[Abbazz]

For portraiture I'd consider the 43mm Limited. It has been a bit undervalued of the FA Limiteds and has a rep of being a bit "soft" - please correct me if I'm wrong - but for portraits this lens might just be IT.

Regarding the "soft" quality of the 43 LE, here are two quotations from the Photozone.de review:

"The FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited produced stellar resolution figures in the MTF lab"

"The peak quality is reached at f/4 with an outstanding center and border quality - surely a reference quality to be beaten on the K10D"

Cheers,

Abbazz

---

Last edited by Abbazz; 08-17-2007 at 03:58 PM. Reason: Schpelling

[GaryML]

Thanks for your reply, Gary. A 35mm macro? That's interesting... a normal prime with macro/close-focusing capabilities would be a pretty ideal walk-around lens for me. But I wonder how much larger/heavier this will be compared to the current 35/2 offering.

I did hear something about the DA 35 SDM coming out in 2008, but I think I wrote it off because someone said it would be a very expensive lens. (Is this true? Does anyone really know?)

I'm now leaning towards the 21 + 70/77, but I'm just not sure how much I'd miss the "normal" focal length. I suppose I could always pick up a used DA 40 for $200 if I need that in the future - not too expensive.

The only information at this point in time is what is on the lens roadmap. The DA 35mm f2.8 Macro Limited was displayed at a show, but it might not have been a working copy. The idea is that it would serve the same role as a 50mm Macro with a 35mm film camera. There are no specs available on the DA 35mm SDM. There is some speculation that it may be based on the optical formula of the existing FA 35mm f/2. Since it is not presently designated as a Limited or Star lens, it might be comparatively inexpensive. But there is no real information on the specs or pricing. There is also no release date target for either of these lenses, so its probably some time in 2008 (or later) before these are available. There is a rumor of an official Pentax announcement coming up sometime in the fall regarding new products to be released soon.

I personally don't take a lot of photographs in the "normal" range (40-60mm with 35mm film cameras or 28-45mm with Pentax DSLRs) so I would prefer the 21mm to the 35, 40 or 43mm. But it is your decision as to what suits your style the best.

I had the FA 77mm Limited until just a couple of days ago when I got the DA* 50-135mm. The 77 is a great lens and I used it a lot. The reason I suggested the DA 70mm Limited instead was solely for the quick-shift feature. Having spent many years using manual focus cameras, I love the ability to choose manual or auto focus without stopping to flip a switch.

[MikeH]

At the moment, I own the 14, 21, 28, 43, and 70. The lenses that I use most often are the DA21 and FA43. That's what I would suggest for you.

[Ole]

If you could borrow a zoom (or your friends camera if it has a zoom) covering the span you're interested in you could get some "feel" for which focal lengths would work best for you, and which would not at all work.

[badlydrawnboy]

Thanks again to everyone for sharing your thoughts.

At this point I think I'm going to go for the 21 & 70. I can use the 70 for portraits, and the 21 for everything else. (Of course I could even use the 21 for some unorthodox portraits and the 70 for landscape and street too). In the future I can add a "normal" lens such as the 35, 40, or 43. Perhaps I'll wait to see what happens with the new 35s.

In a perfect world the 21 would be f/2.8 and the 70 would be f/1.8, but I think their incredibly small size and low weight, along with fast focusing, quick shift and digital optimization make up for it. The 77 seems fantastic but it is significantly more expensive than the 70, a bit bigger and heavier, slower focusing and without quick shift.