[Kunzite]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Let's not imagine optical defects before seeing even one sample taken with it.

Getting back to the price: the FA 31mm is 184,715 yen at amazon.co.jp, and this D FA 21mm Limited is a bit less (if the leaked price was accurate).

[JPT]

Let's not imagine optical defects before seeing even one sample taken with it.

Getting back to the price: the FA 31mm is 184,715 yen at amazon.co.jp, and this D FA 21mm Limited is a bit less (if the leaked price was accurate).

Don't get your hopes up for a price cheaper than the 31mm. The actual price of the 31mm at Amazon Japan is about 125,000 yen. I think you must have found a strange listing for one of the old SMC ones at an inflated price.

[Serkevan]

Getting back to the price: the FA 31mm is 184,715 yen at amazon.co.jp, and this D FA 21mm Limited is a bit less (if the leaked price was accurate).

No, it's not, the current HD 31 is 124k yen. Amazon | HD PENTAX-FA 31mmF1.8 Limited ???? ???????? ??????????????????????????????????????????F1.8 ??????????? HD??????????????????????K?????????????????? 20220 | ??????? ??. It's 137k yen in Ricoh's store.

You're probably checking one of the SMC posts, and those are still showing the old, higher, price.

---------- Post added 10-13-21 at 06:00 AM ----------

I think you must have found a strange listing for one of the old SMC ones at an inflated price.

Not even an inflated price - the SMC FA31 in Europe was always 1500€ which is around ~190k yen. They slashed the price a LOT with the HD reissue (not that it has driven down the used prices of the SMC versions in the slightest )

[reh321]

not that it has driven down the used prices of the SMC versions in the slightest

Some people stubbornly hang on to the “investment” model, expecting to get n% percent of their “investment”, regardless of what the competing product costs.

[JPT]

Not even an inflated price - the SMC FA31 in Europe was always 1500€ which is around ~190k yen.

Actually, it was never that price in Japan. The new price is about the same as the actual price the SMC one sold for. The Euro price is where the reduction happened and I'll take your word for it.

So the point is that the HD prices are basically the same as the SMC ones on Japan, and this new 21mm is somewhat more than the 31mm. What that means for the Euro price is anyone's guess until tomorrow. I hope for your sakes it is a reasonable conversion.

[Jonathan Mac]

The APS-C Fujifilm system is thoroughly superior to Pentax in one specific area: hype.

I don't think any system is better than any other in all areas. Every system has their pros and cons.

Pentax is excellent in many respects but the Fujifilm X system is superb in many areas too.

[Serkevan]

Actually, it was never that price in Japan. The new price is about the same as the actual price the SMC one sold for. The Euro price is where the reduction happened and I'll take your word for it.

So the point is that the HD prices are basically the same as the SMC ones on Japan, and this new 21mm is somewhat more than the 31mm. What that means for the Euro price is anyone's guess until tomorrow. I hope for your sakes it is a reasonable conversion.

Aha, I did not know that. The other recent lenses (including the new HD versions) are in line with the Japan prices now, so I do suppose the DFA 21 will be ~1250€ assuming the leak was right.

[normhead]

How did I miss this (long, rambling, dysfunctional) thread? It's great to see that the DFA 21 Limited is nearly here, and finally learn that it is f/2.4. That definitely works for me. This is the lens I've been waiting for: a compact WA fastish prime for FF that will be ideal for travel (when that happens again), and in particular architecture.

The challenge facing me though is, can I REALLY leave the DFA 15-30 at home? It has spoilt me.

If it's like the DA 21 ltd. and you're like me, yes, you can. When I shoot with the DA 55-300 PLM, I frequently throw the 21 ltd. in the bag, just for something wide angle. It will be a much smaller "just in case" lens than the 15-30.

[fs999]

So imagine how much lower the resolution would look like in a modern FF body

Do you think that sharpness depends on the year of tests?

I have been using FA*24/2 for 15 years with film camera, K200D и K-5IIs. It's good performer with weak corners. Even f8 is just good. Tastes differ. The center is already good at f2. From f2.8 - very sharp lens at center. But there is no so serious sample variation with FA*24 that one lens has high resolution at f2 at the corners, but another one has much lower. Unreal.
I saw FA*24/2 a bit better than mine at f2. But just a bit.

Maybe they had a bad copy, but if border sharpness was that weak on a K-10, I can't imagine how it would be on a K-1.

If lens has 1200 LW/PH (approx. 5 MP only) with 10 MP camera, no any sense to wait that the resolution is much higher at K-1. Of course, it will be higher because of 36 MP sensor, but not even on good level.

Some people just confuse softness for sharpness.

It just gets worse the farther from the center you get. If it's showing that kind of resolution loss on APS-C, it's going to be far worse on full frame, and even worse on a higher resolution sensor.

So how do you explain these photos. F2 1/125 100 ISO



F2 1/250 100 ISO



F2 1/30 100 ISO

[normhead]

So how do you explain these photos. F2 1/125 100 ISO



F2 1/250 100 ISO



F2 1/30 100 ISO

The edge sharpness of many photos is not to critical to the photo. Lens has to be very dull to show soft edges at reduced sizes.

My worst lens reduced to 3840 appears to be sharp.

My FA 28-200, a universally acknowledged terrible lens and Tamron rebadge rated at 7.3. By my scale, since I get amore accurate reading by subtracting unused numbers, (there are no lenses rate under 5 so I subtract 5, and just use the numbers actually used by the rating scale, that's 2.3 out of 5.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FA-28-200mm-F3.8-5.6-Zoom-Lens.html
Just for the record, I've never paid over $100 for a lens rated less than 3.5. I've never paid $1000 for lens rated less than 4/5 (9/10).

Yet reduce the images to 3840x2160 and you get useable images. Softness usually applies only to pixel peeping. Only my Vivtar M 135 ƒ/2.8 is so bad as to be unusable even at reduced size.









I quite like these images, but since getting the D FA 28-105 I hardly use it, and last time I used it I tossed 100% of the images. You always have choice, use a newer lens that's sharp or an older on like the FA 28-200 that isn't. That doesn't mean you'll never get keepers at reduced size from older glass. It's not that you never get good images, it's that you don't get consistently good images in all circumstances. You increase your odds with a better lens.

[Rondec]

So how do you explain these photos. F2 1/125 100 ISO



F2 1/250 100 ISO



F2 1/30 100 ISO

You may have a better copy. It is hard to say on at least one of the images because I think the softness is due to shallow depth of field. I mentioned that in my comment. Photozone (Optical Limits) gets one copy of a lens and tests it. If it is a good copy then everything looks great and if it isn't, then not so good.

[Serkevan]

So how do you explain these photos. F2 1/125 100 ISO

The workshop photo shows visible CA on the tools, particularly on the right side, as well as reduced resolution in both the floorboards and the bench. Likewise for the hop photo - the bottom edge of the horizontal plank is no longer well defined near the edges (plus general glow on the hops near the edges due to uncorrected spherical aberration). On the food one, the edge of the plate at the focal plane is not particularly well defined either.

Frankly, the photos prove what the review says: the lens is very, very sharp in the center, and that means that the noticeable aberrations and resolution loss in the corners are going to be particularly obvious by comparison. Note that CA can impact the resolution figures as well.

That's not to say that the lens is bad, it's perfectly serviceable. But it is very clearly not a test bench monster - my 43 and 77 Limiteds are quite a bit sharper in fact.

[normhead]

Frankly, the photos prove what the review says: the lens is very, very sharp in the center, and that means that the noticeable aberrations and resolution loss in the corners are going to be particularly obvious by comparison. Note that CA can impact the resolution figures as well.

The sharp centre and weaker edges is almost a given in the small size low weight lenses favoured by Pentax before the DAs. That carries on right until the DA 18-135. "Lenses for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts." The current strategy "Modern lenses for modern sensors." incorporate sharpness edge to edge that will be relevant even with future MP increases, but they are big and heavy.

I love the images from my DA 18-135, but I'm also cognizant of the weak edges at longer focal lengths, and only use it where the edges will be in bokeh. Trying to use it for a landscape at 135mm produces absolutely sickening results.


The design parameters for Pentax glass were changed dramatically, starting with the DA 16-85, although older long glass, meets the new spec for edge sharpness. IN fact according to tests on the forum, the DA*60-250 has better edges than the newer D FA 70-210. But with glass 50mm and under, newer is better. The older telephotos suffer more from CA and purple fringing, but there are no new long glass lenses to replace those above 300mm so it's moot.

[Serkevan]

The sharp centre and weaker edges is almost a given in the small size low weight lenses favoured by Pentax before the DAs. That carries on right until the DA 18-135. "Lenses for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts." The current strategy "Modern lenses for modern sensors." sharpness incorporate sharpness edge to edge that will be relevant even with future MP increases, but they are big and heavy.

I love the images from my DA 18-135, but I'm also cognizant of the weak edges at longer focal lengths, and only use it where the edges will be in bokeh. Trying to use it for a landscape at 135mm produces absolutely sickening results.


The design parameters for Pentax glass were changed dramatically, starting with the DA 16-85.

Yeah, it's not bad - one would probably be able to argue that the resolution loss in the edges and corners actually improves the OOF rendering.
But it's there. I mean, I love the two FA Limiteds I own, to bits. But they have fringing and that's undeniable.

[normhead]

Yeah, it's not bad - one would probably be able to argue that the resolution loss in the edges and corners actually improves the OOF rendering.

Ya I've argued that. I don't think I convinced anyone.