[superpowerpinger]

Pentax-D FA 21mm f/2.4 Review: A Great Lens with Poor Camera Support | PetaPixel

[luftfluss]

It's nice that the author was complimentary of the lens and all, but please - know your subject matter. In a review that is focused on the 21/2.4's performance on the K-1, he recommends the DA 21/3.2, DA 35/2.4, and Sigma 30/1.4 Art (he says they are "in a similar focal range") as alternatives.

[UncleVanya]

-0.03 stops adjustment is a minor typo error but annoying. The lens selections listed may relate to the k3iii which he mentions also but it is bad writing to be that unclear.

Overall it is an interesting review. I’d say it’s not too inaccurate from his perspective the k-1ii is not accurate enough in focusing and he likely thinks 36mp is not up to par. He had issues with metering but it seemed as though he was using center weighted rather than matrix?

[Digitalis]

To quote "The new 21mm f/2.4 lens gives Pentax users a fitting partner for the lineup of FA limited lenses (the 31mm f/1.8 and 43mm f/1.9)"

WHAT? No FA77?


Although he Praises the DFA21's physical construction and optical performance characteristics. He also neglects to mention the use of two GMo aspheric elements in the optical design one of which is made of ED glass which is very unusual. Most of his complaints are aimed squarely at the camera, not being "current" enough. Though I have to say I had some AF issues with the KP, K1 and K1MKII, with the older K1 and KP being more accurate than the K1 MKII* with the DFA21.

The AE anomalies with CWA metering are a known problem area with fast wide lenses and this issue not brand specific, the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L with its rather heavy vignetting would throw off CWA metering also the high vignetting of the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G was also problematic. So Pentax isn't alone here, I tend to use Matrix metering which I also use with Cf.5: Link AE to AF point - set to on.

Overall I give that Report a: B, effort was made to be positive and fair with the new lens I can't imagine DPR staff, (specifically Rishi**) being this fair and positive about anything Pentax. There were some minor slip ups in basic knowledge about Pentax cameras and Lenses, but the quality and execution of the image samples provided certainly made up for it.


*which perplexes me as the AF hardware is basically identical between them.
** I peeked and I noted RH has toned his attitude down over anything Pentax related.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 01-19-2022 at 11:19 PM.

[yucatanPentax]

Editors have vanished from many realms, including print newspaper and magazines, even when substantial content is now online. Pure website productions seem to have extremely few to no editors at all, which is how such bad writing is perpetuated.

Make sense of this one, for example:

Those who end up buying it, however, are probably going to be only the most discerning of Pentaxians since the lens doesn’t test particularly well, despite what appears to be outstanding performance.

Later, the "doesn't test well" comment resurfaces, but then there's this statement in the conclusion of the article:

But, objectively, it doesn’t perform at a level that matches its asking price because Pentax’s older K-1 Mark II seems ill-equipped to handle its excellent optics.

So, it "doesn't test well" (and there are absolutely zero references to optical testing), but it has "outstanding performance" and "excellent optics." I just can't get what he's saying.

Department of Redundancy Department:

There is a built-in lens hood on the lens that is permanently attached to the lens body,

[robbiec]

To quote "The new 21mm f/2.4 lens gives Pentax users a fitting partner for the lineup of FA limited lenses (the 31mm f/1.8 and 43mm f/1.9)"

WHAT? No FA77?


Although he Praises the DFA21's physical construction and optical performance characteristics. He also neglects to mention the use of two GMo aspheric elements in the optical design one of which is made of ED glass which is very unusual. Most of his complaints are aimed squarely at the camera, not being "current" enough. Though I have to say I had some AF issues with the KP, K1 and K1MKII, with the older K1 and KP being more accurate than the K1 MKII* with the DFA21.

The AE anomalies with CWA metering are a known problem area with fast wide lenses and this issue not brand specific, the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L with its rather heavy vignetting would throw off CWA metering also the high vignetting of the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G was also problematic. So Pentax isn't alone here, I tend to use Matrix metering which I also use with Cf.5: Link AE to AF point - set to on.

Overall I give that Report a: B, effort was made to be positive and fair with the new lens I can't imagine DPR staff, (specifically Rishi**) being this fair and positive about anything Pentax. There were some minor slip ups in basic knowledge about Pentax cameras and Lenses, but the quality and execution of the image samples provided certainly made up for it.


*which perplexes me as the AF hardware is basically identical between them.
** I peeked and I noted RH has toned his attitude down over anything Pentax related.

I'd agree with your assessment. He did focus more on the rendition qualities rather than numeric testing which is what the goal of the lens is about. He also mentioned the tactile qualities even mentioning the manual focus ability with just a finger tip (a known FA Limited quality) - The rest is down to lack of knowledge of the Pentax system (lens comparisons, metering) and a call out of the limits of the previous generation of AF system - which I'd say is fair. I'd personally would not take a wide prime to a hockey game

[biz-engineer]

The problem isn't the D-FA 21 limited, the problem is that there is no Pentax K1 mark III to use that lens to its potential, unfortunately.

[house]

Don't the firmware sometimes include AF improvements for new lenses? Or do I misremember?

[repaap]

Not bad repport at all IMO.


I have K-3III(yes, saying it again and again) and compared to K-1 -which I also own- many, many lenses work in their full potential, because of that excellen AF. I'm not talking about MF or landscape, or studio photography. In general use where you want to have your focus right and camera working 'now'. It is different beast. So pointing out K-1 should have update, is "correct" ... althou should they put it in this review, I'm not sure if it is very nice. Since K-1III should be coming -soon-, I hope that they will update this article when it does.


Nice lens capability is watered out by writing it in this way. Examples looks good to my eye. While it is niche lens, along other limiteds, those lenses is the salt and pepper of Pentax system and this lens has pixie dust obviously like other limiteds, with more controlled paggage. (HD versions has less drama than SMC limiteds, I have)

[RobA_Oz]

I’m not convinced that the older K-1 bodies present much, if anything, of an issue for the majority of users of this lens. As well as the photos posted here, I’ve seen the output from a copy on a friend’s K-1. No doubt an upgraded sensor would further enhance its abilities, and similarly for the AF, but it isn’t a wildlife or sports lens and the existing camera body/lens combination produces some impressive photos.

Really, the lens deserved less of a distraction in the review, and to be fair the reviewer clearly appreciated its virtues, but one mention of the body’s limitations was all that was needed, and the inclusion in the headline was doubly unfair.

[house]

I’m not convinced that the older K-1 bodies present much, if anything, of an issue for the majority of users of this lens. As well as the photos posted here, I’ve seen the output from a copy on a friend’s K-1. No doubt an upgraded sensor would further enhance its abilities, and similarly for the AF, but it isn’t a wildlife or sports lens and the existing camera body/lens combination produces some impressive photos.

Really, the lens deserved less of a distraction in the review, and to be fair the reviewer clearly appreciated its virtues, but one mention of the body’s limitations was all that was needed, and the inclusion in the headline was doubly unfair.

A few users of the DFA21 have pointed out slightly troublesome AF. The reviewer might actually be wrong about where the AF issues lie. We know the K-1 does a decent job with fast af lenses. But indeed it was a shame they felt the need to go on to such an extent about side issues. They guy clearly liked the lens.

I wonder though if he read the marketing a bit to carefully

the lens doesn’t test particularly well, despite what appears to be outstanding performance

Do we know yet that the DFA21 doesn't test very well?

[Serkevan]

A few users of the DFA21 have pointed out slightly troublesome AF. The reviewer might actually be wrong about where the AF issues lie. We know the K-1 does a decent job with fast af lenses. But indeed it was a shame they felt the need to go on to such an extent about side issues. They guy clearly liked the lens.

The main issue I've encountered with the K-1's AF is that each point is *big*. They can and will cover a large enough portion of the frame that, with some specific subjects, it's anyone's guess where the focal plane will be.

It's good that the reviewer talks about the rendering and how beautiful the images come out, though (and makes it a point of saying how the photos have minimal distortion and aberrations even fully uncorrected - eat it, DPR ).

I still stand by my initial comment, back in May 2020, that these mad people at Ricoh Imaging have made an UWA portrait lens and I could only be happier if I had more money to spend on it about now (I think I know what my birthday gift's going to be, haha).

[Digitalis]

Do we know yet that the DFA21 doesn't test very well?

When I compared to the DFA21 to the venerable FA*24mm f/2... which the DFA21mm f/2.4 proved to be superior in many ways, particularly when corner resolution is concerned. I think what he was hinting at was the atypical optical design ethos behind the development of the lens. From my own cursory perusal of the optical design literature the DFA21 is not a formulaic Zeiss Distagon derivative like many lenses in this focal length class often are, the optical lens design of the DFA21 appears to be entirely unique.

[house]

When I compared to the DFA21 to the venerable FA*24mm f/2... which the DFA21mm f/2.4 proved to be superior in many ways, particularly when corner resolution is concerned.

The FA*24 is however known for "not testing well"! So perhaps not the league of testing well a reviewer would expect from $1400.

Still it's a bit funny reading a review where not "testing well" is followed immediately by "outstanding performance". Not testing well is repeated several times but no evidence of it not testing well can be found anywhere online? It can be found in marketing and Pentaxian discussions based on said marketing.

[Digitalis]

Not testing well is repeated several times but no evidence of it not testing well can be found anywhere online? It can be found in marketing and Pentaxian discussions based on said marketing.

well If I ever get bored with my copy of the DFA21* I might send it to my lens technician who has a up-to-the-minute optical bench for a thorough bench test. FYI I knew the FA*24mm f/2 wasn't going to be a significant contender, I had bench tests from that lens and the MTF curve @ f/2 looked more like the readout from a seismometer - which is never a good sign.


* which I have to admit is very unlikely