[Rico]

In my extensive experience with Pentax A manual lenses and growing experience with the D FA* 50/1.4 my opinion is you might not agree but you are certainly wrong.They might sell 100 manual focus WA lenses to mount on the 50 stripped down FF bodies they could sell with them.

Your statement makes no sense. Why would they need stripped down FF bodies? An A-Series lenses works perfectly fine on a K-1. Monochrome you are not the only person with extensive experience with A-series lenses which doesn't make you certainly right no matter how wrong you may think I am. The D-FA50 is and was a waste of resources that should have been better spent.

[drumhead]

The D-FA50 is and was a waste of resources that should have been better spent.

Why? Is it a redundant lens? Honest question. A top quality, fast, normal lens for FF body seems like a no-brainer to me. I only own crop cameras so it doesn't appeal to me but if I had a K1...

[Rico]

Why? Is it a redundant lens? Honest question. A top quality, fast, normal lens for FF body seems like a no-brainer to me. I only own crop cameras so it doesn't appeal to me but if I had a K1...

I totally agree a top quality, fast, normal lens for FF body is a no-brainer. A modernized D-FA 43mm LTD ƒ1.7 AW with quick shift focus modern coatings ditch the aperture ring etc this is what Pentax needs to do with all three FA LTD's. For each D-FA* 50mm ƒ1.4 Ricoh/Pentax sells they could sell 25,000 D-FA 43mm LTD's. I just don't see how the D-FA*50mm fits into the history of Pentax lens philosophy of small and compact. People stuck with and moved from Nikon and Canon to Pentax for the DA LTD's and the FA LTD's. When FF became consumer priced most left including long time Pentax users.

With the size of the D-FA*50mm you could carry all three FA LTD's. I can not imagine I am the only person that would rather have modernized D-FA LTD's than a D-FA*50mm. This is not to take away form the quality of the D-FA*50mm. In controlled settings in studio for product or portraiture this lens is ideal. The size just doesn't make it practical to take along.

drumhead this thread has been completely side tracked any way. What I suggested was a return of a modernized AW A-series manual focus lens. They should start with the A-28mm ƒ2 as it has cross appeal for APS-C shooters too. 28mm is a great fit on APS-C.

[drumhead]

I totally agree a top quality, fast, normal lens for FF body is a no-brainer. A modernized D-FA 43mm LTD ƒ1.7 AW with quick shift focus modern coatings ditch the aperture ring etc this is what Pentax needs to do with all three FA LTD's. For each D-FA* 50mm ƒ1.4 Ricoh/Pentax sells they could sell 25,000 D-FA 43mm LTD's. I just don't see how the D-FA*50mm fits into the history of Pentax lens philosophy of small and compact. People stuck with and moved from Nikon and Canon to Pentax for the DA LTD's and the FA LTD's. When FF became consumer priced most left including long time Pentax users.

With the size of the D-FA*50mm you could carry all three FA LTD's. I can not imagine I am the only person that would rather have modernized D-FA LTD's than a D-FA*50mm. This is not to take away form the quality of the D-FA*50mm. In controlled settings in studio for product or portraiture this lens is ideal. The size just doesn't make it practical to take along.

drumhead this thread has been completely side tracked any way. What I suggested was a return of a modernized AW A-series manual focus lens. They should start with the A-28mm ƒ2 as it has cross appeal for APS-C shooters too. 28mm is a great fit on APS-C.

You make some really good points. Given its size, it would never be on my short list. Am I to assume the bulk translates to superior optics?



---------- Post added 08-29-18 at 10:20 PM ----------

And YES! Sign me up for 28mm f2.

[timw4mail]

I totally agree a top quality, fast, normal lens for FF body is a no-brainer. A modernized D-FA 43mm LTD ƒ1.7 AW with quick shift focus modern coatings ditch the aperture ring etc this is what Pentax needs to do with all three FA LTD's. For each D-FA* 50mm ƒ1.4 Ricoh/Pentax sells they could sell 25,000 D-FA 43mm LTD's. I just don't see how the D-FA*50mm fits into the history of Pentax lens philosophy of small and compact. People stuck with and moved from Nikon and Canon to Pentax for the DA LTD's and the FA LTD's. When FF became consumer priced most left including long time Pentax users.

With the size of the D-FA*50mm you could carry all three FA LTD's. I can not imagine I am the only person that would rather have modernized D-FA LTD's than a D-FA*50mm. This is not to take away form the quality of the D-FA*50mm. In controlled settings in studio for product or portraiture this lens is ideal. The size just doesn't make it practical to take along.

drumhead this thread has been completely side tracked any way. What I suggested was a return of a modernized AW A-series manual focus lens. They should start with the A-28mm ƒ2 as it has cross appeal for APS-C shooters too. 28mm is a great fit on APS-C.

Why the hate of the aperture ring?

[UserAccessDenied]

I actually kinda like this idea...
For certain lenses...

[UserAccessDenied]

Aperture ring, manual focus, WR, HD coating, 140mm f2.8 macro

[UserAccessDenied]

Any takers?! ^

[beachgardener]

Ditch the aperture rings etc.

why, I actually like the look of old lenses, aperture ring distance scale for hyper focal etc.

[Rico]

I am not after nostalgia here in regards to the old lens look. I am talking a modern version A-series manual lens with a well damped helicoid. Removing the aperture ring makes it even less complicated to manufacture and easier to weather seal. 9 curved blades. Modern coatings. Like the A-series 20mm ƒ2.8 or the 16mm fish-eye would make great candidates for such a modern manual lens. The infinity focus distance for ultra wide is anything beyond 5 feet /1.5 meters so you are never really ever having to focus that much anyway. A lens like this would keep the price point down as they are less complicated to manufacture.

Ricoh/Pentax should also revamp the DA 21mm ƒ3.2 to cover FF into a DA 20mm ƒ4 AW LTD.

[timw4mail]

I am not after nostalgia here in regards to the old lens look. I am talking a modern version A-series manual lens with a well damped helicoid. Removing the aperture ring makes it even less complicated to manufacture and easier to weather seal. 9 curved blades. Modern coatings. Like the A-series 20mm ƒ2.8 or the 16mm fish-eye would make great candidates for such a modern manual lens. The infinity focus distance for ultra wide is anything beyond 5 feet /1.5 meters so you are never really ever having to focus that much anyway. A lens like this would keep the price point down as they are less complicated to manufacture.

Ricoh/Pentax should also revamp the DA 21mm ƒ3.2 to cover FF into a DA 20mm ƒ4 AW LTD.

I'd argue that the best lenses from the manual focus era were before cost-cutting concerns led to sadness like the A 50/2.


New lenses that actually have helicoids... that is an exciting thought, though.

[pres589]

This thread starts with a request for A-series and older lens designs but we don't get aperture rings nor autofocus. And the reason is that we shouldn't be "stepping backwards"?

By cutting out owners of cameras that cannot control the aperture in-body, I think you're drastically reducing the number of people that might consider buying one. At that point, what's the motivation to pay new lens prices, vs shopping the used market? Controlling aperture with an aperture ring vs nailing focus properly every time (especially with the focusing screens Pentax installs today) isn't even slightly similar in repeated accuracy.

You're also complaining about the size of the D-FA*50 1.4, saying it's too big, and the first lens you want to recreate is the A 28 2? The lens that is almost 3x the size of the M 28 f2.8?

Dubious.

[Rico]

This thread starts with a request for A-series and older lens designs but we don't get aperture rings nor autofocus. And the reason is that we shouldn't be "stepping backwards"?

By cutting out owners of cameras that cannot control the aperture in-body, I think you're drastically reducing the number of people that might consider buying one. At that point, what's the motivation to pay new lens prices, vs shopping the used market? Controlling aperture with an aperture ring vs nailing focus properly every time (especially with the focusing screens Pentax installs today) isn't even slightly similar in repeated accuracy.

You're also complaining about the size of the D-FA*50 1.4, saying it's too big, and the first lens you want to recreate is the A 28 2? The lens that is almost 3x the size of the M 28 f2.8?

Dubious.

Dubious? pres589 you are obviously completely missing the point. I am not talking about lenses to work on old manual camera bodies to appeal to some sort of sentimentality. There is great utility in a modern A-series manual AW lens made specifically for modern digital SLR. You say this is "stepping backwards" but then say you must keep the aperture ring. An aperture ring is not needed for a modern DSLR. A simple lenses design like this the price point could be well below $500.

People going out into the field carrying a D-FA 150-400 or the D-FA 80-200 can easily bring along a small wide angle lens such as I am suggesting. Considerations of weight are so important in field work. 2lb lenses don't help. The D-FA 15-30 the D-FA 24-70 are extremely large and heavy compared to what I am talking about.

The A-Series 28mm ƒ2 is not a large lens by any stretch of the imagination even compared against the 28mm ƒ2.8 and certainly held against the D-FA*50mm. The A-Series 28mm ƒ2 happens to be a stellar lens much better than the 28mm ƒ2.8. Why waste are time with the ƒ2.8 version when the ƒ2 delivers 10x the performance.

[timw4mail]

Dubious? pres589 you are obviously completely missing the point. I am not talking about lenses to work on old manual camera bodies to appeal to some sort of sentimentality. There is great utility in a modern A-series manual AW lens made specifically for modern digital SLR. You say this is "stepping backwards" but then say you must keep the aperture ring. An aperture ring is not needed for a modern DSLR. A simple lenses design like this the price point could be well below $500.

People going out into the field carrying a D-FA 150-400 or the D-FA 80-200 can easily bring along a small wide angle lens such as I am suggesting. Considerations of weight are so important in field work. 2lb lenses don't help. The D-FA 15-30 the D-FA 24-70 are extremely large and heavy compared to what I am talking about.

The A-Series 28mm ƒ2 is not a large lens by any stretch of the imagination even compared against the 28mm ƒ2.8 and certainly held against the D-FA*50mm. The A-Series 28mm ƒ2 happens to be a stellar lens much better than the 28mm ƒ2.8. Why waste are time with the ƒ2.8 version when the ƒ2 delivers 10x the performance.

So...you basically want the compactness of a film-era design, in a modern, but manual-focus shell?

[monochrome]

This is the ‘update the FA Limiteds’ argument repackaged in a manual focus shell. I would rather they:

• Don’t change The Princesses until people stop buying them
• Give every lens a good manual focus resistance and ring
• Continue making Best-in-Class Reference lenses - that’s the Pentax tradition, such as:

  8-element Super-Takumar 50/1.4
  S-M-C Takumar 85/1.8
  S-M-C Takumar 15/3.5
  M*300/4
  A*85/1.4
  A*135/1.8
  F*300/4.5
  A*200/4 Macro
  

@Rico - Reread your Pentax history.

Small lenses such as the FA Limiteds (and DA Limiteds) weren’t the traditional reference ‘distinction’ lenses. They were the enthusiast high consumer lenses. Pentax is re-establishing it’s traditional identity as an uncompromising, creative optics and technology company. Honestly, I expect them to reissue every lens on the list above before they change the FA Limiteds.