[thibs]

Those are not new optical designs. And the answer is 2013, so they're not too recent anyway.

50/1.8 isn't really one either.

[Rondec]

Those are not new optical designs. And the answer is 2013, so they're not too recent anyway.

My feeling is that it is possible to use the DFA *50, 85 and DFA limited 21mm on APS-C and many people do. I don't think Pentax is going to do much with APS-C specific lenses, other than a re-do of the DA *50-135, until they get the full frame line up filled out. That will be a 70-300 variable aperture zoom and a DFA *35mm lens.

There is some space saving making lenses APS-C specific, but it isn't as much with primes as with zooms, assuming you are keeping the same lens mount. The DA limiteds are small because (a) they have slowish apertures and (b) they don't have in lens motors. Add those sorts of things to them and they'll certainly be the size of the FA limiteds.

[Mistral75]

Actually the latest DA prime lens with an original optical design was the 560mm f/5.6 (it was announced in September 2012) but Ricoh Imaging said it covers the 24x36 sensor and it's now discontinued.

The second to last was the 15mm f/4, announced in March 2009. This one is an APSC-only lens.

[Smolk]

My feeling is that it is possible to use the DFA *50, 85 and DFA limited 21mm on APS-C and many people do. I don't think Pentax is going to do much with APS-C specific lenses, other than a re-do of the DA *50-135, until they get the full frame line up filled out.

Yes, I agree on both counts. I use the DFA* 50 myself on the K-3 III, although I wonder how many people do. But the fast AF and IQ are certainly worth it. The system isn't small any longer though
Filling out the FF line is probably a higher priority - especially when a K-1 III emerges.

[MMVIII]

Yes, I agree on both counts. I use the DFA* 50 myself on the K-3 III, although I wonder how many people do. But the fast AF and IQ are certainly worth it. The system isn't small any longer though
Filling out the FF line is probably a higher priority - especially when a K-1 III emerges.

Also agree here. Beyond a certain focal length the difference between fast and highly corrected DFA lenses and their possible APS-C counterparts might be negligible. A DA* 85 f1.4(or 1.2) might be just around the same dimensions as the DFA*.
If I could formulate a wish I would just pledge for a DA* 14mm. Sure, this is covered more or less by the DA* 11-18 f2.8, but there are occasions where I would see good use for a slightly lighter but highly corrected WA-prime in APS-C land. The existing version is old and I am afraid not up to the task with the capabilities of this and future sensor generations.

[RobG]

Yes, there is a lot of DA lenses. How many can make full use in of main K-3 Mk III feature: new AF? One pro and one consumer. I am not saying that DA lineup is not big enough. I am saying that K-3 Mk III lineup is not big enough. Well, outside of some possible DC kit lenses and one pro level lens it is non existent.

I'm not really sure what significant advantage the HDDA 55-300 and HDDA*16-50 have with the K3iii other than live AFC. Having said that, it would make sense to have more lenses fully supporting KAF4. I hardly ever use live view, and I've only briefly experimented with video (I bought a camcorder for that), so I'm not sure that KAF4 makes much difference for me personally.
Out of curiosity, I note that the K1ii is KAF2 and the DFA 150-450 is KAF3. The only KAF4 DFA lens seems to be the 21mm?

[RobA_Oz]

I'm not really sure what significant advantage the HDDA 55-300 and HDDA*16-50 have with the K3iii other than live AFC. Having said that, it would make sense to have more lenses fully supporting KAF4. I hardly ever use live view, and I've only briefly experimented with video (I bought a camcorder for that), so I'm not sure that KAF4 makes much difference for me personally.
Out of curiosity, I note that the K1ii is KAF2 and the DFA 150-450 is KAF3. The only KAF4 DFA lens seems to be the 21mm?

The D FA*50/1.4 is KAF4.

I would have thought, though, that the longer focal length lenses would be the prime targets for an AF upgrade to match the capabilities of the K-3iii. The DA*300/4 has been around for 14 years without any change, so that would be a good start.

[RobG]

The D FA*50/1.4 is KAF4. I would have thought, though, that the longer focal length lenses would be the prime targets for an AF upgrade to match the capabilities of the K-3iii. The DA*300/4 has been around for 14 years without any change, so that would be a good start.

Thanks, the 50mm was the one I meant to check, because I knew it was recent. The DA*300 is long overdue for an upgrade to PLM and HD coatings at the very least. I've been begging for focus limiting on it for years, which is one reason I never use it after getting the DFA 150-450. I've been tempted to sell my DA*300 except that it turns out to be good for astrophotography... A PLM and HD DA*300 would be good, but one with a focus limiter would be brilliant. Sadly, I doubt that Pentax will ever make a longer (or faster) lens than the DFA 150-450. Honestly though, I'm happy with the 150-450 in terms of reach, and it can be used with the HDDA 1.4x TC if the light is good (but my personal experience has been a loss of sharpness that negates the magnification).

[lytrytyr]

The DA limiteds are small because (a) they have slowish apertures and (b) they don't have in lens motors.

The primes, yes. The DA 20-40 has the DC motor.

Add those sorts of things to them and they'll certainly be the size of the FA limiteds.

As it happens, the DA 20-40 is about the same size as the screwmount FA 20-35. The motor in the DA, or its faster apertures at the short end, don't seem to have increased the size.

[reh321]

I'm not really sure what significant advantage the HDDA 55-300 and HDDA*16-50 have with the K3iii other than live AFC. Having said that, it would make sense to have more lenses fully supporting KAF4. I hardly ever use live view, and I've only briefly experimented with video (I bought a camcorder for that), so I'm not sure that KAF4 makes much difference for me personally.
Out of curiosity, I note that the K1ii is KAF2 and the DFA 150-450 is KAF3. The only KAF4 DFA lens seems to be the 21mm?

One’s view probably depends on the thickness of one’s wallet. If I get another body, despite my being over 70, I would probably be interested in a K-90, or whatever follows the K-70, but only if it has the sort of AF developed for the K-3iii, because AF is the one weakness I’ve noticed in my KP. I already have the KAF4 55-300 PLM, so what I would need to make the body usable ‘regardless’ is some sort of ‘normal’ KAF4 lens ….. but I guess it would be selfish for me to want it to be developed. Honestly, I see DFA lenses as Pentax’s greatest weakness.

[clackers]

Yes, there is a lot of DA lenses. How many can make full use in of main K-3 Mk III feature: new AF? One pro and one consumer.

I think they can all use the new AF. All the lenses from FA to DA to DFA, whatever.

You might mean how many can do AF-C in Live View.

[tduell]

The DA*300 is long overdue for an upgrade to PLM and HD coatings at the very least. I've been begging for focus limiting on it for years, which is one reason I never use it after getting the DFA 150-450.

I would agree re an upgrade of the AF, but I reckon the AF speed on the K-3 Mark III is quite an improvement over the speed on the K-3 II.
I overcome the lack of a focus limiter, to some degree at least, by always using quick shift between shots to set the focus at inf, as most of my subjects are around 10m or more, and focus to those distances from inf is quick.

Cheers,
Terry

[RobG]

One’s view probably depends on the thickness of one’s wallet. If I get another body, despite my being over 70, I would probably be interested in a K-90, or whatever follows the K-70, but only if it has the sort of AF developed for the K-3iii, because AF is the one weakness I’ve noticed in my KP. I already have the KAF4 55-300 PLM, so what I would need to make the body usable ‘regardless’ is some sort of ‘normal’ KAF4 lens ….. but I guess it would be selfish for me to want it to be developed.

I hope that there's a plan for a cheaper camera than the K3iii using the tech developed for the K3iii (but likely not the pentaprism). It would be smart to migrate the APSC lens range to HD coatings and KAF4 compatibility, but the latter risks leaving owners of older cameras behind.

Honestly, I see DFA lenses as Pentax’s greatest weakness.

Meaning the small range of lenses? I assume not quality - my number one lens is the DFA 150-450 which I find to be better than the DA*300 even aside from the infuriating AF motor on the shorter lens.

---------- Post added 25-05-22 at 09:26 AM ----------

I would agree re an upgrade of the AF, but I reckon the AF speed on the K-3 Mark III is quite an improvement over the speed on the K-3 II.
I overcome the lack of a focus limiter, to some degree at least, by always using quick shift between shots to set the focus at inf, as most of my subjects are around 10m or more, and focus to those distances from inf is quick.

You may be using the lens in much better light. AF hunting painfully slowly makes the DA*300 useless for me. I'd rather lug around the DFA 150-450. I'll sell the DA*300 along with the K5iis and the old DA 55-300.
The AF speed of the K3iii on the HDDA55-300 and DFA 150-450 is brilliant.

[reh321]

I hope that there's a plan for a cheaper camera than the K3iii using the tech developed for the K3iii (but likely not the pentaprism). It would be smart to migrate the APSC lens range to HD coatings and KAF4 compatibility, but the latter risks leaving owners of older cameras behind.

Meaning the small range of lenses? I assume not quality - my number one lens is the DFA 150-450 which I find to be better than the DA*300 even aside from the infuriating AF motor on the shorter lens.

Yes, in particular, the small number of modern lenses.
Yes, I know of the long history of film lenses, but I’m not sure that others include them.

If they do release a K-70 follow up, I am on record encouraging them to also release an inexpensive {not starred} KAF4 ‘standard’ lens.
As an owner of a K-30 {who chooses to not use the modified K-50 firmware}, I am aware of that this would not be ‘good’ for owners of older cameras, but Pentax does have a wealth of older lenses which are usable on those cameras, and perhaps it would not be bad for these owners
to be encouraged to look at the new stuff.

[RobG]

Yes, in particular, the small number of modern lenses.
Yes, I know of the long history of film lenses, but I’m not sure that others include them.

OK, sure. My impression was that a key reason the folks clamoring for a FF camera wanted one was to be able to use all their film era lenses. The only film era lens I have which I'd like to try is a 50mm f1.7, and I doubt that it's anything to write home about. I can't use it on any of my DSLRs, and I haven't even tested the film camera to see if it works since I bought the K200D.

If they do release a K-70 follow up, I am on record encouraging them to also release an inexpensive {not starred} KAF4 ‘standard’ lens. As an owner of a K-30 {who chooses to not use the modified K-50 firmware}, I am aware of that this would not be ‘good’ for owners of older cameras, but Pentax does have a wealth of older lenses which are usable on those cameras, and perhaps it would not be bad for these owners to be encouraged to look at the new stuff.

I agree it would be nice to have something like a KAF4 version of the HDDA 16-85 which is KAF3. Even so, I'm curious what the actual functional difference would be, other than AFC in live view.
I have the HDDA*16-50 PLM and I have tried AFC with video, but I have a camcorder for video which is much more versatile. If the K3iii had the video capabilities of a Fuji XT4, then KAF4 might be more important. If I wanted an EVIL camera, I would've bought one (and nearly did).