[mee]

Pentax started a new batch run of SMC FA Limiteds in January, 2016. The last batch run ended December, 2012.

The question isn't why didn't Pentax change them - it is Why change them?

I know you enjoy automotive analogies... so allow me to pose one here..

Updating the FA limited into D-FA limited with new coatings, WR, and a motor would be like updating a 69 Mustang through a modern suspension, brakes, and wider, larger tires.

A lot has happened in ~50 years... the updated tires alone will make the car handle better than it ever could in 1969.

Some may feel nostalgic and want period-correct everything on the car.. yet others want the look and style that comes with a 69 Mustang but with the handling and performance of today.

That is what updating the FA Limited would do.. along those lines.

[FilmORbitz]

Several comments - I just checked the Tamron and Sigma websites, they are showing several Pentax mount lenses. Certainly there are no lack of quality K mount MF lenses out there for very little cost. I used my Spotmatic for decades with only 3 lenses - how many do we really need? Finally, there are many camera mount types with few or even no third party lens new releases - such as Leica and Hasselblad.

While I understand this argument, it is still disapointing to have such limited prospects for state-of-the-art offerings. I have several generations of old K-mount lenses (purchased new) from the '70s forward that just don't perform as well as my newer lenses. If they didn't deteriorate with age, the thought of paying premium prices for used, often multi-owner lenses would be more palatable. This limited choice has artificially inflated the prices of newer lenses in particular...good if you're selling, but really bad for buyers.
There is, however, a happy ending because I still wouldn't trade my K-3II for anything from Canikony. I like it that much.
As for the Leica and Hasselblad folks, my assumption is they simply pay someone to move the subject fore and aft, so only need one lens.

[pres589]

Sometimes modernizing an old lens design by messing with coatings and such doesn't help it or actually makes it less desirable. Example: DA15. I don't know how much of the change to how that lens performs was caused by the switch in coatings, but, the rounded aperture blades did that lens no favors.

Honestly, for Ricoh, the FA Limited production should be like a cash register; make them in small batches when they run out and take the money. If sales slow to a point to where it no longer makes sense to produce them, stop, but until then...

[lytrytyr]

No offence intended to anyone, except maybe Zeiss....

Want them to drop their M42 lenses?

---------- Post added 04-27-17 at 01:47 PM ----------

and Tamron

Want them to stop producing Pentax lenses (15-30, 24-70)?

---

Last edited by lytrytyr; 04-27-2017 at 11:49 AM.

[FilmORbitz]

You're kind of making my point. I avoid the SomeDontMove lenses like the plague, and m42 is a step worse than my oldest film lenses. What I'd like are modern lenses. If everyone else is happy with the current situation for APS-C, then I'm just an outlier.

[pres589]

FilmO, what are you missing on APS-C? What I was hoping for is a faster than 2.8 28mm prime for a good "normal" lens on my K-5 II. Hmm... *maybe* a wider AF prime than the DA14 but I probably wouldn't want to actually packit with me, so that's not really a strong want.

[FilmORbitz]

FilmO, what are you missing on APS-C? What I was hoping for is a faster than 2.8 28mm prime for a good "normal" lens on my K-5 II. Hmm... *maybe* a wider AF prime than the DA14 but I probably wouldn't want to actually packit with me, so that's not really a strong want.

Well, there are several in this list. But I have the desire to be the original owner, and that its design/coatings be recent. See the problem? Only ONE of these is still in production, and it's SDM:

Pentax Extreme Telephoto Prime Lenses

[angerdan]

Well, there are several in this list. But I have the desire to be the original owner, and that its design/coatings be recent. See the problem? Only ONE of these is still in production, and it's SDM:
Pentax Extreme Telephoto Prime Lenses

The list is outdated, DA 560mm 5.6 DC AW is missing.
SDM motor of DA* 300mm 4.0 is very reliable.
There is also the D FA 150-450mm available.

[FilmORbitz]

The list is outdated, DA 560mm 5.6 DC AW is missing.
SDM motor of DA* 300mm 4.0 is very reliable.
There is also the D FA 150-450mm available.

Thank you. I was aware of those 2 missing lenses, with the DFA 150-450 being the most appealing, if I was looking for a zoom. And I agree the list is "outdated", which was sorta my point.
Regarding SDM issues, we will have to agree to disagree. Even Pentax has admitted that the design was problematic, and 9 pages of threads on this site related to "SDM failure" is not encouraging. But I am happy to use DC motor based designs for now. Time will tell if the new PLM motor provides the solution. Its first application seems quite impressive.

[clackers]

Thank you. I was aware of those 2 missing lenses, with the DFA 150-450 being the most appealing, if I was looking for a zoom. And I agree the list is "outdated", which was sorta my point.
Regarding SDM issues, we will have to agree to disagree. Even Pentax has admitted that the design was problematic, and 9 pages of threads on this site related to "SDM failure" is not encouraging. But I am happy to use DC motor based designs for now. Time will tell if the new PLM motor provides the solution. Its first application seems quite impressive.

I think you'll find complaints about the 16-50 and 50-135 which were the first in-lens motors Pentax did, IIRC, but not about the later 55, 300, [Edit: the 560 doesn't have SDM, thanks FilmORblitz!] , et al.

PLM is not a solution for pro lenses. The moving elements need to be *small*.

[FilmORbitz]

I think you'll find complaints about the 16-50 and 50-135 which were the first in-lens motors Pentax did, IIRC, but not about the later 55, 300, 560, et al.

PLM is not a solution for pro lenses. The moving elements need to be *small*.

Yeah, saw the CP+ interview where Pentax mentions the low-torque issue with PLM. They may be able to make some compromises which improve that situation.
Evaluating the true severity of SDM failures as a consumer is difficult. Was the issue identified and solved? Which lenses have the fix? Is that used lens in the Store in the fixed or not fixed category? Pentax could help us out with some details, but that level of confession is rare from corporations.
I believe that Pentax engineers are as capable, and certainly motivated, as any in the photo business, and that Canon-held patents are a factor -- there are a limited range of ways to acceptably skin a cat, and I'll bet Canon is unlikely to share those optimal techniques garnered as a USM pioneer.
Given that big Canon wall, Pentax is cleverly sneaking around the end with some old-school technology in the DC motor -- it is actually not what I assumed (if interested the patent is here):
United States Patent: 8149520
I am happy with the noise and focus performance of my DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR, and while not silent, like screw drive, it gets the job done for me. There is a constant battle in motor design between torque, speed, power consumption, accuracy, size, reliability, and cost. I hope the Pentax DNA, which is skewed toward smaller/lighter, can still get us an optimal solution going forward.

[angerdan]

Was the issue identified and solved? Which lenses have the fix? Is that used lens in the Store in the fixed or not fixed category? Pentax could help us out with some details, but that level of confession is rare from corporations.
Given that big Canon wall, Pentax is cleverly sneaking around the end with some old-school technology in the DC motor -- it is actually not what I assumed (if interested the patent is here):
United States Patent: 8149520
I am happy with the noise and focus performance of my DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR, and while not silent, like screw drive, it gets the job done for me.

Pentax even did give an Interview about SDM on pentaxforums.
Primes (DA* 55 / 200 / 300) has been affected just 12% before 2012.
Pentax SDM Failure Survey Results - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

"...all lenses produced in 2012 or later should no longer fail."
Pentax SDM Failure Survey Results - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

The DC patent is also here:
ROTARY ACTUATOR
RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Working Principle of the New "DC" Motor (Patent Paper Included)

[FilmORbitz]

Pentax even did give an Interview about SDM on pentaxforums.
Primes (DA* 55 / 200 / 300) has been affected just 12% before 2012.
Pentax SDM Failure Survey Results - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

"...all lenses produced in 2012 or later should no longer fail."
Pentax SDM Failure Survey Results - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

The DC patent is also here:
ROTARY ACTUATOR
RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Working Principle of the New "DC" Motor (Patent Paper Included)

Yup, had read the survey many times, and the problem of determining any given lens' date-of-manufacture is key. They can languish on distributor and dealer shelves for quite some time. No way to predict unless Pentax has published serial-number tables paired with fixes. The raw survey data suggest a combination of infant mortality plus extended-use failure. And we know nothing about relative "mileage" of the more problematic zooms versus the prime tele's. I'll guess the former's higher failure rate is due in part to greater usage. If you look at this site's lens serial number registry, and sort by serial number, you will see an uninterpretable hodge-podge of dates. Are these the dates used in the survey? The survey data are interesting, but the confounding and unknown variables are significant. And the wishful statement about SDM lenses from 2012 forward being reliable would probably be disproven if the survey was performed again today. This was the point in time where Pentax was transitioning away from SDM to DC motors, which should also be a clue. The failure rates approaching 50% and greater are beyond significant, and even rates beyond 2 or 3 percent would be disastrous in most industries -- "...just 12%" is terrible.
I do have faith they can and will come up with a reliable autofocus solution, and for the monies charged, we deserve it.

[klkitchens]

Agreed to some extent, Tamron and Sigma dropping Pentax is a blow. Not sure if dying is entirely accurate though, as other brands have come along that do support Pentax (ie Venus). I think it's universally accepted that Pentax is now experiencing a global renaissance after being at its nadir in the last few years. If that renaissance continues and if there's money in it you can expect Tamron and Sigma to jump back in.

SIgma is dropping Pentax???

[pres589]

klkitchens, Sigma and Tamron have both announced that they have no plans to introduce new lenses in k-mount going forward. One might assume that both companies are simply selling off existing stock at this point, although that would be an assumption, as far as I know. New lenses should not be expected to come from either company until you see it on a store shelf.