[redrockcoulee]

Size can be a concern. The think for Pentax is, hard to make money out of prime lenses. Wouldn't it be better for Pentax to stop making dedicated lenses for apsc and full frame , instead of making prime lenses for use with both apsc and full frame, they'd sell more quantities.

Wouldn't that mean lens like the Da 21 and 15 would need to be larger? It may be good for >40mm lenses but not so for those wider. As long as they are making apsc cameras they should keep making small lenses for them.

[ThorSanchez]

Wouldn't that mean lens like the Da 21 and 15 would need to be larger? It may be good for >40mm lenses but not so for those wider. As long as they are making apsc cameras they should keep making small lenses for them.

If they stop making the DA LTD primes and instead transition to FA primes that also can be used on APS-C you end up with lenses that are bigger and much more expensive. Instead of a $350 DA 21 LTD that's nearly a pancake lens, you get the new FA 21 lens that's as big as or bigger than the 31mm LTD and will probably cost $1000+.

It's two completely different markets. I guess I'd understand if Pentax goes that direction to make more money, but I'm not buying any of these new lenses.

[someasiancameraguy]

Honestly I just want the LTD 43mm K-1 experience on the Kp. Compact, f/2 or faster, great IQ, great looks. A camera and lens setup portable enough for daily use and with a big enough aesthetic difference compared to AI bokeh/noise reduction. I'd buy that lens even if it was 500+ USD.

[Jonathan Mac]

Size can be a concern. The think for Pentax is, hard to make money out of prime lenses. Wouldn't it be better for Pentax to stop making dedicated lenses for apsc and full frame , instead of making prime lenses for use with both apsc and full frame, they'd sell more quantities.

I think they'd sell less because (A) then they'd effectively be CaNikOny making only FF glass for both formats and (B) they'd lose many of the users that came to Pentax because of their comparatively compact gear and dedicated APS-C lenses.

[biz-engineer]

I think they'd sell less because (A) then they'd effectively be CaNikOny making only FF glass for both formats and (B) they'd lose many of the users that came to Pentax because of their comparatively compact gear and dedicated APS-C lenses.

So, if what you are saying is right, Ricoh are trapped: if they make apsc of full frame only primes they don't sell enough quantity, and if they make lenses to cover both apsc and full frame they won't sell enough of them. It's sad. What should they do? Stop? Would you have selling quantities and break-even to know what it the right choice we should suggest to Ricoh?

[pres589]

Speaking only for myself, if Pentax shows up with a 24 or 28mm f2.0 prime that generally follows their established Ltd. goals and requirements, I'm not turning up my nose if it's a full-frame lens even though I don't currently plan to leave APS-C for my digital shooting. Based on my own thinking and the biases that come with that I can't imagine I'm alone in thinking "I don't care if it is larger than it needs to be, I want good glass at or about at the focal lengths I want".

I also have some doubts about how much the cost would change between a full-frame and a crop-only lens from Pentax. And I don't think there are many easily comparable examples to draw from; maaaaybe maybe the 50-135 vs 70-200? DA 35 Ltd vs FA 35? I just don't think the added material costs are great enough to really figure on much of a difference in street price. I'd want to see some real numbers if there's a suggestion of more than 10% increase in cost. The money is in the engineering, marketing (ha), and a general 'what do you think we can get for this thing on the street?' valuation.

[JensE]

I also have some doubts about how much the cost would change between a full-frame and a crop-only lens from Pentax. And I don't think there are many easily comparable examples to draw from; maaaaybe maybe the 50-135 vs 70-200? DA 35 Ltd vs FA 35? I just don't think the added material costs are great enough to really figure on much of a difference in street price. I'd want to see some real numbers if there's a suggestion of more than 10% increase in cost. The money is in the engineering, marketing (ha), and a general 'what do you think we can get for this thing on the street?' valuation.

The difference would be in a different optical construction. While at e.g. 50mm, the DA50/1.8 and F50/1.7 and at 35mm the DA35/2.4 and FA35/2.0 (6 elements in 5 groups, 1 aspheric, f/2.0) are basically identical, because of a moderate field of view, the difference in angles steeply increases with shorter focal lengths (see e.g. Bildwinkel (f) Brennweite - log/lin | Es gibt immer wieder D? | Flickr), requiring a lot more difficult corrections. A 24mm lens for APS-C needs to be corrected for a similar "easy" field of view as 36mm on full frame, so the complexity is moderate, except for very fast lenses. On full frame, the angle is comparable to the DA15mm (8 elements in 6 groups, 1 aspheric, 1 ED, only f/4.0) on APS-C - which by today's standards will be considered barely adequate with its pronounced quirks even at f/4.0. So I would expect a significantly more complex construction for a full frame lens at 24mm, with more special glass elements, higher element count and larger elements, requiring stronger AF motors - all driving up the cost.

[redrockcoulee]

So, if what you are saying is right, Ricoh are trapped: if they make apsc of full frame only primes they don't sell enough quantity, and if they make lenses to cover both apsc and full frame they won't sell enough of them. It's sad. What should they do? Stop? Would you have selling quantities and break-even to know what it the right choice we should suggest to Ricoh?

Do we know that Pentax can't afford to continue making compact apsc lenese? It's not like they need to make too many new ones. And for crop shooters who want fast lenses FF can be bought

[Jonathan Mac]

So, if what you are saying is right, Ricoh are trapped: if they make apsc of full frame only primes they don't sell enough quantity, and if they make lenses to cover both apsc and full frame they won't sell enough of them. It's sad. What should they do? Stop? Would you have selling quantities and break-even to know what it the right choice we should suggest to Ricoh?

I have absolutely no idea where you get this from.

Make FF lenses for FF cameras.
Make APS-C lenses for APS-C cameras.

That's it.

Making only FF lenses and thinking "the APS-C customers can just make do with them" is absolutely no different from making all the lenses for the 645 format and thinking "the FF customers can just make do with them".

[Sandy Hancock]

15/4.0, 21/3.2, 20-40/2.8-4.0, 35/2.8 Macro, 40/2.8, 70/2.4. Add the 100/2.8 Macro if you like.

The DA Limiteds already form a pretty complete lineup.

[Sandy Hancock]

what I'm looking for is something smaller than the 31mm (68 mm height) to put on a KP as my daily carry.

That would be the DA 21/3.2 Limited. Or the even smaller DA 40/2.8 Limited. If you want something in between with weather sealing and silent focus, it already exists as well.

Choose your set of compromises.

[Fogel70]

I have absolutely no idea where you get this from.

Make FF lenses for FF cameras.
Make APS-C lenses for APS-C cameras.

That's it.

Making only FF lenses and thinking "the APS-C customers can just make do with them" is absolutely no different from making all the lenses for the 645 format and thinking "the FF customers can just make do with them".

If Pentax is going to make a DA28, they probably reuse the optical formula from a FF lens, much like they did on DA50 and DA35 plastic fantastics.
A 28 mm lens will not make much difference in size and optical formula whether it is APS-C or FF, so there is not much reason to limit the lens to APS-C.

It is mostly on UWA and zoom lenses it can be a major benefit from designing a lens specific for APS-C or FF.

[Wasp]

As the owner of two SMC Pentax M 28mm f/2.8 lenses, I can relate my experience on crop frame. It is a surprisingly useful lens for street photography. Set focus point to three meters, aperture to f/11, point and shoot. Who needs autofocus?

For other things, I never really found much use for the focal length. Mostly, it is always in between what I need. It's not really a wide angle, so not very good for landscapes. It's not good for portraits either, not quite long enough. Boken is not its forte either. Finally, it's only half a stop or so faster than the kit lens - not really good for low light. So when selecting lenses to take up the limited space in my bag, the 28mm f/2.8 rarely makes the cut. Perhaps I should get an f/2 version but they are rare and expensive.

[thebitterfig]

I'll throw in again for an HD update of the retired FA 28mm f/2.8. Size for the old SMC version was a hair longer than the DA15 or the old FA 50mm, which are probably small enough. It might be nice to get an extra stop of light, but f/2.8 isn't bad, and having access to an affordable wide for FF users would be useful to another user.

HD FA 28 wouldn't meet Limited design style, but the lens is well reviewed and sharp wide open. Given the vignetting and slight corner softness of the DA Ltds, an HD FA might actually be a nicer optic.

[sundown]

I love the the idea of an aps-c designed 28 (no ff formula reused), limited or not