[davidmanze]

In order to have a good range of newly designed K mount lenses for someone of my years, would require me to live to the age of ninety to achieve it ......and that is not so likely .......

 As for the DFA lens, I think it looks very nice and no doubt will render well and be sharp as a tack ..... construction is certainly top notch and it looks classy ........ the price reflects the quality and that Pentax thinks they may not sell many and have added a margin to keep things profitable ........ 
 
 Patience is a virtue with Pentax and waiting is a certainty ......... seven years after going Nikon I still would have been waiting for a  ??- 600mm focal length tele-photo in the K mount ....... and will it even ever happen ?? ........ I doubt it !!

 Shooting Pentax was a frustrating period for me ( lenses) ....... and it looks like their products are going to be even more expensive ...... and their customers, rarer ....... as most are looking towards ML cameras ...... 

  ...... that's just how it is !!

[Kunzite]

I think you're under the mistaken assumption that we're voting what brand to buy.

[Brightcolours]

"mass market brainwashed by reviews and which forgot photography." <-- wow, that's really out there.

It's true though

---

The product page was not up when I wrote that, and now it is we can see it renders nicely, like the Sony does.

The product page was up when you wrote that; you're lying once again. Twice, because IMHO the D FA's rendering is not merely "like the Sony". Not because the Sony is bad, but because the Pentax was intended to soften the bokeh.

The rest of your post is just trolling. There's the typical pattern: first someone says "Sony/Nikon/whatever is oh so much better than Pentax!", I offer counterarguments, and then the shouts begins: "you're attacking Sony/Nikon/whatever!!!111oneoneone". That's ridiculous.

Limited is just a product line name. It means what Pentax decides it means; and the D FA Limited is truer to its name than the DAs.
What some random dude on the Internet thinks it should mean is irrelevant.
Otherwise, Canon L series can only designate Large lenses (but not the eXtra Large ones, and definitely not the Small ones).

The product page was not up, at least not where I looked. Silly man. 
Pentax' blurb blahblahs about the bokeh, but the Sony softens the bokeh pretty well. Just because you drank the Pentax coolaid does not mean the Sony renders worse... But to you it does mean that, because Pentax.

Funny thing: noone said "Sony/Nikon/Whatever is oh so much better than Pentax". In fact, Klaus just said "If true that's 50% more than Sony/Nikon are asking for their 20mm f/1.8 - thus even faster/wider lenses."

So, in your terms, "you are lying again, Kuznite". You then just started to "bash" the excellent Sony, all on your own. No one is "bashing" the Pentax (only criticising the price, and making fun of the nonsensical "Limited" moniker)...

Silly stuff

[Kunzite]

Boy, I have to point out your lies?
You said:

The product page was not up when I wrote that, and now it is we can see it renders nicely, like the Sony does.

"that" being yesterday at 5:42PM:

This particular Sony renders really well for 20mm. Yet you bash it, and claim the Pentax is "special" even though not even a single sample image has been published.

Of course, Pentax had the product page with the samples.
It was just a hastily made up and completely gratuitous lie, you pretending that I haven't seen any sample. And it turned against you.

Yeah, you are comparing wrong as the much cheaper (almost 1/3rd of the price Sony 20mm f1.8)

almost 1/3rd of the price is a lie.

Did Sony make a lens that relies on software corrections? (no...)

yes it does. You're lying.

 and I doubt this Toki... I mean Pentax (sorry for the typo)

another lie.

Your attack on this Sony (and Nikkor)
[...]Yet you bash it

another lie.
As who's doing the bashing:
- you are on a Pentax section
- making claims against Pentax products
- by saying Sony and Nikon products are oh so great and 1/3rd of the price
- by denying that the D FA 21mm might have that special rendering described in their product pages and shown in the samples provided
- by constantly launching jabs at Pentax (about precise AF, user base and so on)
And for me "attacking":
- I didn't introduce these foreign lenses on this topic
- I never said they're bad in any way
- the worst I said was to call them "pedestrian"

---

No one is "bashing" the Pentax (only criticising the price, and making fun of the nonsensical "Limited" moniker)...

And obviously this is another lie. You are bashing Pentax. Not just on this thread.
You're even admitting to it in the same line... "making fun of the nonsensical "Limited" moniker"... why? Why "making fun" of a moniker? Why "making fun" of Pentax at all?

It's not like you wanted to know the origin and meaning of the Limited name; because then you'd have asked. You didn't ask. You "made fun".

You low quality troll.

[Kunzite]

So... if by chance anyone here is interested about how the Limited series come into existence (which I find very unlikely), Pentax had some presentations with the occasion of their 100 years anniversary.
They're talking about the design criteria (and one can compare the FA, DA and now D FA series), about the design process - involving study of actual prints, which continues to the D FA 21mm; they're talking about how sales were skeptical and how the first Limited was actually a limited edition, built using a more manual process.
There's a lot of good information in there.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/396940-fa-limited-development-story-also-little-da-limited.html

---

 Shooting Pentax was a frustrating period for me ( lenses) ....... and it looks like their products are going to be even more expensive ...... and their customers, rarer ....... as most are looking towards ML cameras ...... 

  ...... that's just how it is !!

I would've been very annoyed if I decided to switch to Nikon (I actually considered that in 2011, getting a "bad vibe" which proved to be Hoya selling Pentax to Ricoh) and painstakingly replacing the lenses I own - selling them and buying replacements; that's because by now Nikon would have abandoned me and I'd have to switch back to Pentax, the only remaining DSLR brand.

Yes, Pentax is moving slowly; but in a good direction (for me). The others might be running, but away from what I need.
These are our personal stories, different; there's no "that's just how it is".

[Klaus]

I reckon that up to the early-2000s you were still able to detect a "signature" in lenses - at least in some of them. The FA Limiteds are probably a good example of this.
Probably because it was more craftsmanship in the hand of a few with some degree of computer-aid.

Thereafter, things probably shifted to human-aided computer designs. And I suppose that at least in the case of Sony and Canon, they are entering the era of human-verified designs.
Let's face it - lens design is an optimization problem and computers are just better at this. Of course, computers don't work without algorithms that have to be written but I suppose that these are mostly commodities these days.

It also explains why some 'kiddies' (young entrepreneurs) in China can release lenses every few months in their newly formed companies.
This also explains why especially Sony is capable of churning out complex high, performance prime lenses at an unprecedented rate. The rapid increase in optical performance is probably another indicator of the "algorithm war". I'm sure that they started using machine learning techniques some years ago already.

I think the bigger hurdle in this whole game is now manufacturing accuracy. We all know centering issues but this is where there's a HUGE gap between the "professionals" and the others.
The big boys started to master this just recently. I think this is also one of the various reasons why lenses got so expensive lately - reducing the margin of error is tough.

This race for reducing the margin of error is surely also the reason why Leica is so expensive and why Pentax has to raise the price level now. It's probably amazing the Pentax can keep their price levels so "low" because their production volume is probably not (much) higher than over at Leica anymore.

[Rover]

(replying to Kunzite's post above)

No need to act in a passive aggressive way, no one's attacking. It was an entertaining read, which may explain why the 43 was found rather lackluster on both attempts here in the Zone, (and that was even on APS-C, not FF!), as it was designed against the triple constraint of aperture, price and size. There's no free lunch...

I still find things like requiring the hood to be built-in "for the lens to be always ready" inexplicable. Unless I'm talking about a tele lens with a deep hood, I'm pretty much always keeping hoods on and in the "correct" orientation, and it never gets in the way of anything. How much of a pain are these built-in hoods for using filters?

[Kunzite]

I am reading with great interest the developers' stories published by Pentax - they shouldn't be dismissed as "marketing blurb"; sure, publishing them is marketing, but the content is actual information straight from the people who worked on these lenses. A pity that others (to my knowledge) don't share similar information.

Computerized lens design is old. Even for the earliest Limited was introduced in 1997...
Obviously lens makers started using electronic computers as early as possible; before they were using human computers. But you weren't talking about mere calculations, right?
So back in the '90s the standard was computer aided design and lens evaluation using test charts. For the Limiteds, they were also actual prints (obviously they still heavily relied on computers).
Same for the new D FA Limited; as I previously said, they made a special adjustable test barrel and shot images with various degrees of controlled aberrations (for different bokeh looks).
This is a very slow, time consuming process. I won't say yet I like the result, but I like a lens maker still thinks this way.

I believe that Pentax was impacted these last years by not making true high end lenses until recently - that is, by the "DA era", or should I say, the "Hoya incident".
I'm saying that because they had to up their game in the lens barrels' design and construction. The D FA* 50mm f/1.4 for example was delayed because of a barrel issue (the initial barrel couldn't cope with the increased glass weight, leading to degradation of optical performance).
Well, everyone had to up their game - but it might've been easier, faster if you'd e.g. constantly churn out L lenses...

---

It was an entertaining read, which may explain why the 43 was found rather lackluster on both attempts here in the Zone, (and that was even on APS-C, not FF!), as it was designed against the triple constraint of aperture, price and size. There's no free lunch...

That lens, besides its constraints, was designed with zero consideration toward lab testing, and it was made to be used with 35mm film. Back then I wouldn't say it was considered lackluster.
It didn't age very well in the digital era. I'd rather have Pentax replace all the FA Limiteds with newly designed D FA versions, but that's bound to be slow and expensive.

I still find things like requiring the hood to be built-in "for the lens to be always ready" inexplicable. Unless I'm talking about a tele lens with a deep hood, I'm pretty much always keeping hoods on and in the "correct" orientation, and it never gets in the way of anything. How much of a pain are these built-in hoods for using filters?

As an user, I find the built-in hood a very useful concept.
Let's take my D FA* 50mm f/1.4 with its detachable hood. If I'd do like you, keeping the hood on and in the "correct" orientation, the lens will suddenly take much more space in the bag; actually it wouldn't fit and I'd need a larger bag. OTOH the hood in the "storage" orientation impedes on using the focus ring.
The built-in hood, OTOH, is exactly as they say: you take the lens cap off, and the lens is ready. Some collapsible hoods would have to be extended if needed, but that's much easier than reorienting a standard detachable hood.

[thxbb12]

Regarding the built-in hood: I agree with Kunzite, it's a great feature. I wish other manufacturers would implement it in their lenses.
During my Pentax days, I owned the 15mm f4 limited. I loved its built-in hood. It takes zero space and it's mega convenient.
I always shoot with a hood, but I find the process of attaching/removing it very annoying. For instance, I carry a small bag, but my lenses don't fit with the hood attached. A built-in hood would solve this problem and make it much more convenient and fast.

[Rover]

I am reading with great interest the developers' stories published by Pentax - they shouldn't be dismissed as "marketing blurb"; sure, publishing them is marketing, but the content is actual information straight from the people who worked on these lenses. A pity that others (to my knowledge) don't share similar information.

Computerized lens design is old. Even for the earliest Limited was introduced in 1997...
Obviously lens makers started using electronic computers as early as possible; before they were using human computers. But you weren't talking about mere calculations, right?
So back in the '90s the standard was computer aided design and lens evaluation using test charts. For the Limiteds, they were also actual prints (obviously they still heavily relied on computers).
Same for the new D FA Limited; as I previously said, they made a special adjustable test barrel and shot images with various degrees of controlled aberrations (for different bokeh looks).
This is a very slow, time consuming process. I won't say yet I like the result, but I like a lens maker still thinks this way.

I believe that Pentax was impacted these last years by not making true high end lenses until recently - that is, by the "DA era", or should I say, the "Hoya incident".
I'm saying that because they had to up their game in the lens barrels' design and construction. The D FA* 50mm f/1.4 for example was delayed because of a barrel issue (the initial barrel couldn't cope with the increased glass weight, leading to degradation of optical performance).
Well, everyone had to up their game - but it might've been easier, faster if you'd e.g. constantly churn out L lenses...

---

It was an entertaining read, which may explain why the 43 was found rather lackluster on both attempts here in the Zone, (and that was even on APS-C, not FF!), as it was designed against the triple constraint of aperture, price and size. There's no free lunch...

That lens, besides its constraints, was designed with zero consideration toward lab testing, and it was made to be used with 35mm film. Back then I wouldn't say it was considered lackluster.
It didn't age very well in the digital era. I'd rather have Pentax replace all the FA Limiteds with newly designed D FA versions, but that's bound to be slow and expensive.

I still find things like requiring the hood to be built-in "for the lens to be always ready" inexplicable. Unless I'm talking about a tele lens with a deep hood, I'm pretty much always keeping hoods on and in the "correct" orientation, and it never gets in the way of anything. How much of a pain are these built-in hoods for using filters?

As an user, I find the built-in hood a very useful concept.
Let's take my D FA* 50mm f/1.4 with its detachable hood. If I'd do like you, keeping the hood on and in the "correct" orientation, the lens will suddenly take much more space in the bag; actually it wouldn't fit and I'd need a larger bag. OTOH the hood in the "storage" orientation impedes on using the focus ring.
The built-in hood, OTOH, is exactly as they say: you take the lens cap off, and the lens is ready. Some collapsible hoods would have to be extended if needed, but that's much easier than reorienting a standard detachable hood.

LOL, I'm not sure what (still) gives you an idea that anyone builds lenses "for lab testing". There are millions of users and only two of them are Klaus and Markus. It's that different designers choose different things to prioritize within the bracket given to them by their superiors, and when they're allowed not to hold back in any way we're getting something like the Sigma 40/1.4 Art.

Of course film was more forgiving and many lenses considered decent in that era tanked immediately after they started being used on digital, especially high pixel density. I have three holdovers from the film era in my kit (mind you, I never shot film, it's just these lenses are of the mid- to late-90s designs), and I wouldn't want to see how badly at least two of them would be annihilated by a modern FF sensor (actually I've seen what happens to one, cursorily, and it wasn't pretty).

If these built-in hoods don't get in the way of using filters, it's better, although I'm still considering hoods to be a sort of impact protection too, and I'd rather have a detachable piece of plastic that would flex and absorb impact than a fixed piece of metal that would transfer the force to the lens's innards and bend until straightened with pliers or, worse still, replaced along with an unspecified portion of the lens barrel. That's why I'm a little leery of the built-in hood of my 14mm, though in the case of the ultrawides it's kinda inevitable if they come with bulbous front elements...

Well speaking of replacements... there was that Pentax 50/1.4 and, last I checked, even the 85/1.4 but I'm not sure if the latter has become available, and in any case, they don't look like direct replacements.

The 31/1.8 looked good in the Zone, BTW, unlike the 43 and, to a lesser extent, the 77, although how badly its sharpness would fall off beyond the APS-C frame is anybody's guess. Somehow I don't see Klaus returning to test Pentax DSLR gear.