Reading mode: Light Dark

New Pentax-D FA series lenses coming! Two macro lenses announced

Go to last post
Roland Mabo said:
Of course Pentax are working on larger format sensors, like
everyone else is doing. It's just not ready yet and it will take
some time for the prices to come down to a level which makes it to
an interesting business. When that day comes, Pentax has the lenses
to match.

Best wishes
Roland
Click to expand...
According to some consumers and industry observers, that day will never come. I have the opposite opinion. Larger (perhaps even full frame) formats will soon (2-3 years max) replace the APS sensors. Economy of scale will make the larger sensors much cheaper to produce. Since they have clear advantages over the smaller APS sized sensors in image quality and compatibility with existing lenses, they should drive the APS sensors into the compact point and shoot digital cameras in no time.
 
Qwntm said:
I think Pentax is realizing that it is only a matter of time before
Canon releases a full frame sub $1000 digital SLR.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Some day it is going to happen, and it will happen sooner if more manufacturers start making their own chips instead of relying on others to produce chips for them at a profit.
Qwntm said:
Even if it is 5
years away, and I think it might be sooner than that, we are at
1.3X right now for $4500.00, if Pentax has a complete line of 1.5x
lenses, they are SOL.
Click to expand...
The 10D replacement will likely have a 1.3x sensor since it is now at 1.6x, which is smaller than that in the D70. Canon's 1.6x format DSLR cameras are being outcompeted by the D70. It needs a bigger sensor to regain market shares. When Nikon does finally catch up to the 1.3x sensor, Canon can move its lineup to the full frame sensor to gain a competitive advantage. Pentax would definitely need larger sensors to compete with Canon, even if some Nikon users may believe otherwise.
Qwntm said:
Chips will get bigger. And there is a distinct advantage to having
a digital slr and a film slr that uses the same lenses in the same
bag, and again, Canon has this right now wiht no need for any
non-film compatible lenses like the DA 16-45.

This is getting even more interesting...

Ed
Click to expand...
Most digital shooters are already leaving their film SLR cameras at home. Having a full frame DSLR will allow them to move seamlessly to digital from film. The old 100mm portrait lens is no longer an oddball 150mm anymore when one is using a full frame digital. The wonderfully sharp 28-70mm f/2.8 lens in many photographers' bag will be restored to its full functionality again, without it becoming a much less useful 42-105mm.
 
Wally OZ said:
I suspect this is the tip of the iceberg revealing that designed
for digital is and was allways a cruel expensive HOAX!
Click to expand...
There are many ways to design a lens for better performance with digital cameras. One of these is to straighten the path of the light coming out of the lens. Tokina, Tamron, Nikon, Pentax and others have used aspherical elements to accomplish this goal. This is necessary because light hitting the sensor at even a small angle away from the perpendicular will produce a very weak signal in the silicon. I suspect that the optical engineers at Pentax paid special attention to straightening the light path in these new macro lenses. Another way to design better digital lenses is to pay more attention to correcting chromatic aberration, especially at the edges of the frame. Since digital sensors have pixels that detect different colors, chromatic aberration can really wreak havoc when the camera tries to interpolate the light striking different adjacent pixels if chromatic aberration is not well corrected.

I don't think you can correct chromatic aberration or straighten the light path with a piece of black cloth.
 
Joe Franek said:
I am sure somebody will like and buy the new DFA macro's.
But why prepare lenses for the future FF body,
Click to expand...
Why? Perhaps Pentax will announce a full frame digital body at Photokina.
Joe Franek said:
if you have the istD
still waiting to get the DA 50-200 or something?
Click to expand...
Need a 50-200? You can get a Tokina AT-X AF 24-200mm, a Tamron AF 28-200mm (which was once sold as a Pentax FA lens) or you can find a used manual focus 35-200mm or 50-250mm lens from the likes of the Tokina AT-X lens line for a song.
Joe Franek said:
Even if the theory that APS sensors are just a stop-gap is right,
and affordable FF Pentax is around the corner, why not start with
DFA 24-90 or something like that, which would be also very useful
RIGHT NOW for the istD.

Joe
Click to expand...
The *ist D is selling in very low numbers. Pentax is apparently going to concentrate more on an upcoming full frame than on wasting resources on a camera that may become obsolete before it becomes popular. A DA24-90 is not needed since Pentax already has a film camera lens in that range.
 
Anastigmat said:
Need a 50-200? You can get a Tokina AT-X AF 24-200mm, a Tamron AF
28-200mm (which was once sold as a Pentax FA lens) or you can find
a used manual focus 35-200mm or 50-250mm lens from the likes of the
Tokina AT-X lens line for a song.
Click to expand...
Need a 50mm macro? Pentax has one already. Need a 100mm macro? No problem - Pentax has two already.
Anastigmat said:
A DA24-90 is not needed since Pentax already has a film
camera lens in that range.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I was planning to buy untill I started reading the reviews.

Anastigmat, you have said further down on this thread that Canon's APS DSLRs are loosing to Nikon's D70. Nikon happens to be the only one of the big guys to have what the new digital SLR enthusiasts (not professionals) want: to cover the old range of 28-105 mm in a single zoom. Pentax could have got close to that by re-engineering the 24-90.

Lets hope that there will be more announcements in the near future.

Joe
 
Anastigmat said:
According to some consumers and industry observers, that day will
never come. I have the opposite opinion. Larger (perhaps even
full frame) formats will soon (2-3 years max) replace the APS
sensors. Economy of scale will make the larger sensors much
cheaper to produce. Since they have clear advantages over the
smaller APS sized sensors in image quality and compatibility with
existing lenses, they should drive the APS sensors into the compact
point and shoot digital cameras in no time.
Click to expand...
Dream on!
 
Anastigmat said:
Joe Franek said:
I am sure somebody will like and buy the new DFA macro's.
But why prepare lenses for the future FF body,
Click to expand...
Why? Perhaps Pentax will announce a full frame digital body at
Photokina.
Anastigmat said:
if you have the istD
still waiting to get the DA 50-200 or something?
Click to expand...
Need a 50-200? You can get a Tokina AT-X AF 24-200mm, a Tamron AF
28-200mm (which was once sold as a Pentax FA lens) or you can find
a used manual focus 35-200mm or 50-250mm lens from the likes of the
Tokina AT-X lens line for a song.
Click to expand...
I am in hope that the new DA lens can be lesser weight and price and with the equal quility in comparing with exisiting old lens in the result of the smaller image circle.

If you think those 2x-200mm lens are good enough then probably most of the lens are not need.
Anastigmat said:
The *ist D is selling in very low numbers. Pentax is apparently
going to concentrate more on an upcoming full frame than on wasting
resources on a camera that may become obsolete before it becomes
popular. A DA24-90 is not needed since Pentax already has a film
camera lens in that range.
Click to expand...
The FF frame will only sell with a much smaller number than *istD by comsidering the cost and the selling price. Pentax go with a correct direction by releasing a cheaper DSLR to increase their market share.
 
Joe Franek said:
Need a 50mm macro? Pentax has one already. Need a 100mm macro? No
problem - Pentax has two already.
Click to expand...
Those who buys a macro lens probably needs utmost quality, and while the FA 50 and 100 macro's are great - they're not optimized for digital. The new 50 and 100 macros are. Why make a DFA macro instead of DA? Because Pentax are working on a more pro oriented DSLR with larger sensor than the current APS-C sized *ist D. Macro lenses are not hot seller, they're not in everyones bag. They're a bit specialised and I believe Pentax will make all specialised lenses as DFA, to widen the user base.

A good reason for coming out with macros now, is that Pentax has one wide-angle prime and one standard zoom (a medium telephoto zoom in the works) optimized for digital. A nice prime telephoto (as the macro lenses can act as) fits in well. A re-worked 24-90 would overlap the current DA 16-45 too much.

And I do expect some announcement about the future pro-body at Photokina.
Joe Franek said:
Anastigmat, you have said further down on this thread that Canon's
APS DSLRs are loosing to Nikon's D70. Nikon happens to be the only
one of the big guys to have what the new digital SLR enthusiasts
(not professionals) want: to cover the old range of 28-105 mm in a
single zoom. Pentax could have got close to that by re-engineering
the 24-90.
Click to expand...
I would say that many of the new digital enthusiasts wants a 24-105 instead of a 28-105... The DA 16-45 (roughly 24-70) makes a lot of sense. 24-70 is a very popular range. Next DA zoom will probably bee a medium to tele zoom (50-200 or something like that). I also expect a new budget zoom for the "baby" *ist D.

Best wishes
Roland
 
I didn't know I was excited, must get my nurse to check my pulse, this could get interesting.

I don't know hat you are replying to as you have deleted all bar your response.

You have missed my point.

First we are told that;

We need a sepcial digital lens.
It has to have a smaller image circle so all that light doesn't bounce around.

Because of the smaller image circle it is DC only.

NOW NONE OF THAT MATTERS

How come?

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE

My conclusion, the problem didn't exist in the first place, it was an excuse to sell more lenses.

A short press release with a couple of waffly paragraphs does NOT explain what they did or didn't do or how they solved any of the problems or improved anything.

These are easily made claims, being so waffly they cant be challenged as being just that waffle, where are some factual specifications, you know some real science.
istDuser said:
wally, god man calm down. See these are MACRO LENSES... And check
my theory for how I think Pentax is planning for the future, I
could be wrong, but you never know...

Anyhow, macro lenses don't really suffer from the crop factor
problem as much, in fact, macro lenses, really, really, benefit
from it, unless you have a very specific type of shot you want...
So uh, yeah, get over it G, these lenses are not just a little bit
of black cloth, they probably employ corrective elements to reduce
CA and vignetting.

I personally am very excited, because both optics are descended
from some of the best lenses pentax has ever made. Particularly
the 50mm... I actually own the SMC-F 1.7 50mm, and it is sharper
than my Tamron 90mm at f2.8. So much so in fact, that I can take a
shot of the same object and crop it in the 50mm shot and its still
very close to what the macro is producing... Be excited man, these
are probably superb lenses.
Click to expand...
 
Wally OZ said:
I didn't know I was excited, must get my nurse to check my pulse,
this could get interesting.

I don't know hat you are replying to as you have deleted all bar
your response.

You have missed my point.

First we are told that;

We need a sepcial digital lens.
It has to have a smaller image circle so all that light doesn't
bounce around.

Because of the smaller image circle it is DC only.

NOW NONE OF THAT MATTERS

How come?

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE

My conclusion, the problem didn't exist in the first place, it was
an excuse to sell more lenses.

A short press release with a couple of waffly paragraphs does NOT
explain what they did or didn't do or how they solved any of the
problems or improved anything.

These are easily made claims, being so waffly they cant be
challenged as being just that waffle, where are some factual
specifications, you know some real science.
Click to expand...
Wally, I couldn't agree more.
Wally OZ said:
istDuser said:
wally, god man calm down. See these are MACRO LENSES... And check
my theory for how I think Pentax is planning for the future, I
could be wrong, but you never know...

Anyhow, macro lenses don't really suffer from the crop factor
problem as much, in fact, macro lenses, really, really, benefit
from it, unless you have a very specific type of shot you want...
So uh, yeah, get over it G, these lenses are not just a little bit
of black cloth, they probably employ corrective elements to reduce
CA and vignetting.

I personally am very excited, because both optics are descended
from some of the best lenses pentax has ever made. Particularly
the 50mm... I actually own the SMC-F 1.7 50mm, and it is sharper
than my Tamron 90mm at f2.8. So much so in fact, that I can take a
shot of the same object and crop it in the 50mm shot and its still
very close to what the macro is producing... Be excited man, these
are probably superb lenses.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Lance*istD
 
Wally OZ said:
We need a sepcial digital lens.
It has to have a smaller image circle so all that light doesn't
bounce around.
Click to expand...
No, that's not true. The smaller image circle has nothing to do with the light bouncing around. Where have you got that from?

1.

Many of today's DSLR's uses an APS-C sized image sensor, to get an effective cost/performance ratio. Full frame sensors are still quite expensive and out of reach for most consumers. The use of smaller APS-C sized sensor means that 35mm lenses are getting newer focal lengths. Wide angles becames standard, standard lenses becomes short telephoto, short telephoto becomes super telephoto... A lens optimized for the smaller image circle can be made smaller than a 35mm lens with the same focal length. The 1.5x factor also created the need for new wide angles.

2.

Digital sensors reads the light in a different way than film. The digital sensor does not have a flat surface. It's a surface with holes. The photo sensitive part is at the bottom of this hole. With non-digital lenses, the light enters the hole at an angle, meaning that the light enters the walls of the hole before it enters the photo sensor at the bottom.

The effect of this is
a) light bounces around,

b) not all of the light reaches the sensor (because the rest of the light is busy bouncing around). The effect of this is a) the signal is weak, b) the bouncing light may hit the rear element of the lens and be reflected to another hole, messing things up completely.

All lenses for film has this problem, but the problem gets bigger the wider the lens gets.

This problem results in effects such as vignetting, lower sharpness and in-accurate colours.

3. CA is a common problem with many lenses when used on digital bodies, but by clever lens design - CA can be held to a minimum. (lens is one factor to CA, the image sensor and image processing software is another).

This doesn't mean that you can't get nice performance with film lenses on a digital body, you can. It's just that if the lenses would be optimized for digital, the result would be even better. As I've written so many times - the source (lens) is the most important part. A quality source can give quality images. If you need to fix a lens imperfections in post-processing (vignetting etc.), you won't get an image as good as if the problem weren't there in the first place!

Namasté!
 
No kidding? Nobody told be that! ;)

1. Not all "film" lenses perform as well on digital cameras, so we need "digital" lenses (which may be full frame or not).

2. An APS-format DSLR needs wider lenses than a full frame one. And it's far easier and cheaper to make - let's say - a 14mm DA than a 14mm full-frame lens, that's the reason we have those DA lenses.

And about the light bouncing around... LOL... what are you talking about? There are several ways to reduce internal reflections, like coatings and special black fabric, but there is no reason to ban full-frame lenses because of that!

Alex Sarbu
 
The prime goal of the DA serie was (and still is) to give nice focal lengths to the APS-C sized sensor in the *ist D. The prime goal was not to reduce the problem with boucing light (this can be done in full frame lenses too). But since they're "digital ready", they're also designed to minimize the problem with bouncing light and light entering at an angle etc. Eeven if you correct the light angle, light can still be reflected on the top of the "walls" that separates the photo sensitive pixels from each other, so even lenses for the APS-C sensor needs to take care of bouncing light.

To clarify even further:

A DA 16-45 is smaller than a DFA 16-45 would be. A DA 14 is smaller than a DFA 14 would be. That's the reason to make them, to offer something smaller, more compact and lightweight than a similar full frame lens would be. The *ist D is the smallest DSLR in the world, the whole point with the camera would be lost if it were teamed with big full frame lenses.

As you know already, dear Wally, Chasseur d'Image has tested full frame cameras (including the Canon 1DS) with full frame lenses (they tested APS-C sized bodies too) and they found that the lenses didn't performed as well on the digital bodies as on the film bodies. To get the best from the lenses, they need to be optimized for the digital sensor. The size of the sensor doesn't matter, full frame or APS-C sized, they all needs "digital ready" lenses to give the best images.
 
Anastigmat said:
Exactly. Some day it is going to happen, and it will happen sooner
if more manufacturers start making their own chips instead of
relying on others to produce chips for them at a profit.
Click to expand...
Pentax are developing their own sensor. This was stated in a japenese news article a year ago (or was it a year and a half?). Rumours says that it's CMOS based. We'll see what happens.

Best wishes
Roland
 
Roland Mabo said:
Anastigmat said:
Exactly. Some day it is going to happen, and it will happen sooner
if more manufacturers start making their own chips instead of
relying on others to produce chips for them at a profit.
Click to expand...
Pentax are developing their own sensor. This was stated in a
japenese news article a year ago (or was it a year and a half?).
Rumours says that it's CMOS based. We'll see what happens.

Best wishes
Roland
Click to expand...
I would be surprised at this as they have said they do not want to start a new division or tie themselves to the one supplier.
 
The press release as seen in news on this site, mentions compact agreed, but then it seems to get lost in waffle and it cannot decide if it is going to be an all round lens or it's going to be the last word on fixing all the special requirements as in "designed for digital" so it is a fence sitter in some ways I guess.

Strange thing is that the *istD took a long time to come to market yet it was released with the FAJ 18-35 a lens which is not compact, not sharp, not designed for digital, in fact I would not call it a lens, I would be easier for me to agree that the end of a beer bottle is a lens, now I am sure you must know the answer to this question, did the FAJ 18-35 have that secret coating derived from maidens thighs, you know the sacred SMC coating? heck it wasn't enough to save it, maybe it only had 6 coatings and not seven.

So if the "designed for digital" actually turns out to be really important [which by the way it is no secret that I don't belive it]
then why didn't Pentax have a "designed for digital" lens ready for the *istD.

See posts here theorising about Pentax releasing new lenses always ahead of bodies, if that be true someone at Pentax was asleep at the wheel or it all plain unadulterated BULL.

Dearest dearest Roland I am bored with that quote from Chasseur d'Imager, surely there must be more material to back up this theory, one article is that it? is that all there is, really? I am dissapointed.
Roland Mabo said:
The prime goal of the DA serie was (and still is) to give nice
focal lengths to the APS-C sized sensor in the *ist D. The prime
goal was not to reduce the problem with boucing light (this can be
done in full frame lenses too). But since they're "digital ready",
they're also designed to minimize the problem with bouncing light
and light entering at an angle etc. Eeven if you correct the light
angle, light can still be reflected on the top of the "walls" that
separates the photo sensitive pixels from each other, so even
lenses for the APS-C sensor needs to take care of bouncing light.

To clarify even further:
A DA 16-45 is smaller than a DFA 16-45 would be. A DA 14 is smaller
than a DFA 14 would be. That's the reason to make them, to offer
something smaller, more compact and lightweight than a similar full
frame lens would be. The *ist D is the smallest DSLR in the world,
the whole point with the camera would be lost if it were teamed
with big full frame lenses.

As you know already, dear Wally, Chasseur d'Image has tested full
frame cameras (including the Canon 1DS) with full frame lenses
(they tested APS-C sized bodies too) and they found that the lenses
didn't performed as well on the digital bodies as on the film
bodies. To get the best from the lenses, they need to be optimized
for the digital sensor. The size of the sensor doesn't matter, full
frame or APS-C sized, they all needs "digital ready" lenses to give
the best images.
Click to expand...
 
Wally OZ said:
Strange thing is that the *istD took a long time to come to market
yet it was released with the FAJ 18-35 a lens which is not compact,
not sharp, not designed for digital, in fact I would not call it a
lens, I would be easier for me to agree that the end of a beer
bottle is a lens, now I am sure you must know the answer to this
question, did the FAJ 18-35 have that secret coating derived from
maidens thighs, you know the sacred SMC coating? heck it wasn't
enough to save it, maybe it only had 6 coatings and not seven.

So if the "designed for digital" actually turns out to be really
important [which by the way it is no secret that I don't belive it]
then why didn't Pentax have a "designed for digital" lens ready for
the *istD.

See posts here theorising about Pentax releasing new lenses always
ahead of bodies, if that be true someone at Pentax was asleep at
the wheel or it all plain unadulterated BULL.

Dearest dearest Roland I am bored with that quote from Chasseur
d'Imager, surely there must be more material to back up this
theory, one article is that it? is that all there is, really? I am
dissapointed.
Roland Mabo said:
The prime goal of the DA serie was (and still is) to give nice
focal lengths to the APS-C sized sensor in the *ist D. The prime
goal was not to reduce the problem with boucing light (this can be
done in full frame lenses too). But since they're "digital ready",
they're also designed to minimize the problem with bouncing light
and light entering at an angle etc. Eeven if you correct the light
angle, light can still be reflected on the top of the "walls" that
separates the photo sensitive pixels from each other, so even
lenses for the APS-C sensor needs to take care of bouncing light.

To clarify even further:
A DA 16-45 is smaller than a DFA 16-45 would be. A DA 14 is smaller
than a DFA 14 would be. That's the reason to make them, to offer
something smaller, more compact and lightweight than a similar full
frame lens would be. The *ist D is the smallest DSLR in the world,
the whole point with the camera would be lost if it were teamed
with big full frame lenses.

As you know already, dear Wally, Chasseur d'Image has tested full
frame cameras (including the Canon 1DS) with full frame lenses
(they tested APS-C sized bodies too) and they found that the lenses
didn't performed as well on the digital bodies as on the film
bodies. To get the best from the lenses, they need to be optimized
for the digital sensor. The size of the sensor doesn't matter, full
frame or APS-C sized, they all needs "digital ready" lenses to give
the best images.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Wally OZ said:
Strange thing is that the *istD took a long time to come to market
yet it was released with the FAJ 18-35 a lens which is not compact,
not sharp, not designed for digital, in fact I would not call it a
lens, I would be easier for me to agree that the end of a beer
bottle is a lens, now I am sure you must know the answer to this
question, did the FAJ 18-35 have that secret coating derived from
maidens thighs, you know the sacred SMC coating? heck it wasn't
enough to save it, maybe it only had 6 coatings and not seven.
Click to expand...
The FA-J serie is Pentax entry level serie for their film based cameras. FA-J 18-35, 28-80 and 75-300 makes a nice combination for a MZ-60 owner... They're not more worse than other makers budget lenses.
Wally OZ said:
So if the "designed for digital" actually turns out to be really
important [which by the way it is no secret that I don't belive it]
then why didn't Pentax have a "designed for digital" lens ready for
the *istD.
Click to expand...
When Pentax announced the *ist D, they released their plans for a new lens line especially developed for the smaller sensor. I don't know why the development of the DA 16-45 was delayed, perhaps they had some trouble with the design that needed extra development time. It would have been ideal if the *ist D was released with the DA 16-45, but since the body got ready before the lens then it was nice that they released the body. I don't think that they should have waited for the lens to be ready. The FA-J 18-35 was a "quick fix". I believe that Pentax rushed the development of the camera because they thought it was more important to get it ready (especially since they lost customers when they cancelled the development of the 6Mp full frame digital with the MZ-S body).
Wally OZ said:
Dearest dearest Roland I am bored with that quote from Chasseur
d'Imager, surely there must be more material to back up this
theory, one article is that it? is that all there is, really? I am
dissapointed.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to hear that you are bored, perhaps you need to go out in the sun and take pictures? That surely will cheer you up! CDI has a more advanced measuring technique than other magazines, but I wouldn't be surprised if other magazines catches up soon and makes a similar test.

Namasté
 
By developing their own sensor, they becomes independ. The release of the *ist D was delayed 3 months because Sony couldn't deliver the sensors (japanese newspapers speculated about Nikon preventing Sony to deliver to Pentax). I don't believe that Pentax will manufacture their own sensor. To my knowledge, the sensor in the D70 is developed by Nikon on the original Sony design and manufactured by Sanyo. If Nikon can, Pentax can (and then we all can do the can-can). But, we'll see what happens.

Best wishes
Roland
ngap said:
I would be surprised at this as they have said they do not want to
start a new division or tie themselves to the one supplier.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top