Da 40mm f/2.8

henryjing · 06-22-2011, 08:28 PM

Bokeh is amazing for such a pancake, even better than FA43.

A lot of people prefer DA40 than FA43.

reeftool · 06-22-2011, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

I'll spoil this love-fest by saying: 40mm does nothing for me. I have a couple 40's (Meyer and Kilfitt) and various zooms that hit 40. Oh sure, they're usable. But the most I've used 40 was with a beat-up M40-80. So 35 and 37 are barely in my visual frame, and 45 ain't bad, but 40? Meh.

[/me prepares for slings and arrows etc]

I agree about the size, it's a little weird. As I mentioned, I really wanted the 35 Ltd. but bought this on price mostly. That said, the IQ is excellent so I'm trying to adjust myself to the 40mm size. If it doesn't work for me, it will be back in the Marketplace in a few months.

Marc Sabatella · 06-22-2011, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

Understandable.. it's just as much a no-mans-land focal length on digital as a 50mm is, which seems to rub a bunch of people the wrong way as well..

These things are all subjective, but I find 40mm hugely useful on aps-c, and 50mm almost useless.

JHD · 06-23-2011, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

These things are all subjective, but I find 40mm hugely useful on aps-c, and 50mm almost useless.

40mm is far more useful on APS-C than 50mm for me too. I had an FA50, but once I acquired the DA40, the FA50 sat in my bag for months before I sold it.

chiane · 06-23-2011, 06:54 PM

How many DA 40's could you stack and still be smaller than the 16-50mm?

dgaies · 06-23-2011, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by chiane

How many DA 40's could you stack and still be smaller than the 16-50mm?

Six.

Blue · 06-23-2011, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by chiane

How many ~~DA 40's~~ FA 43 Ltd could you stack and still be smaller than the 16-50mm?

four.

mkvlln · 06-23-2011, 08:06 PM

The DA40 is truly a desirable lens. However I find that the focal length a bit too short for portraits, much like the 35. Having said that, it is a very good lens for everyday use.

I highly recommend this to new photographers wanting to try out prime lens! I think DA40's FL is better than 35 on APS-C.

Marc Sabatella · 06-24-2011, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by chiane

How many DA 40's could you stack and still be smaller than the 16-50mm?

Depends on whether you measure the full length of the lens including mount (size in bag) or just the size from mount forward (size on camera). Also, depends on how you count the hoods.

GeneV · 06-24-2011, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by dgaies

Six.

6.5 by my calculations, but without the considerations Marc notes.

dgaies · 06-24-2011, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

6.5 by my calculations, but without the considerations Marc notes.

True, but since the question was "How many DA 40's could you stack and still be smaller than the 16-50mm", techincally I think answer is still 6 (hood and caps aside)

GeneV · 06-24-2011, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by dgaies

True, but since the question was "How many DA 40's could you stack and still be smaller than the 16-50mm", techincally I think answer is still 6 (hood and caps aside)

Actually, I took that into consideration. To be precise, 6.567 DA40 fit into a DA*16-50. 6.5 still leaves the DA40 stack 1mm smaller

paperbag846 · 06-24-2011, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

Actually, I took that into consideration. To be precise, 6.567 DA40 fit into a DA*16-50.

If you like the focal length, there's really nothing bad to say about the DA 40. Phenomenal quality, and absurdly tiny.

dgaies · 06-24-2011, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

Actually, I took that into consideration. To be precise, 6.567 DA40 fit into a DA*16-50. 6.5 still leaves the DA40 stack 1mm smaller

I suppose at this point it's just a semantic analysis of the original question, but I would interrupt the original question to be how many (whole) DA40 lenses can you stack and still be shorter than the DA*16-50. I have a feeling 56.7% of a DA40 isn't going to perform very well

Blue · 06-24-2011, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

Actually, I took that into consideration. To be precise, 6.567 DA40 fit into a DA*16-50. 6.5 still leaves the DA40 stack 1mm smaller

Who is going to saw their DA 40 in half?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA 40mm f2.8	wed7	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	05-02-2010 03:54 AM
which 40mm? pentax da 40 or Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2.0 SL-II	dexmus	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	10-30-2009 07:26 PM
DA 40mm ltd	blotzphoto	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	03-05-2009 07:31 PM

06-22-2011, 08:28 PM	#31
henryjing Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: United States Posts: 467	Bokeh is amazing for such a pancake, even better than FA43. A lot of people prefer DA40 than FA43.

06-22-2011, 10:33 PM	#32
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,553	Originally posted by RioRico I'll spoil this love-fest by saying: 40mm does nothing for me. I have a couple 40's (Meyer and Kilfitt) and various zooms that hit 40. Oh sure, they're usable. But the most I've used 40 was with a beat-up M40-80. So 35 and 37 are barely in my visual frame, and 45 ain't bad, but 40? Meh. [/me prepares for slings and arrows etc] I agree about the size, it's a little weird. As I mentioned, I really wanted the 35 Ltd. but bought this on price mostly. That said, the IQ is excellent so I'm trying to adjust myself to the 40mm size. If it doesn't work for me, it will be back in the Marketplace in a few months.

06-22-2011, 11:01 PM	#33
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by paperbag846 Understandable.. it's just as much a no-mans-land focal length on digital as a 50mm is, which seems to rub a bunch of people the wrong way as well.. These things are all subjective, but I find 40mm hugely useful on aps-c, and 50mm almost useless.

06-23-2011, 04:14 AM	#34
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella These things are all subjective, but I find 40mm hugely useful on aps-c, and 50mm almost useless. 40mm is far more useful on APS-C than 50mm for me too. I had an FA50, but once I acquired the DA40, the FA50 sat in my bag for months before I sold it.

06-23-2011, 06:54 PM	#35
chiane Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Chicago, IL Photos: Gallery Posts: 170	How many DA 40's could you stack and still be smaller than the 16-50mm?

06-23-2011, 07:22 PM	#36
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by chiane How many DA 40's could you stack and still be smaller than the 16-50mm? Six.

06-23-2011, 07:55 PM	#37
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by chiane How many ~~DA 40's~~ FA 43 Ltd could you stack and still be smaller than the 16-50mm? four.

06-23-2011, 08:06 PM	#38
mkvlln Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 122	The DA40 is truly a desirable lens. However I find that the focal length a bit too short for portraits, much like the 35. Having said that, it is a very good lens for everyday use. I highly recommend this to new photographers wanting to try out prime lens! I think DA40's FL is better than 35 on APS-C.

06-24-2011, 08:21 AM	#39
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by chiane How many DA 40's could you stack and still be smaller than the 16-50mm? Depends on whether you measure the full length of the lens including mount (size in bag) or just the size from mount forward (size on camera). Also, depends on how you count the hoods.

06-24-2011, 10:17 AM	#40
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by dgaies Six. 6.5 by my calculations, but without the considerations Marc notes.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-24-2011, 10:21 AM	#41
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by GeneV 6.5 by my calculations, but without the considerations Marc notes. True, but since the question was "How many DA 40's could you stack and still be smaller than the 16-50mm", techincally I think answer is still 6 (hood and caps aside)

06-24-2011, 01:58 PM	#42
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by dgaies True, but since the question was "How many DA 40's could you stack and still be smaller than the 16-50mm", techincally I think answer is still 6 (hood and caps aside) Actually, I took that into consideration. To be precise, 6.567 DA40 fit into a DA*16-50. 6.5 still leaves the DA40 stack 1mm smaller

06-24-2011, 02:01 PM	#43
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by GeneV Actually, I took that into consideration. To be precise, 6.567 DA40 fit into a DA*16-50. If you like the focal length, there's really nothing bad to say about the DA 40. Phenomenal quality, and absurdly tiny.

06-24-2011, 02:30 PM	#44
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by GeneV Actually, I took that into consideration. To be precise, 6.567 DA40 fit into a DA16-50. 6.5 still leaves the DA40 stack 1mm smaller I suppose at this point it's just a semantic analysis of the original question, but I would interrupt the original question to be how many (whole) DA40 lenses can you stack and still be shorter than the DA16-50. I have a feeling 56.7% of a DA40 isn't going to perform very well

06-24-2011, 02:47 PM	#45
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by GeneV Actually, I took that into consideration. To be precise, 6.567 DA40 fit into a DA*16-50. 6.5 still leaves the DA40 stack 1mm smaller Who is going to saw their DA 40 in half?