[sculptor666]

I’ve used deglassed teleconverters to get aperture automation on my D FA 100. I’ve also used APO type front close up lenses like a Raynox DCR-150 to increase magnification.

i have lots of extension tubes with the "a" contact pin, but that will do no good on a kaf4 lens... whether that includes the new 100, dunno. with no aperture ring on the current dfa 100, can't use pentax branded extension tubes anyway.... which in my experience have the least amount of internal reflections. deglassed tc's don't do well when you stack them.... sold off the raynox stuff years ago. so far best compromise for me is the laowa 100 2:1 and the laowa 2.5-5x... i keep the wr100 and dfa50 macro on a couple tubes in the bag at all times though. been using the 645 system for macro recently except for the really tiny stuff.

[thibs]

Don't you think the reason the FA 50 hasn't been updated is simply that they have old stock that needs to be sold? My guess was that the FA 35 was just about sold out and the wanted something full frame in that focal length that wasn't as expensive as the FA 31 limited and so they decided to do a tweak to it.

The FA 50 can't sell many new copies any more because most people either have it or buy on the used market, where there are loads of old 50mm lenses available. If they ever have low inventory then they will do another run, this time with HD coating.

I'd rather have RI update the 1.7 optical formula and bring it with a DC motor (very little chance I know) or re-interpret it and a modern affordable 50.
Two 1.4 fifties make the range unreadable IMO.

[brofkand]

a new and improved 100 is good news... but i hope it works with extension tubes designed in the 70s, because that's all that pentax offers. wr af extension tubes and a wr 50 macro i would buy in a heartbeat. i tried and sold a canon system with af extension tubes and having af at 1:2-2:1 was very useful.


i only use the wr 100 if it's raining, otherwise the laowa 100 has near zero pf wide open and it goes to 2:1... and the end of the lens doesn't stick out past the barrel, so that's nice. only one wr macro in the ff lineup is a real shame, especially since pentax does so much better at f10 and smaller vs. everyone else.

New extension tubes would be welcome I agree.

[pres589]

I'd rather have RI update the 1.7 optical formula and bring it with a DC motor (very little chance I know) or re-interpret it and a modern affordable 50.
Two 1.4 fifties make the range unreadable IMO.

I agree with all of this. I could also see RI taking out the DA 50 f1.8 once current stock runs out after this sort of lens becomes available were they to do this. If they skip the DC motor that's fine by me; leave the aperture ring and I'm definitely buying one just like they did on the HD FA 35.

[bdery]

I can get it to focus in CDAF ( live view ) typically. If you have an example that I can try to repeat I’d be interested. I do have difficulty using it on the monster adapter when I try autofocus. It works well enough on the KP and K3 (original version). Most of my use of CDAF has been in close focus scenarios.

"Unable" might be a strong word. "struggle" would be better.

Typically, it fails in adequately lit scenes indoors, black subject on a white background (think pictures of a lens for a review). It rakes the whole range then fails. I haven't used a lot on the Monster Adapter yet.

[UncleVanya]

"Unable" might be a strong word. "struggle" would be better.

Typically, it fails in adequately lit scenes indoors, black subject on a white background (think pictures of a lens for a review). It rakes the whole range then fails. I haven't used a lot on the Monster Adapter yet.

It’s abominable on the monster adapter most of the time. Many lenses are acceptable. That one makes me nuts. Unless I use manual focus.

[Apas]

Wow! It's really the exact same barrel. This is super interesting, I really wonder what they have changed optically, to my imagination it must be really minor to fit it into the exact same housing. That's not a bad thing, the main downside to dfa100 is fringing so if they solved it with only minute changes I'm impressed!

Well, they might replace just one element with identical one but made with some special glass, like FLD or SLD and that's it, fringing may be reduced. But IMHO this particular lens have two other problems: no AF limiter and screwdriver AF. Having these addressed as well, the dfa100 would be much more versatile and would be used as telephoto / long portrait lens (I know that many people using current version that way with some great results, but AF is problematic then) ...

[Unregistered User 8]

Well, they might replace just one element with identical one but made with some special glass, like FLD or SLD and that's it, fringing may be reduced. But IMHO this particular lens have two other problems: no AF limiter and screwdriver AF. Having these addressed as well, the dfa100 would be much more versatile and would be used as telephoto / long portrait lens (I know that many people using current version that way with some great results, but AF is problematic then) ...

Many thanks for bringing this thread back to the original topic. You have saved it from being closed.

[Serkevan]

Well, they might replace just one element with identical one but made with some special glass, like FLD or SLD and that's it, fringing may be reduced. But IMHO this particular lens have two other problems: no AF limiter and screwdriver AF. Having these addressed as well, the dfa100 would be much more versatile and would be used as telephoto / long portrait lens (I know that many people using current version that way with some great results, but AF is problematic then) ...

If the optical formula is similar, the lens will focus by extension... Not sure anything other than a ring-type SDM (like the one in the DFA* 50 and 85) would have the torque to be suitably fast. For all its issues, screwdrive is actually a pretty powerful system.

[Kunzite]

But it's noisy, particularly on a macro lens. At the very least they should include a DC motor.
I don't think they'll put a focus limiter, which is a pity.

[UncleVanya]

But it's noisy, particularly on a macro lens. At the very least they should include a DC motor.
I don't think they'll put a focus limiter, which is a pity.

I personally can live with screw drive on this style lens, but the lack of a focus limiter has annoyed me from the start of my use of my current model. I started with the f 100 macro which has a focus limiter and I loved it.

So I’m dreaming there’sa focus limiter hidden in there somewhere. Alternately maybe the firmware of the k3iii could be made smart enough to impose a soft limiter that used the camera to infer the distances and set limits. A physical switch would be easier in the field but I’d take any improvement.

[Kunzite]

I personally can live with screw drive on this style lens, but the lack of a focus limiter has annoyed me from the start of my use of my current model. I started with the f 100 macro which has a focus limiter and I loved it.

So I’m dreaming there’sa focus limiter hidden in there somewhere. Alternately maybe the firmware of the k3iii could be made smart enough to impose a soft limiter that used the camera to infer the distances and set limits. A physical switch would be easier in the field but I’d take any improvement.

I'm thinking what would make me upgrade from the good old FA 100mm f/2.8 that I have... considering that I don't shoot much macro.
Already the lack of a focus limiter is a downgrade. Same noisy screwdrive AF is a "why bother".

Software focus limiter and a DC motor? Might work for me. A physical switch would be better, of course.

[bladerunner6]

If the optical formula is similar, the lens will focus by extension... Not sure anything other than a ring-type SDM (like the one in the DFA* 50 and 85) would have the torque to be suitably fast. For all its issues, screwdrive is actually a pretty powerful system.

Yes, screwdrive does work and for things like my 35mm 2.4 it makes for a light lens that still focuses okay.

But other SLR macro lenses have quiet and fast focusing motors. Why shouldn’t Pentax? I certainly use my Tamron 90 for macro work but I also use it because it is a great focal length for head shots.

A modern lens design with at least a decent motor at “slightly more expensive” (which I would take to mean anything up to maybe $900) could be a product that would appeal to a lot of people that like that length and/or macro work.

If it is a modern design with a motor and “slightly more expensive” it will probably be something I will get at some point.

[Kunzite]

Let's not forget, the DA 20-40mm Limited has a DC motor. It can be fitted into a compact, Limited-like barrel.
Unless Pentax chose to go cheap on R&D.

[Serkevan]

Let's not forget, the DA 20-40mm Limited has a DC motor. It can be fitted into a compact, Limited-like barrel.
Unless Pentax chose to go cheap on R&D.

Again, the point is that the DFA 100 has to move the *entire* lens, half the barrel included, to focus.