Do we think there's any chance...

Do we think there's any chance Pentax might make a budget DA28 2.8 in the same style as the DA35 2.4?

Was/is the plastic body and mount and relatively cheap price of the 35 a one-off?

Would anyone here appreciate a new 28mm f2.8 lens???

Given Pentax's history with 28mm's I'd have thought it would be a pretty easy job for them...

An easy job maybe, but would it sell?

The 35mm f2.4 is not a random choice - it emulates the standard lens of film days, when it would have been a 50mm. So there is a logical place for it in the lineup. The previously sought after 85mm f1.4 is emulated by the 55mm f1.4, so that too is a logical lens to produce.

The 28mm focal length would equate to 42mm, a "wide standard", but it's alreay covered by umpteen zoom lenses.

Are any of these zooms considered to have the IQ of a Pentax prime though...
Even as a 'budget' lens the DA35 2.4 gets rave reviews regarding its image quality/colour rendition etc... Money saved is on the build quality right?

Pentax-A 28's go like hotcakes (yet are regularly for sale)and for a good price (read: 'not that cheap')
FA28's seem to come on sale much less often, implying that those people buying them keep them and use them...

I dunno...

In lens testing the bald MTF graphs show the technical merits, but in real life photography there's more to it that that. Zooms may challenge primes in some circumstances, but we can't expect it, but in terms of photographic results there's no real difference to be had. Provided we are talking about the best zooms of course.

There aren't many FA 28mm lenses about because, I suspect, as a lens they were on the way out and being replaced by zooms. Sales would fall and, as we know, Pentax no longer offer one in the range. Therefore, if you want one the supply is limited and the price will be higher.

As regards the 35mm f2.4 there's no shortage of build quality, but it is manufactured using lower cost techniques. In fact it looks to be made in a similar way to the 50-200mm - look at how the front element is fixed in place. So, no Quick Shift, and an all plastic construction. However, there's no compromise on how well it's been put together as a close examination will reveal.

A compact 24/2 would be great - equivalent to the famous 35/2 Pentax offerings of the past.

A 24mm f2 or an 18mm f3.5 would make more sense. Corresponding to 35mm and 28mm on film - useful fields of views. They must be small, and offer improved speed and/or sharpness wide open compared to a zoom.

I'd appreciate it. The 43mm Ltd was supposedly made because Pentax decided the proper standard lens for 35mm cameras was around the 40mm mark, rather than 50mm. On digital, you need a 28mm lens to get the same field of view...

I don't see them offering one as a cheap intro prime though. I'd rather see something like a 135mm f3.5 with roughly the same price/quality as the 35mm f2.4.

Almost right. The "standard" lens for a format is traditionally considered to be the diagonal measurement of that format. The diagonal for a 36x24mm frame measures just about 43mm. Pentax have been the only manufacturer as fara sI can tell who have made a "true standard" for the 135 film format.

However, early lens making also took its traditions from Leica, which used available cine focal lengths, so 50mm was widespead. Something slightly longer is easier to make, so 58mm was often used for wide aperture standard lenses.

Relating this to the real world, a "standard" lens is one that comes closest to showing a scene as our eyes see it.

True except the last statement.

The field of view of 43mm has nothing to do with how our eyes see. It is an accident of film size.

How does one test this? Simply look at a scene. I think it is apparent our field of view is very wide, in fact generally stated as around 160 degrees. We'd need a fish-eye lens to get close to this, but then that wouldn't be rectilinear.

Of course how our eyes view a scene and how we are trained to view photographs are two different things.

To address the original question, a 28mm lens would be the "perfect normal" on APS-C, as it would recreate the field of view of a 43mm lens on 35mm film. A 24mm lens would also be extremely useful, recreating the common 35mm street prime from film days.

I use the 24mm focal length all the time, either through the long end of the DA12-24mm or with a Vivitar close focus prime that does a very decent job. To me the range between 24-28mm is absolutely essential. The omission of these focal lengths from the Pentax prime catalogue is one of the big mysteries of the universe, more puzzling than Stonehenge and the Pyramids.

I'd love a 28mm prime of f/2.8 or faster. A perfect normal lens for all occasions. I find 35mm a bit too long sometimes.

I'm happy with my 30mm/1.4 Sigma. only 2mm different.

Problem with the Sigma is the edges, I'd like something with a flat plane of focus and even sharpness across the frame. This is because I use the whole frame not just the centre for studio shoots.

28mm is perfect for that kind of shot but I only have the A28 which is a pain to focus and recompose. With an AF lens I'd just use the far edge focusing points.

I can't use my DA*16-50 at the moment though as it needs repairing.

there is a DA 21mm f/3.2 or is that too wide?

Zeiss has the Distagon T* 28mm f/2 & Distagon T* 25mm f/2.5

actually you are correct that vision is wder than fifty mm lens fov.... however, you cannot see any detail with your peripheral vision, you really only see tones and movement, you have to turn your head to lock on and focus... so with your eyes straight forward, the amount of your world you can actually see in focus is similar to a 50 mm lens, on average... some people train themselves to use the peripheral vision better, but it is really noticing movement from the sides of your main fov...

need proof? stop at an intersection and read the plate off the car in your oncoming lane... without turning your head can you see the cars on your left and right? without turning your head, or moving your eyes to the side, try reading thier plates.