Originally posted by paperbag846 ????????
Ok, so this is all to say that in all circumstances, the FA LTD lenses are superior lenses to the DA LTD lenses? Money is a factor, yes it is. But more expensive also does not equal better. Regardless of one's financial situation.
PS, I am a student. I fund my current hobby by selling gear from the previous one. It has worked well. I'm a cheap b*****d. Proud of it, if anything. I see value in the DA line, and the FA line. I could choose to buy an FA lens after selling some other gear at no cost to me what so ever, I simply don't want to because I am not convinced it will be at all beneficial.
However it is simply impossible to talk about how the DA lenses might have their own strengths, outside of price, on this forum, without a bunch of people just pouncing on you. It's just silly really. I believe the DA ltds have their own purpose... they are not second fiddle to the FA line as a rule.
And they are not cheap. I give up.
Rule No 1: Thou shall not slander the FA Limiteds!
Rule No 2: The DA Limiteds shall know their place beneath the FA Limiteds!
Rule No 3: The 200 Macro rules them all in all designations
Rule No 4: Honorable mention can be given to the following A*85, A*135, A50 f/1.2, and I think maybe the K28 f/2.0 (if only bcause of the Zeiss conection) + of course the FA* super telephoto line
I've been wondering about your persistance with arguing against the FA Limiteds at what it seems to me is any given opportunity. Price does not matter, they are all very expensive despite what any of us say, however they have a premium build with this. There are only 2 lens in the Limited line that could be regarded as reasonable value and they are the DA35 f/2.8 macro and DA40 f/2.4. Where I think you are missing the point completely is the
Philososphy of the lens series design. The FA Limiteds were designed to produce a likeable image, that is their whole reason of being, the so called Pixie dust factor which is really their 3D rendering and not some mathematical construct. They were manually tuned to enhance this effect and it fortunately works the same on both film and in digital. Pentax were brave in that they allowed their lead designers leeway to do this and some like the idea of this, that some genius lens designer(s) wanted to do it this way and thet were allowed. The FA Limited thread shows how successful they were. The DA's, the pancakes at least were Pentax going back to their miniaturisation mode again which is another philosophy again and with it different design considerations. I would say that the FA Limiteds are successors to the K line, the DA Limiteds the successors to the M line and that comment alone might kick off a whole new debate
I wonder if there are competing factions within Pentax that was constantly at war with each other, one esposing the miniature approach, the other the fastest and best with each gaining or losing the higher ground with each new series.