[65535]

for some reason i don't like my 43mm.

40 always seems to make me much happier.... maybe the coating on the elements?

[paperbag846]

It's my impression that the FA ltds take a little more work on DSLRS to get the magic, while the DA ltds just work. Overall, the FA and DA limiteds are pretty different, though. I think if money is no object, the FAs are the way to go... but don't feel like you are short changing yourself if you go with the DA ltds.

[Hide]

FA43 at f1.9



The original pic is mutch more sharp and offers a true three-dimensional touch.

The FA43 is open a beautiful knife.

Hell, that shot make me wonder if I got a bad copy of FA43. My wide open shots are never that sharp.

[Blue]

It's my impression that the FA ltds take a little more work on DSLRS to get the magic, while the DA ltds just work. Overall, the FA and DA limiteds are pretty different, though. I think if money is no object, the FAs are the way to go... but don't feel like you are short changing yourself if you go with the DA ltds.

It is my impression that this is Norse Mythology.

for some reason i don't like my 43mm.

40 always seems to make me much happier.... maybe the coating on the elements?

Both get SMC coating and Ghostless Coating. The DA 40 does get the SP coating but that is to repel dust and grease.

[paperbag846]

It is my impression that this is Norse Mythology.

I'm not being argumentative, just want to get my facts straight.

What I have heard specifically is that the FA series of lenses were optimized for film, and amongst other things, have different coatings. Therefore, measures of CA and flaring can be higher on the FA limiteds than the DA limiteds. This does not mean that it is a poor lens... quite the opposite. They are stunningly unique and beautiful, they take wonderful pictures. I would eventually like to own at least 1 FA ltd. However, money is a serious consideration for most people, and depending on your needs, a slightly slower lens with less CA / PF for less money might just fit the bill.

Thats why I stated that it can be harder to get optimal results with the FA's than the DA's, but I should have noted that this only applies to digital photography.

Do I just have it wrong?

[Blue]

I'm not being argumentative, just want to get my facts straight.

What I have heard specifically is that the FA series of lenses were optimized for film, and amongst other things, have different coatings. Therefore, measures of CA and flaring can be higher on the FA limiteds than the DA limiteds. This does not mean that it is a poor lens... quite the opposite. They are stunningly unique and beautiful, they take wonderful pictures. I would eventually like to own at least 1 FA ltd. However, money is a serious consideration for most people, and depending on your needs, a slightly slower lens with less CA / PF for less money might just fit the bill.

Thats why I stated that it can be harder to get optimal results with the FA's than the DA's, but I should have noted that this only applies to digital photography.

Do I just have it wrong?

The FA ltds were designed in the film era. However, that doesn't automatically mean they aren't excellent on digital. In fact, the registration distance is the same. To some degree, when Pentax releases a lens at present, Marketing say it is optimized for digital. That really doesn't mean much given they don't make a film body. The CA/PF is also exaggerated to some degree on the FA ltd lenses. Some of that is due to Photozone's review of the FA 77 where they torture tested it to force PF and then reviewed the DA 70 and proclaimed the DA 70 to do better in that regard but didn't actually torture test the DA 70. Frankly, my F 28/2.8 does quite well on digital and it was designed in the '80s.

The fact is, the FA ltd lenses are an advanced design with SMC and Ghostless coatings as are the DA ltd lenses. The DA ltd series are new designs with completely different optical arrangements but that doesn't automatically make them better or worse than the FA ltd lenses. They are all still in production. In reality, many if not most of the DA ltd series were designed early in Pentax's digital history.

The fact is the autofocus 85mm/1.4 Zeiss lens made for the Sony alpha digital system is capable of PF. It is still a very good lens.

The point I'm making that very good lenses still need some user discretion, experience and skill. Plus, the fact that the 77 is f1.8 and the 70 is 2.4 may be a part of the PF thing.

Edit: I'm not being argumentive either. Just stating my opinions based on my experience and research with these lenses.

[GeneV]

My DA40 is my most used prime on a DSLR. It is as sharp as I've ever needed a lens, tiny and excellent wide open. The size factor also puts it in a world unto itself, especially with the K-x. Add a DA21 to one of your pockets and you have an amazing setup which takes up very little space.

The only time I've ever lusted for the DA43 is on film. I'd love to pop one of these on the old Lx.

[paperbag846]

Blue, I agree with everything you have said, except for the part about lens coatings being the same for film and digital.

1) Digital lenses attempt to keep light straighter, as the photosites on a sensor are essentially wells. If light does not hit those wells head on, the photon is lost and not recorded.
2) Digital sensors reflect light more than film, and therefore anti-reflective measures must be implemented on the rear of the lens (and lens element).

In other words I do not believe this is a purely a marketing issue. I have noticed the difference in flaring and PF/CA myself between film lenses and digital lenses. Not to say that film lenses are a bad option at all... but lets keep in mind the price difference between the FA 43 and the DA 40. Sure, the 43 is sharper in the center. But I still contend that it is a lens that requires a bit more work to get optimal results than the DA 40, which might be less sharp overall, but is still a very competent performer!

[Blue]

Blue, I agree with everything you have said, except for the part about lens coatings being the same for film and digital.

1) Digital lenses attempt to keep light straighter, as the photosites on a sensor are essentially wells. If light does not hit those wells head on, the photon is lost and not recorded.
2) Digital sensors reflect light more than film, and therefore anti-reflective measures must be implemented on the rear of the lens (and lens element).

In other words I do not believe this is a purely a marketing issue. I have noticed the difference in flaring and PF/CA myself between film lenses and digital lenses. Not to say that film lenses are a bad option at all... but lets keep in mind the price difference between the FA 43 and the DA 40. Sure, the 43 is sharper in the center. But I still contend that it is a lens that requires a bit more work to get optimal results than the DA 40, which might be less sharp overall, but is still a very competent performer!

Show me a source showing me that the Ghostless coatings and SMC coatings have been changed by Pentax since 1999. I didn't say it was purely marketing but in part and it is in part a marketing strategy at present. Otherwise they would have discontinued the FA ltd and the FA 50/1.4 by now. Some of the DA ltd lenses have built in lenses whereas the 43 requires it to be point on in a traditional manner and that will go a long way on flaring issues. My point is not to imply the DA 40 is not a fine lens. I'm just stating that it is my opinion that film lenses don't do well on digital is in a large part Mythology. There are some pretty crappy lenses out there that have been designed specifically for digital.

I just don't see an issue with the FA ltd lenses being used on digital and I don't have to do anything more (or not) to images from my FA 77 ltd than I do with my DA 35 ltd.

[paperbag846]

I'm just stating that it is my opinion that film lenses don't do well on digital is in a large part Mythology.

I never said that. Rather, I said that it was harder to get an optimal shot with an FA lens on digital compared to a DA shot.

I do not read Japanese, but I would suspect that if you had time, you could read every patent revision of the SMC coatings. To be honest, I don't care enough. I have first-hand experience that digital lenses tend to reflect light less internally than film lenses. Maybe the coating is chemically the same, but it is simply applied differently to the rear element. Or, perhaps, the actual back of the lens is designed differently to reduce reflections. I know this because I have to be considerably more careful with hood use with a film lens over a digital lens. Furthermore, specular lighting shows more artifacts with a film lens.

I don't think this is mythology, but really, NEITHER of us have any proof. People are going to have to use their eyes to settle this one. Pentax (rightfully so) does not make the nitty gritty of their lens design public knowledge, and we would need those and an engineer to settle this myth. I tend to use my eyes, and my observation is that digital lenses tend to be more flare resistant. It does not really matter. Be happy with what you have. I'm trying to guide this individual to consider that buying the most expensive normal lens (the 43) is not necessary for good photography. I find people here who clearly have thousands of dollars to throw at photography only suggest very expensive lenses to purchase.

There is something called adaptive preference formation, which plays a large role in consumer behaviour. If you purchase something expensive, you are less likely to see a flaw in the product than someone who has not spent the money on it. The opposite is true too: if you cannot afford something, but want something, you will criticize to reduce the cognitive dissidence between wanting something and not being able to have something. We are likely both guilty of it - but realistically, I think the DA series lenses are a better deal if you aren't super rich, aren't paid to take pictures, and/or aren't going to be using these lenses on a film body. The pictures you take with either lens are going to be of very high quality.

My 2 cents.

[Blue]

I never said that. Rather, I said that it was harder to get an optimal shot with an FA lens on digital compared to a DA shot.

I do not read Japanese, but I would suspect that if you had time, you could read every patent revision of the SMC coatings. To be honest, I don't care enough. I have first-hand experience that digital lenses tend to reflect light less internally than film lenses. Maybe the coating is chemically the same, but it is simply applied differently to the rear element. Or, perhaps, the actual back of the lens is designed differently to reduce reflections. I know this because I have to be considerably more careful with hood use with a film lens over a digital lens. Furthermore, specular lighting shows more artifacts with a film lens.

I don't think this is mythology, but really, NEITHER of us have any proof. People are going to have to use their eyes to settle this one. Pentax (rightfully so) does not make the nitty gritty of their lens design public knowledge, and we would need those and an engineer to settle this myth. I tend to use my eyes, and my observation is that digital lenses tend to be more flare resistant. It does not really matter. Be happy with what you have. I'm trying to guide this individual to consider that buying the most expensive normal lens (the 43) is not necessary for good photography. I find people here who clearly have thousands of dollars to throw at photography only suggest very expensive lenses to purchase.

There is something called adaptive preference formation, which plays a large role in consumer behaviour. If you purchase something expensive, you are less likely to see a flaw in the product than someone who has not spent the money on it. The opposite is true too: if you cannot afford something, but want something, you will criticize to reduce the cognitive dissidence between wanting something and not being able to have something. We are likely both guilty of it - but realistically, I think the DA series lenses are a better deal if you aren't super rich, aren't paid to take pictures, and/or aren't going to be using these lenses on a film body. The pictures you take with either lens are going to be of very high quality.

My 2 cents.

That adaptive concept also applies to buying something recently designed with the assumption that it is better than a previous design.

Like I said on the coatings, the SMC and Ghostless they are the same since 1999 until proven otherwise. I don't operate under the French legal system. Why the hell would I assume they have been changed until proven the haven't been?

I like both series of lenses and have lenses from both so that "dog don't hunt."

Edit: In case that didn't come across, stating that the DA ltd lenses have different SMC and Ghostless coatings than the DA ltd lenses (other than SP) is in fact Mythology until proven otherwise.

Edit: Edit: I would bet that if there has been revisions to the SMC and Ghostless coating formulations over last 10 years, they use the same one on the FA and DA ltd series anyway. Plus, any patents in the U.S. or Japan are unlikely to disclose the actual detailed formulations due to trade secretes. Otherwise, we would know more about these things than we do.

If anyone has any detailed information to add, please link the information here.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/104892-pentax-...ro-bright.html

[axl]

I relly don't think I have to try any harder with 43 than I had to with 40. As a matter of fact PF on 40 was probably worse than on 43 but CAs were better. To me (and I'm not much of a pixelpeeper) these differences are largely unimportant...

[Jewelltrail]

Paperbag846: I never said that. Rather, I said that it was harder to get an optimal shot with an FA lens on digital compared to a DA shot.

I do not read Japanese, but I would suspect that if you had time, you could read every patent revision of the SMC coatings. To be honest, I don't care enough. I have first-hand experience that digital lenses tend to reflect light less internally than film lenses. Maybe the coating is chemically the same, but it is simply applied differently to the rear element. Or, perhaps, the actual back of the lens is designed differently to reduce reflections. I know this because I have to be considerably more careful with hood use with a film lens over a digital lens. Furthermore, specular lighting shows more artifacts with a film lens.

I don't think this is mythology, but really, NEITHER of us have any proof. People are going to have to use their eyes to settle this one. Pentax (rightfully so) does not make the nitty gritty of their lens design public knowledge, and we would need those and an engineer to settle this myth. I tend to use my eyes, and my observation is that digital lenses tend to be more flare resistant. It does not really matter. Be happy with what you have. I'm trying to guide this individual to consider that buying the most expensive normal lens (the 43) is not necessary for good photography. I find people here who clearly have thousands of dollars to throw at photography only suggest very expensive lenses to purchase.

There is something called adaptive preference formation, which plays a large role in consumer behaviour. If you purchase something expensive, you are less likely to see a flaw in the product than someone who has not spent the money on it. The opposite is true too: if you cannot afford something, but want something, you will criticize to reduce the cognitive dissidence between wanting something and not being able to have something. We are likely both guilty of it - but realistically, I think the DA series lenses are a better deal if you aren't super rich, aren't paid to take pictures, and/or aren't going to be using these lenses on a film body. The pictures you take with either lens are going to be of very high quality.

My 2 cents

.


Paperbag846: I like your 2 cents. The Psychology of buying is a fascinating subject, almost never touched upon in a forum like this for obvious reasons. Social Psychologists dedicate lifetimes to unearthing the patterns & motivations which govern human spending. Human beings, on the whole, are easily lead, which is why marketing and sales has long-term job security. Being conscious of our vulnerabilities though, goes a long way to preventing silly mistakes in our purchases. What you discuss is well documented in the voluminous research data gleaned from thousands of empirical studies. Just being conscious of the phenomenon, “Cognitive Dissonance,” for example, can enable us to lead much wiser lives. Thank you for your analysis.

[Blue]

.


Paperbag846: I like your 2 cents. The Psychology of buying is a fascinating subject, almost never touched upon in a forum like this for obvious reasons. Social Psychologists dedicate lifetimes to unearthing the patterns & motivations which govern human spending. Human beings, on the whole, are easily lead, which is why marketing and sales has long-term job security. Being conscious of our vulnerabilities though, goes a long way to preventing silly mistakes in our purchases. What you discuss is well documented in the voluminous research data gleaned from thousands of empirical studies. Just being conscious of the phenomenon, “Cognitive Dissonance,” for example, can enable us to lead much wiser lives. Thank you for your analysis.

Likewise you must be one of those folks who fall for the psychology that something designed 5 minutes ago is better than technology that has been around for a while.

That said, psychology doesn't have a tinkerers damn to do with the FA 43 ltd kicking the shit out of the DA 40mm ltd at f1.9 and having a more user friendly aperture ring. And regardless your and Paperbag's psychological hangups, they both have Ghostless Coating.

[paperbag846]

I don't want to start something here so I will respond and leave this conversation be - I've made my point already. I believe that Pentax produces the FA 43 and the DA 40 alongside each other for good reason. I have heard some people state a preference for one, and others a preference for the other. I believe they both have their strengths and weaknesses. I believe that the additional center sharpness of the 43 is worth noting, but is not substantially different from the DA 40 in real world pictures, judging from lines per mm graphs on photozone. I believe that for one reason or another, the DA controls artifacts better than the FA on digital cameras, although I will concede that the difference may not be significant in real world shots. I believe what is significant is the prices of these lenses, and for a digital only shooter who does not care much for an aperture ring, the DA 40 is likely a better value than the DA 43. I also do not think the extra stop of the FA 43 is as important as you make it out to be, considering the lens needs to be closed down to 2.8 ish for it to show it's legendary sharpness.

You can knock the psychology behind consumer behaviour, but the truth is that very few of us here are paid to take pictures. Those who are should pay for the best - their gear will pay for itself eventually. For most of us, image quality and satisfaction is going to be a series of very subjective judgments. Those judgments can be clouded by all sorts of factors, including money spent, and the opinions of "experts". This comparison is between two very competent lenses, and someone who learns to judge with their eyes and treats their hobby as a hobby (instead of habitual acquisition) will be very satisfied with the DA 40. The sky is the limit with all of these things, so it's important to keep it all in perspective. There are many lenses far faster than the FA 43 which can be had for far less... and I truly believe that lens speed is less and less of an issue with improvements in ISO. Seriously, how often to you want to shoot with a depth of field below 2.8 when you aren't shooting floral arrangements or abstracts? Those photographic styles have their place, but fast glass is becoming more and more a specialty purpose thing, as opposed to something required to stop action.

Blue, I hope you enjoy your lens collection. Just please bare in mind that many of us cannot afford to own it all, and a wise purchase is often not the most costly one. While you clearly have a lot of experience with nice glass, it is very likely that most of us would be better off buying a great lens, instead of the best lens.