi disposable commodity anyway.
I'm wondering how much of the solenoid issue can be traced back to Pentax trying to sell itself as the cheap and cheerful brand.

[Serkevan]

Fair enough. And really, cameras have become a semi disposable commodity anyway.
I'm wondering how much of the solenoid issue can be traced back to Pentax trying to sell itself as the cheap and cheerful brand.

Not really a lot, AFAIK. The solenoid was an outsourced part (typical) and its manufacturer moved production to China (typical) while lowering its quality somewhat. One could argue that Pentax should have acted faster or should have been more thorough in double checking the new pieces were up to spec, but originally the issue was both hard to diagnose and really not their fault...

[robbiec]

The 55/1.4 was simply atrociously slow. It was good for still lifes and landscapes, but not for anything that had a tendency to move. Even in the studio, where subjects tend to stay still, I had at best a 50% hit rate because of slow AF. I did better focusing manually.
And that made it inadequate. If they had sold it as a manual focus lens and dropped the price a hundred bucks it would have been fine.

In APS-C Pentax users get an f/1.8, f/2, f/2.4 and an f/2.8 as their standard lens choices, the first two being designs from the 1990s.
Those four lenses may look good to you, but where is the fast standard f/1.4 lens?


As a Pentax user for some 35 years, I've gotten quite good at that.

Accurate summary that would agree with my findings on the 55 (I had 3 different samples over the years) - I found I was choosing to take an K or an A50/1.2 as I was getting a better hit rates with them.

[Wheatfield]

Accurate summary that would agree with my findings on the 55 (I had 3 different samples over the years) - I found I was choosing to take an K or an A50/1.2 as I was getting a better hit rates with them.

I just checked my Lightroom catalogue. Out of some 20000 studio images I shot on APS-C, just over 2000 were shot with the DA*55/1.4. Apparently I didn't find a lens that should have been close to an ideal portrait lens especially ideal.
It's sad that one gets better hit rates with a manual focus lens than an AF lens, but there we are.

I do wonder if the people who don't see any problems with it have ever used it?

[dbs]

I may not be remembering correctly but didn't one of pentaxes plants get wiped out by the tsnami a few years ago, and if so maybe the ability to revamp some of the longer lenses is lost .?

[lemono]

Let's see how well your inside info turns out to be true Although most cannot be verified.

I'd prefer people with inside info posting here confident they won't be attacked for it. Even if plans change. Even if some things are not definitive. Even if problems happen, like a certain product being delayed.
You, asahiman, OoKU - are all welcome to share what you can.

If it is a detailed message, the publisher should specify the source of the message.
Any information I release is obtained from dealers or relevant employees. Of course, it will not be first-hand information. But when I learn an info from one channel, I will go to other channels to verify it, rather than spreading it out at the first time.
Even when I know some specific details, when I release, I will choose to blur or avoid it at all. Ricoh strictly controlled this kind of information after the KP incident. If I release all the content directly, it will affect many people.
For asahiman's info, I consulted some people who had some information. I was told that most of asahiman's info are obtained through crawler scripts. Now Ricoh has taken many protective measures against crawler scripts, so asahiman's message reliability is not high.
As for the future news, I have mentioned some in some threads.
High credibility:
The preparation of DFA21 has entered the final stage. My personal interpretation is that within one to two months.
After GR3X is released, the next one is GR3M and the next one is 645.
Medium:
The new DFA Limited in planning.
A new FF project has begun.
Low:
The planning of APSC has ended, and K-3III and DA*1650 are the end of Pentax APSC era.
There is an intention to develop a new 645 lens

Incidentally, some interesting facts can be said: Ricoh obtained Panasonic's video coding and Olympus's anti shake technology through patent exchange —— but it seems to have nothing to do with Pentax.

[BarneyL]

The planning of APSC has ended, and K-3III and DA*1650 are the end of Pentax APSC era.

If that's true, then in a way, it's also the end of Pentax as 'bang for the buck' brand era. Writing was on the wall for quite some time though...

I had hopes that Ricoh will specialize aps-c line towards action shooting and video recording, FF line towards landscape and studio, and ditch the 645 entirely... I wonder what kind of plans they have for the last one.

[ZombieArmy]

With this kind of thinking how do you explain the optical viewfinder? Imho milc makes much more sense if you disregard the experience and focus on manufacturing cost and capabilities. It's the "convenient" choice. The path Pentax has taken is to put experience before convenience. They should make this apparent also in what lenses they choose to make. If they produced loads of lenses it would be less of an issue. They could do both. It's a lot more tricky at the current pace. They have less room to set the brand they've chosen and cater to the "practical" at the same time.

Isn't this bit of a logical leap? Because pentax uses an optical viewfinder pentax shouldn't or won't worry about releasing lenses that'll sell? I'm not sure I understand this post.

But fact of the matter is Pentax sure has put more zooms out in recent years than primes. Probably because they sell better.

---------- Post added 09-15-21 at 03:01 AM ----------

If that's true, then in a way, it's also the end of Pentax as 'bang for the buck' brand era. Writing was on the wall for quite some time though...

I had hopes that Ricoh will specialize aps-c line towards action shooting and video recording, FF line towards landscape and studio, and ditch the 645 entirely... I wonder what kind of plans they have for the last one.

Ditch the 645 and bring out the digital 6x7.