[Iberia]

I would like a full frame body for the larger viewfinder, the faster wide-angle lenses, the shallower depth-of-field, the lesser high-ISO noise.

And I would also like some fast, high performance D-FA primes (with "conventional" focal-lengths) to go with it.

I don't think that many of the old FA lenses are good enough for digital.

R

[Na Horuk]

I don't think that many of the old FA lenses are good enough for digital.

Pretty sure most of the FA lenses were made when digital was already the standard (even though it had much lower MP). Sure, not all of them would shine on a FF 24MP sensor, but at least a few would be decent enough, given the new HD coatings. And some of the current DA lenses already cover the FF image circle. And Pentax also has two nice DFA primes (the macros). This would be adequate for a start, meanwhile an extensive lineup could be planned.

[Iberia]

Is there a list of DA lenses that cover the FF image circle?

R

[Na Horuk]

Is there a list of DA lenses that cover the FF image circle?

R

Pretty sure there is a thread about them. Maybe this one. Im sure with some small tweaks this could be further improved

[pinholecam]

I would like a full frame body for the larger viewfinder, the faster wide-angle lenses, the shallower depth-of-field, the lesser high-ISO noise.

And I would also like some fast, high performance D-FA primes (with "conventional" focal-lengths) to go with it.

I don't think that many of the old FA lenses are good enough for digital.

R

That is incorrect.

These 2 threads just a few threads below this one already demonstrates that the lenses are fine.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/246917-does-my-m42-...ploration.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/130552-pentax-full-...well-sort.html




There is also this :
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/247282-pentax-lenses-ff-club.html



Other people are also using old leica, zeiss, Canon FD, Nikon pre-Ai, etc lenses on FF w/o any issues.
24mp is easy peasy with the pixel density of a 10mp aps-c camera.
Most lenses will work fine on it.

[Kunzite]

Imaginary conversation in a not-so-distant imaginary future:
"The new Canikony lenses are excellent, as tested by WhateverReviewsMark and from the samples I saw"
"Oh? Nice; how about Pentax lenses?"
"Well, Pentax lenses are... fine... mostly..."

I'm afraid having "fine" lenses would not be enough. Yes we would be able to use them with satisfactory results, but Ricoh Imaging would have to replace them with more modern versions.

[Rondec]

Imaginary conversation in a not-so-distant imaginary future:
"The new Canikony lenses are excellent, as tested by WhateverReviewsMark and from the samples I saw"
"Oh? Nice; how about Pentax lenses?"
"Well, Pentax lenses are... fine... mostly..."

I'm afraid having "fine" lenses would not be enough. Yes we would be able to use them with satisfactory results, but Ricoh Imaging would have to replace them with more modern versions.

If Ricoh makes a new full frame camera, it will be as much to sell new K mount lenses as it would be to sell camera bodies. Obviously that means a new line up -- at least from a zoom standpoint. I just don't see them interested in pulling a Sony, where you make a camera primarily so people can mount old glass (or other mount's glass) on the camera body.

If you own old k mount lenses, you'll be able to use them without problem, but newer glass will (hopefully) have better contrast, better flare control, better borders and less purple fringing (a big problem, even with the FA limiteds).

[pinholecam]

Imaginary conversation in a not-so-distant imaginary future:
"The new Canikony lenses are excellent, as tested by WhateverReviewsMark and from the samples I saw"
"Oh? Nice; how about Pentax lenses?"
"Well, Pentax lenses are... fine... mostly..."

I'm afraid having "fine" lenses would not be enough. Yes we would be able to use them with satisfactory results, but Ricoh Imaging would have to replace them with more modern versions.

By that measure, I think lots of still in production Canikon and Sony (from Minolta) lenses are 'fine' too.

When I said fine, I was being modest about those Pentax lenses..
Many of them work great.

[Iberia]

That is incorrect.

These 2 threads just a few threads below this one already demonstrates that the lenses are fine.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/246917-does-my-m42-...ploration.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/130552-pentax-full-...well-sort.html




There is also this :
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/247282-pentax-lenses-ff-club.html



Other people are also using old leica, zeiss, Canon FD, Nikon pre-Ai, etc lenses on FF w/o any issues.
24mp is easy peasy with the pixel density of a 10mp aps-c camera.
Most lenses will work fine on it.

My comment regarding the need for new full-frame lenses was based on the tests available at Photozone and SLRgear.
While some lenses will, as you've mentioned, "work fine" others don't even perform (technically) well in an APS body (i.e. FA 24mm).
There's some room for improvement on several designs at least when it comes to corder sharpness, CA control and geometric distortion.

Despite it's advantages, I would only invest a full frame body if it were to perform better than it's APS equivalent and that performance depends mostly on lens quality.
For me camera and lenses are just a tool for a given purpose; they "arouse" me as much as a screw driver or a wrench.

R

[cali92rs]

Imaginary conversation in a not-so-distant imaginary future:
"The new Canikony lenses are excellent, as tested by WhateverReviewsMark and from the samples I saw"
"Oh? Nice; how about Pentax lenses?"
"Well, Pentax lenses are... fine... mostly..."

I'm afraid having "fine" lenses would not be enough. Yes we would be able to use them with satisfactory results, but Ricoh Imaging would have to replace them with more modern versions.

That new 70-200mm on the road map has FF written all over it.
I would also be surprised if they don't release a 24-70ish zoom at or before FF debut as well.

[Kunzite]

That lens is the reason I (still) believe they will launch a K-mount "full frame" DSLR. Well, together with the interviews in which they said they'll do it.

Indeed, with the other manufacturers (including 3rd-party ones) making better and better lenses, Pentax/Ricoh Imaging must keep up - or risk of being seen as an "inferior" system; regardless of the results we're getting with the old lenses. Their products will be tested, DXOmarked, reviewed to death and every weakness will be exacerbated.

[monochrome]

and every weakness will be exacerbated.

The problem isn't so much that the lenses aren't good enough comparatively. The problem is that the standard for 'Good' has changed over time (mostly as a result of computer-aided-design and modern manufacturing techniques) so that the principal benefits of the new technology (improved sharpness, which is objective, can be measured, and thus ranked) is now the principal ranking standard. Image beauty (which is subjective) is no longer an evaluative standard for a lens comparison. Sharpness should be for Macro but we look for it in everything and we look for it with a virtual loupe. Science has triumphed over art.

To my taste many legacy Pentax lenses have yet to see their equals in the modern world - but I'm an old guy.

[Rondec]

The problem isn't so much that the lenses aren't good enough comparatively. The problem is that the standard for 'Good' has changed over time (mostly as a result of computer-aided-design and modern manufacturing techniques) so that the principal benefits of the new technology (improved sharpness, which is objective, can be measured, and thus ranked) is now the principal ranking standard. Image beauty (which is subjective) is no longer an evaluative standard for a lens comparison. Sharpness should be for Macro but we look for it in everything and we look for it with a virtual loupe. Science has triumphed over art.

To my taste many legacy Pentax lenses have yet to see their equals in the modern world - but I'm an old guy.

The thing about modern testing is that it focuses on quantifiable things -- mainly sharpness and vignetting and distortion. Newer Sigmas have been corrected to the point that they are brutally sharp. But things that aren't as quantifiable -- out of focus rendering, how lenses deal with transitions from in focus to out of focus -- are tough for review to deal with, but are the places that the FA limiteds shine.

(obligatory FA 77 shot).

[Iberia]

The problem isn't so much that the lenses aren't good enough comparatively. The problem is that the standard for 'Good' has changed over time (mostly as a result of computer-aided-design and modern manufacturing techniques) so that the principal benefits of the new technology (improved sharpness, which is objective, can be measured, and thus ranked) is now the principal ranking standard. Image beauty (which is subjective) is no longer an evaluative standard for a lens comparison. Sharpness should be for Macro but we look for it in everything and we look for it with a virtual loupe. Science has triumphed over art.

To my taste many legacy Pentax lenses have yet to see their equals in the modern world - but I'm an old guy.

In my view, the "art" part of photography is between one's ears.
After that has been taken care of, one must choose the best tool for the job and I would like to be able to choose the best technical performance.
Besides it's easy to reduce corner sharpness, add some vignetting and some flare or tweak colours in post processing for "creative" purposes, while the opposite is sometimos difficult or even impossible be fully acomplished, at least not through a fast or lossless process…
Why should I "cripple" the potential from the start instead of using it to it full abilities?

I could use the DA 21mm as an example as I was once "forced" to sharpen borders of several group pictures (school children) with a "gradual" mask after realizing that the edges were totally blury (and suffered from pronounced geometric distortion).

R

[ElJamoquio]

I like being able to see contrast in real-time, rather than see it later. Which favors contrast-y lenses.

I also like having sharp pictures. I can add softness later.

I've never seen post-process bokeh that I've liked. Bokeh cannot be fixed right now, it must be produced from the lens.

I'm not sure why I'm rambling but there are competing effects here somewhere.