[yeatzee]

At $250 the DA40 was a steal, now it's about the right price where it's at compared to other lenses. The DA Limiteds only seem expensive compared to what they used to cost.

as many have pointed out, Pentax doesn't have any affordable prime options at $250 or less any more.

How do you figure? I would still have a problem paying over $300 for the lens whether it was less or more prior.

I agree with the bolded 100% that it needs to be fixed....

[Marc Sabatella]

Someone doesn't have to make something cheaper just so that we can call it expensive Marc....

Well, obviously you can call it whatever you like, but the question remains, how reasonable is that label? I mean, I might call the K-x "way too overpriced", and compared to a cardboard disposable camera it is, but I think most would agree you are actually getting something for the money with the K-x. And the fact that everyone else's comparable cameras cost at least as much makes any claim that the K-x is "way too overpriced" rather suspect.

So sure, one can claim the the DA40 (or any other DA Limited) is "way too overpriced", in the same way one can claim the K-x is. But if one wants to defend that claim against any sort of objective analysis, you'd need *something* to go on.

The current B&H price on the DA40 is $340, and FWIW, I think it's worth every penny of that.

[Adam]

Is there a good reason why the FA limiteds are more expensive than the DA limiteds?

FA limiteds are full-frame and faster, DA limiteds are not full-frame, and smaller and slower.

[fractal]

Compared to what? Who else makes lenses even remotely close to these for cheaper?

Canon. The 24/2.8 is $330 and is suited for full frame. I think this price is very reasonable for such a lens.

[JHD]

Canon. The 24/2.8 is $330 and is suited for full frame. I think this price is very reasonable for such a lens.

Yeah, but it's a Canon.

[Voe]

I remember the times (2 years ago) when the DA 40mm was considered a lowly lens, just a tiny bit better than the optically mediocre M 40mm f2.8. This is when the price was around $240USD. The common talk on forums was that it's only worth buying if you need a small lens, no one cared for it's IQ. And if anyone wanted a 40's lens they payed more and bought the FA 43mm Limited due to it's IQ.
After the price hike, the lens started to get more appreciation, and now is considered a great lens, even better than the 43mm.

[Biro]

I remember the times (2 years ago) when the DA 40mm was considered a lowly lens, just a tiny bit better than the optically mediocre M 40mm f2.8. This is when the price was around $240USD. The common talk on forums was that it's only worth buying if you need a small lens, no one cared for it's IQ. And if anyone wanted a 40's lens they payed more and bought the FA 43mm Limited due to it's IQ.
After the price hike, the lens started to get more appreciation, and now is considered a great lens, even better than the 43mm.

This is absolutely true. Another phenomenon I've noticed is that as soon as a lens goes out of production and becomes a bit harder to find... its reputation soars. The FA 35mm f/2.0 is an example of this. A great budget lens in its day and a fantastic bargain. Then as soon as it became somewhat rare (and its price soared to over $400), it became a "modern classic" that some compared with FA Limiteds.

[Blue]

I remember the times (2 years ago) when the DA 40mm was considered a lowly lens, just a tiny bit better than the optically mediocre M 40mm f2.8. This is when the price was around $240USD. The common talk on forums was that it's only worth buying if you need a small lens, no one cared for it's IQ. And if anyone wanted a 40's lens they payed more and bought the FA 43mm Limited due to it's IQ.
After the price hike, the lens started to get more appreciation, and now is considered a great lens, even better than the 43mm.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one that has noticed this phenomenon! Plus, some people act like the 43 ltd is a huge lens even though it is only 0.1 inch longer than the requirement to be consider a pancake lens!

[Asahiflex]

This is absolutely true. Another phenomenon I've noticed is that as soon as a lens goes out of production and becomes a bit harder to find... its reputation soars. The FA 35mm f/2.0 is an example of this. A great budget lens in its day and a fantastic bargain. Then as soon as it became somewhat rare (and its price soared to over $400), it became a "modern classic" that some compared with FA Limiteds.

Indeed, you hit the nail on the head. The Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar is another classic example.

[Michaelina2]

Is there a good reason why the FA limiteds are more expensive than the DA limiteds?

Currently, enough buyers are willing to pay much more for an FA than DA. In determining the price of toys, the reasoning is not rational.

When buyers stop buying FA's (or DA's) at the current price point, their price will drop. If you buy an FA anytime soon, the price spread will remain for a little while longer.

It's easy to go over board with this stuff. Instead, just get a DA 40 Ltd and keep it busy. Or better yet, enjoy your 18-55 kit and don't look back.

Cheers...

[Marc Sabatella]

Canon. The 24/2.8 is $330 and is suited for full frame. I think this price is very reasonable for such a lens.

Which DA Limited do you think this is comparable to? It's sort a little close to the DA21 in focal length, although it's still pretty significantly different (especially considering the difference in crop factors between Pentax and Canon). And compared to the DA21, it's quite a bit larger & heavier, build quality laughable in comparison by all accounts I've seen, includes no hood at all (much less a well-matched and well-engineered one like the DA21), not designed or optimized for digital, etc. Maybe those things don't matter *to you*, but they do matter to some, and that's some of what might make the DA21 worth the difference.

But FWIW, the DA21 is probably the one DA Limited lens that does seem priced on the high side to me right now. One lens from one manufacturer that comes in cheaper - and pretty much a case of you get what you pay for - hardly justifies the sweeping statement made here.

[tokyoso]

Well, obviously you can call it whatever you like, but the question remains, how reasonable is that label? I mean, I might call the K-x "way too overpriced", and compared to a cardboard disposable camera it is, but I think most would agree you are actually getting something for the money with the K-x. And the fact that everyone else's comparable cameras cost at least as much makes any claim that the K-x is "way too overpriced" rather suspect.

So sure, one can claim the the DA40 (or any other DA Limited) is "way too overpriced", in the same way one can claim the K-x is. But if one wants to defend that claim against any sort of objective analysis, you'd need *something* to go on.

The current B&H price on the DA40 is $340, and FWIW, I think it's worth every penny of that.

I don't think anyone can pretend to know Pentax/Hoya's true bottom line, but all Pentax limiteds have awesome build quality, IMHO.

I may prefer something plasticly cheap, disposable with good optical quality so that I don't have to hold it in my hands everyday to appreciate it, but even that has gotten away with the FA (nonlimited) price hikes.

My favorite lens is still my M 50 / 1.4

[tokyoso]

Which DA Limited do you think this is comparable to? It's sort a little close to the DA21 in focal length, although it's still pretty significantly different (especially considering the difference in crop factors between Pentax and Canon). And compared to the DA21, it's quite a bit larger & heavier, build quality laughable in comparison by all accounts I've seen, includes no hood at all (much less a well-matched and well-engineered one like the DA21), not designed or optimized for digital, etc. Maybe those things don't matter *to you*, but they do matter to some, and that's some of what might make the DA21 worth the difference.

But FWIW, the DA21 is probably the one DA Limited lens that does seem priced on the high side to me right now. One lens from one manufacturer that comes in cheaper - and pretty much a case of you get what you pay for - hardly justifies the sweeping statement made here.

The current B&H price on the DA40 is $340, and FWIW, I think it's worth every penny of that.

FYI the original Pentax M 40 2.8 pancake still can easily fetch $200 around here.

At $260, the new AF-version with improved optics, excellent metal build quality, and included custom matching metal lens hood was highway robbery. No wonder Pentax was going out of business. $340 is still a steal, IMHO. The value of DA lenses are unilaterally depreciated by the faint hope of Pentax full frame exodus. However, I tend to like the slight vignette effect of DA 40 on a FF size.

Satisfied customers are always the best salesmen.

[Pentaxor]

if you wanna know about highway robbery, just ask how much they are selling the DA40's here in Canada.

[Blue]

FYI the original Pentax M 40 2.8 pancake still can easily fetch $200 around here.

At $260, the new AF-version with improved optics, excellent metal build quality, and included custom matching metal lens hood was highway robbery. No wonder Pentax was going out of business. $340 is still a steal, IMHO. The value of DA lenses are unilaterally depreciated by the faint hope of Pentax full frame exodus. However, I tend to like the slight vignette effect of DA 40 on a FF size.

Satisfied customers are always the best salesmen.

Thats' ironic. Most people in North America and Europe look at the M 40mm as if it were a paper weight promotion that Asahi Optical had going back in the 80s.