[Wheatfield]

For me? Pointless and boring. There’s plenty of vintage glass out there. I’d rather see the efforts go into more
Modern lenses.

Not that we know how much modernization the new lenses have in them at this point. For all we know, they are new (read modern) optical formulas.
The old FA50/1.4 struggled to look good on the K1. An improved and lower cost alternative to the D FA*50/1.4 would be a welcome addition to the lens line for people who don't want to shell out the bucks for the * lens but still want a newer standard lens that is very usable at wider apertures.

[gatorguy]

HD FA 28, HD FA 35 2, HD FA 50 1.4, HD FA 85 and HD FA 135

I would absolutely be interested in a modern 135.

[Serkevan]

Originally, I imagined that Ricoh would design all zooms in house, and re-badge the Tamron 35 1.8 SP, Tamron 45 1.8 SP and Tamron 85 1.8 SP, but surprisingly, they didn't.

Not surprising in the slightest, IMO. You said it, zooms sell more than primes. Therefore, it's quite reasonable to assume that the customer who is in for a prime lens is more likely more serious and, which tends to make people more inclined towards premium OEM product. The customer who "just" wants a competent, pragmatic zoom doesn't care as much about who the maker is. Personally, when I throw the DFA 28-105 in the camera it's because I know it does a competent job at everything I throw at it; I don't need it to be the *best* tool for the job - just second-best at a lot of jobs.

---------- Post added 05-10-23 at 08:28 AM ----------

For all we know, they are new (read modern) optical formulas.

It would run counter to everything Pentax has done in the last... 25 years or so. They'd be named D-FA, were that to be the case (Unless the film project got them throwing aperture rings on all-new designs, but it didn't happen with the HD DFA 100 macro, sooooo I doubt it).

[BarneyL]

'Classic' branding for warehouse leftovers is 'classic' Pentax marketing. Up there with jpeg presets working only with specific lenses.

[biz-engineer]

I would absolutely be interested in a modern 135.

It is kinda strange that most brands don't offer a 135 primes these days. If Pentax had one, it would be nice.

---------- Post added 10-05-23 at 17:35 ----------

Therefore, it's quite reasonable to assume that the customer who is in for a prime lens is more likely more serious and, which tends to make people more inclined towards premium OEM product.

Exactly , and that's why I wrote that new primes designs for a small brand are tough decision to make (dilemma).

[Rondec]

For me? Pointless and boring. There’s plenty of vintage glass out there. I’d rather see the efforts go into more
Modern lenses.

Seems like Pentax has a couple of newer lens designs in similar focal length -- DA *55 and DFA *50 are both options. They just happen to be pretty expensive.

The whole reason for this launch is that Pentax has mostly cleaned out their existing stock of FA 50 lenses. Redoing the coatings and lens cosmetic appearance keeps a cheaper lens in the line up in this focal length without much cost.

[Henrico]

My understanding is the new D FA100 macro is a new optical formulation. The "Classic" designation on one of these lenses implies an aperture ring at least on that lens.

When you compare the difference between the old and new DFA 100 macro you can see only one single element is replaced by a similar sized doublet. So the barrel and all the other elements remained unchanged. And the coating is replaced by HD.

Clever engineering by Ricoh, similar like bringing out the new KF.

[pres589]

Changing a single element for a pair of elements is the definition of a differing optical formula. I believe the barrel on the new lens is very slightly smaller. The new lens is also rated AW, a higher level of weather resistance than the previous lens.


This seems much more involved than the K-70 to KF changes and seemingly obvious given a quick evaluation of the changes.

[Wheatfield]

When you compare the difference between the old and new DFA 100 macro you can see only one single element is replaced by a similar sized doublet. So the barrel and all the other elements remained unchanged. And the coating is replaced by HD.

Clever engineering by Ricoh, similar like bringing out the new KF.

What you are glossing over is that introducing a new element is changing the optical formula. It's very unlikely that introducing a new lens element wouldn't require reworking every element in the lens.

When I bought the new 100 macro I compared it directly to the previous one in an optical torture test environment. The new one shows far less fringing and more edge sharpness, though the 36mp sensor on the K1 is barely high res enough to show it.

It may look like the old lens, but it's a new design where it matters and bodes well for the introduction of a higher pixel count K1 replacement. For the most part, the old lens was fine on the K1, but toss a higher resolution sensor in front of it and it might show it's age.

Hopefully they will do something similar with the new 50mm lenses as well. If they want that lens to perform as expected on a higher resolution K1, the optical formula will need to be updated. Actually, if they had wanted it to perform as expected on any digital camera it should have been updated in 2006, but instead they came out with the DA* 55/1.4 in 2008 and the very expen$ive DFA*50/1.4 in 2017, and left the FA lens to languish.

The FA 50/1.4's optical design dates back to 1984. It hasn't changed in nearly four decades, and it shows.

I expect Ricoh changed the name on the K70 to try to get away from the solenoid failure stigma attached to that camera. It's not a 100% new camera, but it's new where it counts and is in keeping with other manufacturers putting fresh lipstick on their pigs and selling them as the next earth shattering product.

[ehrwien]

For me? Pointless and boring. There’s plenty of vintage glass out there. I’d rather see the efforts go into more
Modern lenses.

That's the thing. I guess that's close to no effort at all. New coatings, rounded aperture blades, perhas new outer casing, done.

[James O'Neill]

So the 50 is getting the treatment the 35 got then.

It's an FA designation, so still with an aperture ring, still with screw drive AF. Same "classic" optical formula, which goes back a long way - I thought back to Takumar lenses... Cosmetic changes to the body shell and a modern lens coating.

Seeing one of the the comments above, I think the SMC lenses still on sale were coated and probably assembled years ago and have been slowing trickling out of warehouses ever since I don't think a new SMC lens is going to happen.

I've had my FA 50 for over 20 years - got it between 2000 and getting the *ist-D in 2003. It's a nice lens but modern bodies do show its limitations - still they'll need a 50mm standard lens for the film camera :-)

[reh321]

So the 50 is getting the treatment the 35 got then.

It's an FA designation, so still with an aperture ring, still with screw drive AF. Same "classic" optical formula, which goes back a long way - I thought back to Takumar lenses... Cosmetic changes to the body shell and a modern lens coating.

Seeing one of the the comments above, I think the SMC lenses still on sale were coated and probably assembled years ago and have been slowing trickling out of warehouses ever since I don't think a new SMC lens is going to happen.

I've had my FA 50 for over 20 years - got it between 2000 and getting the *ist-D in 2003. It's a nice lens but modern bodies do show its limitations - still they'll need a 50mm standard lens for the film camera :-)

Before I ever went digital, I compared some scans @ ~6mp with the Kodachrome25 slides they were made from; I was able to find every bit of detail in the scans that I could see on the projected slides. Later, when I got a K-30, I used it with the ‘A’ 50mm F/1.7 lens that had been used to take those slides. Those experiments convinced me that the lens was much sharper than that lens had ever shown with film.

By the same token, I believe that the “FA50mm” lens will be a more than adequate kit lens when/if Pentax ever gets around to producing a film SLR - and possibly even adequate to use with a K-1 - film is not nearly as demanding as modern digital bodies are.

[James O'Neill]

Before I ever went digital, I compared some scans @ ~6mp with the Kodachrome25 slides they were made from; I was able to find every bit of detail in the scans that I could see on the projected slides. Later, when I got a K-30, I used it with the ‘A’ 50mm F/1.7 lens that had been used to take those slides. Those experiments convinced me that the lens was much sharper than that lens had ever shown with film.

By the same token, I believe that the “FA50mm” lens will be a more than adequate kit lens when/if Pentax ever gets around to producing a film SLR - and possibly even adequate to use with a K-1 - film is not nearly as demanding as modern digital bodies are.

To qualify what I said a bit... I still own the M50 f/2 which came with my MG 40 years ago this Christmas. I talked my Dad into buying a used ME an he got the M50 f/1.7 which was supposedly a lot better but when I borrowed it I couldn't see any difference - pixel peeping then was cranking the enlarger head up higher :-). Sometime round about 2001 I spotted and MZ-m + FA 50 f/1.4 on ebay (that was an odd MF body in an world that had gone AF), bought it for less than the lens was worth and promptly stuck the body back on ebay and sold it for more than I'd paid for the combo. I didn't do any serious tests against the M50 f/2 but my sense was that it needed really close examination to the tell one 50 from another. Closer than I was likely to do.
With the *ist-D, K10D, K7 and K5 the FA 50 was my go-to portrait lens. I loved the 77ltd, but it was just a little to long, the 50 on a crop sensor was near enough to perfect. I've shot well over 10,000 pictures with that lens, probably 20,000+. I rather liked it.
It's detractors say two things against it. First, that it's not fantastically sharp wide open. This never bothered me, I didn't need to use it was wide as I had used the M50 on film (SR and better high ISO saw to that), and if I wanted to get shallow D.o.F, the sharp part of the image was plenty sharp enough. And second it's soft at the edges, and that is neatly sidestepped by using a crop sensor camera. When I got the K1, firstly the 77ltd was a better choice of focal length, and secondly the images still had a nice feel but using more of the frame did show a little softness. I bought the 43 ltd to go with the K1, and it's sharper and better engineered but the bokeh - or more particularly the transitions from in focus to out of focus - can do some odd things. The FA 50 is more consistent on that score. The DFA* is better but much bigger heavier and costly. So there's definitely a place for the FA. I wouldn't be without mine.

[Wheatfield]

Before I ever went digital, I compared some scans @ ~6mp with the Kodachrome25 slides they were made from; I was able to find every bit of detail in the scans that I could see on the projected slides. Later, when I got a K-30, I used it with the ‘A’ 50mm F/1.7 lens that had been used to take those slides. Those experiments convinced me that the lens was much sharper than that lens had ever shown with film.

By the same token, I believe that the “FA50mm” lens will be a more than adequate kit lens when/if Pentax ever gets around to producing a film SLR - and possibly even adequate to use with a K-1 - film is not nearly as demanding as modern digital bodies are.

If they don't update the optical formula, the FA50/1.4 is adequate for the least demanding tasks on the K1, and will be unsatisfactory on a higher megapixel camera. I found it to be inadequately sharp for much of anything other than web display with some cropping (any working lens lens should be up to that task) until about f/5.6 (at least the sample I had wasn't). It's a pretty nice lens on APS-C though. It's center sharpness is good, but it still needs stopping down. On cropped format it's a good portrait length and is well suited to soft portraits.
I was really late to the AF party and didn't get an FA50/1.4 until after I pretty much stopped doing film.

[thibs]

They look like kids compared to F lenses IMO