[KDAFA]

From what I've seen, sometimes the 43's bokeh is a bit busy for my tastes. It's the main reason I haven't pulled the trigger on it. That said, of the current normal lenses it's my favorite...

Thanks for sharing, Tom.

It's been said elsewhere in this forum that the FA43 Ltd is a misunderstood lens, and in some ways, I think that's true.

Bokeh might be a case in point. If I may here present a different viewpoint: what some perceive as a "weakness" of the FA43 I have instead found to be a key STRENGTH of the lens.

How so?

Let's put aside the occasional 'busy' bokeh - that happens to ALL lenses, under the 'wrong' set of conditions; I've seen it happen to even the FA31.

But what I've discovered is that PRECISELY because the 43 renders bokeh differently than say, the 77 or 31, it helps creates images with a subtly different, unique character to them, a signature "look", one might say. (Not putting down either lens - they're both magnificent in their own right).

But there's a unique texture to the 43's bokeh, a certain quality to it, that enables the creation of images with more character or 'soul' to them than if it had been the straight-ahead, typical "creamy smooth" type of bokeh.

Of course, there are other factors which help contribute to that FA43 "look", but this is the key point I'm making: I've found that special bokeh "nature" of the 43 to be one creative tool among others in its arsenal, one of great value in helping to craft magical images. It is an intrinsic part of what we know to be that unique FA43 Ltd rendering.

I'd be really sorry to ever see it go.

---------- Post added 04-10-15 at 05:08 PM ----------

... but I think that it'll be blasphemous to alter the rendering.

Precisely.

---------- Post added 04-10-15 at 05:58 PM ----------

The FA43 may have some flaws, warts...

This does not apply to the FA43 alone.

All lenses, without exception, have their respective "flaws and warts".

---

Last edited by KDAFA; 04-10-2015 at 01:25 AM.

[afan137]

Not speculating... Wishing.

New DFA primes have got to be at some stage of development. I'm daydreaming about new Limiteds and Stars. And I'm sure I'm not the only one!

My Top 3 (in order):

1. DFA Limited 43mm F1.4 WR
Haven't bought the current version but if I'm to get the new FF I will immediately need a field of view equivalent for the 31 I love and use so much.

2. DFA Limited 21mm F2 WR
Sharp, wide, and fast! Please!

3. DFA Limited 135 F1.8 WR
Compact tele with creamy bokeh. Roughly fill the spot of the sweet 77.

I'd be keenly interested in a DFA* 200mm F2.8 AW as well but I would shoot with the DFA Limited WRs above a lot more. I'm counting on them all being laden with the same enchanting pixie dust of their FA Limited brethren. Not too particular about the maximum aperture but I'm really hoping that they'll be weather resistant.

What sexy new Pentax primes are you lusting after?

When you say limited, then you can't expect fast lens because it will be huge and heavy.

My expectation for the new primes:

First the DFA* 85mm F1.4 is a must.
Then DFA* 24 or 28 F2.
Last one will be DFA* 300 F2.8

For the limited, just improve the coating with newly Aero Bright II, and the motor of the existing three amigos DFA 31/43/77. And pentax is ready to compete.

[svitekphotos]

Dream line-up:

2,8/15
2,8/21
2,0/28
1,4/35
1,4/50
1,4/85
1,2/85
1,8/100
2,0/135
2,0/200

Most are possible... Others are just in dreamland

[Trudger1272]

DFA* 20 f2.8
DFA* 85 F1.4
DFA* 135 F2.8
...and I'd ditch the DA 21Ltd.
As it is, the DA series is missing a wider * lens itself.

[Original Bandicoot]

A few here have said 'But a 135/1.8 would be huge' - but Pentax made a 135/1.8 A* that is very manageable. Corners are bright and sharp so I'm not sure that the circle of coverage would need to be enlarged to provide full SR, and adding AF and WR would not increase the girth unreasonably. In other words, I think a 135/1.8 is entirely feasible without becoming so big that it no longer 'felt like a Pentax'.

I also don't agree with the poster that said that the low light abilities of the new body would render fast lenses unnecessary. I like wide apertures, on certain lenses, for the shallow DoF rather than only for low light reasons. The larger senor of FF gives shallower DoF, and it would be a shame to lose that particular benefit by then going for slower glass.

-----

My own wishlist? A lot of what I'd like would be updates of classic Pentax glass. The 'three amigos' should be fully supported - it would be a slap in the face to loyal Pentaxians if they aren't - but bringing out new versions with quick-shift, Aero-Bright II, and weather sealing would surely make for real winners in the market.

(Those who've grown up with using those lenses on APS-C will probably want a fourth amigo at the longer end - Pentax's excellent older 105 and 120 designs would be good starting points.)

The old 15mm and 20mm lenses are classics, and updates there would be good. They don't need to be fast. The 50/1.2 has a look all its own, and that too could be updated.

Finally - bring back the 85/1.4 (preferably with the rendering of the older, pre-AF design, though many portraitists prefer the AF one's look) and more than anything I want the 200/4 macro that I've always lusted after to be revived: one of the sharpest lenses ever made, by anyone.

-----

There's plenty of others Ricoh will need if they want Pentax to 'compete' (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 600/4 and some fast wides, all of which they have made in the past. Personally, I'd like an AF version of the old 600/5.6.) We can all figure out what they will be, and I'm sure an early update of the 50/1.8 will be one of Ricoh's priorities.

I support all that because it's in all our interests for Pentax to be competitive so that it stays in the game and doesn't have to raise its prices to 'niche player' levels.

Nonetheless, I also very sincerely hope that there'll still be room for Ricoh to play to Pentax's strength in medium speed, very compact primes; and that the 'look' of Pentax glass won't be lost. I love that look, it's different to Canon's, Nikon's (and Sony's, which sucks) and also not the same as Leica: it's that look (and the superior ergonomics) that kept me with Pentax through the dark years, and it would be a great shame if it were lost in a flurry of computer 'optimised' me-too glass.

[bilybianca]

I'm sort of baffled that only one, (before me) has mentioned a resurrection of the Holy Pentax Grail, a DFA* 200mm f4Macro. It's predecessor is legendary and virtually unavailable on the used market. If I could get my hands on one of these, it would itself alone justify buying an FF body.

Then it would be nice to see a DFA* 135 1.8, an upgraded A* 135 with AF, digital coatings and weathersealing. Nice, but not essential. And an updated, weathersealed 85mm f1.4 would also be nice, but the FA can be picked up on ebay whenever one has the lust and pennies for it.

There are a number of older WA lenses available for FF. I have the FA 20mm, so I won't look for a newer version. The day after the announcemet of the FF body, I bought an "as new" A 15mm f3.5 on a national Classifieds site. That postponed my aquisition of a Samyang 10mm lens till an undefined future. But Oh FF, where art thou? Can I compare thee to a summers day...

[Stavri]

I'm sort of baffled that only one, (before me) has mentioned a resurrection of the Holy Pentax Grail, a DFA* 200mm f4Macro. It's predecessor is legendary and virtually unavailable on the used market. If I could get my hands on one of these, it would itself alone justify buying an FF body.

Then it would be nice to see a DFA* 135 1.8, an upgraded A* 135 with AF, digital coatings and weathersealing. Nice, but not essential. And an updated, weathersealed 85mm f1.4 would also be nice, but the FA can be picked up on ebay whenever one has the lust and pennies for it.

There are a number of older WA lenses available for FF. I have the FA 20mm, so I won't look for a newer version. The day after the announcemet of the FF body, I bought an "as new" A 15mm f3.5 on a national Classifieds site. That postponed my aquisition of a Samyang 10mm lens till an undefined future. But Oh FF, where art thou? Can I compare thee to a summers day...

The reason few muster the courage to wish for a new 200mm f?? macro is due to the premium pricing that will be attached to it. In my household my bookkeeper makes all lens buying decisions, and the 200mm macro is in the "look but don't touch" category...

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

The AT-X 107 DX is classified as a DX lens, but the AT-X 107 NH is not. To be fair, it's not completely FF for the full zoom range either.

Tokina | Digital Eyes - Visionary technology makes a difference you can see

As you can see that it clearly designated as a DX line lens
Sure you can use it in some limited capacity on FF but if look at most of the dx zooms in their lineup I bet you that at least 2/3 could cover the same limited capacity on FF

[monochrome]

They are working on two or three zooms, no time to devlevop primes for now; you going have to wait 3 years to have a DFA primes.

3-5 pro-grade primes will be released next year. This year is zooms - and the body.

And there's new APSc bodies and lenses and 645 lenses. This year.

This isn't your father's Pentax.

[monochrome]

What will really make me happy to see in any new DFA offerings is an aperture ring. If that is absent, it'll be an even stronger indication that we won't ever get a de-crippled K-mount.

I believe the K-mount is crippled forever unless they remove the focusing motor from the body. There just isn't room for both.

I suspect they will come up with something. A 2% crop function would likely fix any SR issues with older lenses.

I've heard that has been considered.

[monochrome]

Pro-grade lenses with all the modern attributes (coatings, aperture blades, QS, AW, DC ring motor, no aperture ring):

Realistic lenses for size and money -

D-FA24/2
D-FA 35/2 D-FA 28/2 (see below)
D-FA135/2.5

[KDAFA]

...Nonetheless, I also very sincerely hope that... the 'look' of Pentax glass won't be lost. I love that look, it's different to Canon's, Nikon's (and Sony's, which sucks) and also not the same as Leica: it's that look (and the superior ergonomics) that kept me with Pentax through the dark years, and it would be a great shame if it were lost...

Heartily agree!

That 'Pentax' look is at the very core of everything - the reason for it all.

Great ergonomics, photographer-friendly design, solid build, great high-ISO, WR, compactness etc.; all these are wonderful things, no doubt about that.

But that essential 'Pentax' look; that is what makes Pentax Pentax.

Absolutely non-negotiable.

[Barry Pearson]

Removing the built on sun-hood from the DA 10-17 makes it very usable. The new Tokina version (AT-X 107 NH), which is the same as the DA 10-17, comes standard without that sun hood and is classified as FF compatible.

Thanks for the reminder.

I saw an article (or video?) somewhere about cutting it off. I wonder ....?!

[Sandy Hancock]

Pro-grade lenses with all the modern attributes (coatings, aperture blades, QS, AW, DC ring motor, no aperture ring):

Realistic lenses for size and money -

D-FA24/2
D-FA 35/2
D-FA135/2.5

If they are all *excellent* from wide open I would accept that, but I think the the 35 needs to be f/1.4 to give a point of difference from the FA31 - fast, but big and heavy = 35, compact with added pixie dust = 31.

[Na Horuk]

D-FA24/2 D-FA 35/2 D-FA135/2.5

Would the DFA 35mm be a re-released FA 35mm f2.0, just with new coatings, QS, maybe rounded aperture blades? That would be nice, but I think Pentax should wait with 35mm because it already has plenty 35mm lenses (DA f2.4, DA f2.8 ltd macro, FA 35mm f2.0, then there are a couple zoom lenses that reach this, and many third party options as well, prime and zoom) and go for 24mm and 28mm first (completely missing as primes for years now)