[Marc Sabatella]

Do the limiteds have any waterproofing or is that only the WR and star lenses?

None of the current Limiteds have any sealing. Note that "*" doesn't *always* mean it's sealed either - at least older "*" lenses were not sealed.

---

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 06-03-2010 at 03:43 PM.

[Marc Sabatella]

Yep, I see those posts and shake my head. The DA40 is slower, less sharp, has more vignetting, is missing the aperture ring and won't work on full-frame. It does have less CA, but I have never found that an annoyance. The only way it's better is that it is cheaper, but IMO over-priced for what you get. Oh, and it has no pixie dust.

I'd say it has the dust of different pixies. To the extent I see a difference in controlled comparison images, I actually prefer the DA40, but it's of course subjective. And I do think you're missing a couple of other important advantages for the DA40, too: it has quick shift (I will never buy an AF lens without it; it's fundamental to how I shoot), it focuses faster, and it's lighter. Of course, the 43 can hardly be called *heavy*, and a 65g difference might not seem like a lot. But when traveling with a collection of light primes, a 65g difference on each lens in the bag would add up to another full lens pretty quickly.

I'm not going to say the DA40 is "better" than the FA43, but one does have to realize that different people have different priorities. Lack of an aperture ring is a *plus* to me - one less thing to worry about while mounting and unmounting the lens, and one less thing to go wrong mechanically. Not working on a camera I have no intention of ever buying doesn't matter to me, either. The difference in sharpness is not enough to matter to me - the DA$0 is itself already more than sharp enough. But those others factors I mentioned *are* significant to me. the fact that it's cheaper is just icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned. If the lenses were the same price, it would be a very difficult choice, as the extra speed of the 43 is *only* advantage it holds for me, while the 40 has all those others.

Different strokes for different folks.

[rparmar]

Different strokes for different folks.

That I agree with... in fact I think I already said the same thing. But some of the arguments you are making in support of your lens choice sound pretty desperate.

But when traveling with a collection of light primes, a 65g difference on each lens in the bag would add up to another full lens pretty quickly.

And how would this matter when they are so light anyway? The bag you are carrying them in is likely heavier than any three lenses. 65g is indeed nothing at all to worry about and making a big deal about it is odd... why not shave this off the bag or your wallet or something else heavy you have, if it matters so much?

Lack of an aperture ring is a *plus* to me - one less thing to worry about while mounting and unmounting the lens, and one less thing to go wrong mechanically.

Yep, there have been so many failures of the FA43 aperture ring. It's just gotta be a problem.

What about the quick-shift going wrong? Or the AF going wrong? Or the auto-exposure going wrong? I bet you'd be grateful for an aperture ring then!

[Marc Sabatella]

And how would this matter when they are so light anyway? The bag you are carrying them in is likely heavier than any three lenses. 65g is indeed nothing at all to worry about and making a big deal about it is odd

65g in the total weight of the bag is of course nothing, but as any backpacker can tell you, the way you save weight is by watching those few grams on each item, as it *does* add up. If you're putting together a light kit, you will want to choose the lighter option on each element of the kit where possible. Save 65g by getting the 40 instead of the 43, then save another 150g or so each by getting the DA70 instead of FA77, DA15 instead of Zenitar 16, M135/3.5 instead of K135/2.5 - before you know it you'll saved a pound.

Sure, if you *must* have the 43, then you can probably swing the extra 65g, and it's not a big hardship. Looked at in that way, it's silly to be concerned about the weight of any single item. But if you aren't watching the weight of every single item, sooner or later you find yourself carrying an unnecessary extra pound or two. So if like me you're in a position where the 43 just doesn't have as many compelling advantages as it would for someone with different priorities (ie, you), it's a place where you can save weight and money. Again, not saying *everyone* should make the same decision here. just that it carries some weight. I don't make fun of you for carrying about FF support just because I don't share that concern; please don't make fun of me for being concerned about weight just because you don't share that concern.

Yep, there have been so many failures of the FA43 aperture ring. It's just gotta be a problem.

I wouldn't know. But it's a cause of concern on my other lenses that have aperture rings, most notably the A50/1.7, where it's a pretty common problem. OK, the FA43 is not the A50/1.7. But the chance of failure isn't my main gripe with aperture rings - really, it's more the nuisance of having it slip out of position on mounting/unmounting that concerns me more. It just bugs me.

I'm not saying it's a deal breaker - obviously, it's a *very* minor point. I'm just pointing that given the choice, I *prefer* no aperture ring. Not just "can grudgingly do without" it - I *prefer* not to have it. Again, different strokes for different folks.

What about the quick-shift going wrong? Or the AF going wrong?

Never heard of any of these things happening. But even if they did ever happen, it would still seem kind of silly to pass up on quick shift just because it might fail. Assuming you value quick shift at all (like I said, to me, it's HUGELY important; I'm guessing as important as FF support and aperture rings are to you), then having it even for a few years before it breaks beats never having it at all. That is, at least it provides value until it breaks (which again, I have never heard of it ever doing on any lens ever manufactured). Where the aperture ring provides zero value to me, and *if* it breaks (admittedly, not likely, but there *is* precedent on other lenses), who's to say it doesn't take the aperture mechanism with it? No value + slight risk of failure + bugs me mounting & unmounting (personal idiosyncracy) = reason to prefer aperture rings to be left where they belong: in the 1970's :-).

---

Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 06-03-2010 at 04:20 PM.

[Sailor]

Interesting conversation about aperature rings. I've got K, M, A*, FA, DFA and DA lenses and I've come to the conclusion that aperature rings on DSLRs are like phoney hood scoops on cars - if they make you feel better . . . . . great. But they don't make the car faster.

Jer

[Blue]

Interesting conversation about aperature rings. I've got K, M, A*, FA, DFA and DA lenses and I've come to the conclusion that aperature rings on DSLRs are like phoney hood scoops on cars - if they make you feel better . . . . . great. But they don't make the car faster.

Jer

The thing is I use my FA 77mm on my MZ-3 and SuperProgram and will eventually put it on one of the K2's since I don't have an M85mm. To use your car analogy, the DA 70mm would be like a manual shift sports car with no shifter.

[geauxpez]

the DA 70mm would be like a manual shift sports car with no shifter.

And stuck in 5th gear at that. Nice analogy.

[mtroute]

Hoya have decided that they want in on the Gillette model. Cheap bodies and make the money on what goes on them. Seems reasonable.

except for the fact that probably 80% of DSLR users never remove the kit lens...let alone take it off "P" mode...

[ducdao]

FYI: the FA Limiteds are now made in Vietnam.

Are they made in Vietnam or assembled in Vietnam? That's a huge difference. My understanding is they are produced in Japan but assembled in Vietnam, at least for the DA Limiteds

[Pentaxor]

Are they made in Vietnam or assembled in Vietnam? That's a huge difference. My understanding is they are produced in Japan but assembled in Vietnam, at least for the DA Limiteds

Nope, there are some that are Made in Japan.

[Marc Sabatella]

The thing is I use my FA 77mm on my MZ-3 and SuperProgram and will eventually put it on one of the K2's since I don't have an M85mm. To use your car analogy, the DA 70mm would be like a manual shift sports car with no shifter.

Right, and I certainly see that for someone interested in using a lens on an older (non-crippled mount) film body, the aperture ring would be an important consideration. Just as covering FF format would be. So I do totally get why for *some*, the 43 looks to be a *much* better choice than the 40.

[stevebrot]

Prodigital is a Canadian seller. Plus, if you were to hypothetically order something from BH, you shouldn't be charged import duty on 35mm cameras and lenses because of NAFTA agreements. I ordered my DA 35mm from Prodigital2000 and it came from Canada duty free because of NAFTA.

Lenses do pass duty-free between the US and Canada, but that is determined by customs regulation, not treaty. NAFTA requires that the item be manufactured in, has substantial content from, or was substantially altered in a member country.

Edit:
I was wrong regarding NAFTA and camera lenses. If I read the tariff tables correctly, there is specific provision for camera lenses in NAFTA that allows them to pass duty free into the U.S. from Canada and Mexico as well from a number of other places regardless of country of origin. There are a number of such special cases (many hundreds).
/Edit

The price differences on certain consumer goods (small appliances, electronics, etc.) between the US and Canada has always been a puzzling thing. When I lived in Vancouver, BC, a simple electric toaster cost twice as much as the same item an hour south across the border in Bellingham, WA. This was true even taking the exchange rate into account. At the time, people would do trips to the south for the sole purpose of buying stuff on the cheap in the US. It does not surprise me that camera stuff generally costs more on the north side of the border.

In regards to ordering cross border from B&H, unless things have changed, they used to ship through UPS using them as customs broker. The broker service makes for very expensive shipping and is totally unnecessary when shipping to Canada. Go figure...

Steve

(Spent many hours writing software to manage NAFTA rules of origin in my previous job...)

[stevebrot]

...Save 65g by getting the 40 instead of the 43, then save another 150g or so each by getting the DA70 instead of FA77, DA15 instead of Zenitar 16, M135/3.5 instead of K135/2.5 - before you know it you'll saved a pound...

This is so true, though I pack the M 50/1.7 instead of the K 55/1.8, the FA 77 over the Jupiter-9 and the Zenitar 16 because there is no money for a DA 15! (I leave the longer teles at home.)

...But it's a cause of concern on my other lenses that have aperture rings, most notably the A50/1.7, where it's a pretty common problem...

The problem is not the aperture ring, but the plastic used in construction. Simply put, several of the A-series lenses are poorly and cheaply built (shame, Pentax, shame). Almost all my lenses have aperture rings, but the A 50/1.7 is the only one that is flaky.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Right, and I certainly see that for someone interested in using a lens on an older (non-crippled mount) film body, the aperture ring would be an important consideration. Just as covering FF format would be. So I do totally get why for *some*, the 43 looks to be a *much* better choice than the 40.

That someone would be somebody like me. I shoot 50% film with much of that on straight K-mount bodies.


Steve