Do we really need/want updated DA★ lenses?

James O'Neill wrote:

I want to see more DFA* and DFA limited lenses, not DA* ones.

You're very keen on the "professional" tag, but I doubt there are many people earning their living with APS-C Pentax gear, so these are high end lenses. I don't know if the the existing ones have optical formulations which will last and if they need minor revisions, but tweaking low volume , high cost lenses in a way which nets very few extra sales seems like a bad use of scarce resources.

I earn my living with APS-C Pentax gear, and I own a DA★ lens, yet I do nearly all my commercial work with an old K200D and Sigma 28–105mm. I suppose that makes my Sigma kit zoom my "professional" lens. The light kit is what really matters for product photography, so I usually leave my "high end" as you call it lens at home.

Pentax revamped most of the APS-C Limited line around 2013, adding HD coatings (delightful) and rounding the aperture blades (unforgivable). The lens hood redesign and HD update to the 10–17mm Fish-Eye in 2019 were welcome if incremental updates.

I'm wondering how many professionals bought the original DA★ lenses and APS-C cameras because those were the only K-mount offerings back then. (Meaning, they weren't interested in 645 gear, and they would have bought fullframe cameras and FA★ lenses had those been available.)

Partly because my office equipment is so bargain-basement, I find my personal DA★ and K-S2 to be quite marvelous on weekend hikes, but I recognize that mine is an unusual case.