Are DA LTD lenses better suited for digital than the FA LTD's

pentup · 01-10-2011, 02:10 PM

If the FA's were designed with digital in mind, why are the lens hoods so short? Well, I suppose the point is they were also meant for film -- but I think they made a mistake making them built in. The DA's seem to handle flare better. It's easy enough to supplement the FA hoods, I guess, but it kind of mars the svelte elegance of the things, which is one of the things that makes them so pricey. Not that it matters to me, I love my FA31.

The quick shift on the DA40 is not as handy as it might be for me, because the focus throw is so short and the ring is so miniscule. I can't be fair to the DA40 because I just don't feel comfortable with pancakes. I concede it's a great lens considering the price and the compactness.

I wonder if the build quality on the FA ltds may have slipped lately? I'm returning a recently acquired FA 77 because the focus ring is loose and there's quite a bit of play in it before focus actually changes. I agree the rendering is beautiful, but it's a focal length that I'm not sure what to do with.

Last edited by pentup; 01-10-2011 at 02:35 PM.

paperbag846 · 01-10-2011, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by pentup

If the FA's were designed with digital in mind, why are the lens hoods so short? Well, I suppose the point is they were also meant for film -- but I think they made a mistake making them built in. The DA's seem to handle flare better. It's easy enough to supplement the FA hoods, I guess, but it kind of mars the svelte elegance of the things, which is one of the things that makes them so pricey. Not that it matters to me, I love my FA31.

No the FA ltds. were clearly designed for film, but they happen to preform very well on digital as well due to their modern design and coatings. Things like the imaging circle, lens hood, and rear element design all point to designed for film.

The DAs are the ones designed primarily for digital.

I think you really gotta try them for yourself. The differences are pretty obvious with the lenses in hand.

pentup · 01-10-2011, 02:39 PM

I was referring to Adam's remarks about the FA ltds and the *ist cameras -- I failed to notice the correction later. So yeah, the hoods aren't the greatest for non-full frame. Trivial compared to other factors, of course. (sorry, paperbag846 -- I added to my post while you were replying)

paperbag846 · 01-10-2011, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by pentup

The quick shift on the DA40 is not as handy as it might be for me, because the focus throw is so short and the ring is so miniscule.

A common criticism, and valid for many. I have tiny hands, and play guitar, so I don't find it that hard actually. It's very very different from some of the great manual focus lenses from the yesteryear, that is for sure.

The quickshift I used much more on the DA 70 which has a much easier to access focusing ring.

**germar** · 01-10-2011, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

I have tiny hands, and play guitar, so I don't find it that hard actually.

I have medium sized hands and I am awful at "Guitar Hero," so I shelved my DA 40 bought an FA 31.

I'm good with that.

germar

builttospill · 01-10-2011, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by johnny9fingers

...I will have to start saving for this purchase so there is time for me to mull this over, I do wish it was possible to try both lenses for a while, but they are not available here in the hinterlands of Wisconsin...

If you're planning on spending some money on a nice lens it may be worth it to rent each of them first to help with the decision. CameraLensRentals.com - Pentax Standard Lens Rentals rents both of them quite inexpensively for four days. Then you can try them out in Wisconsin.

The coatings are the same on both DA and FA Limiteds. As far as my opinion goes I haven't tried the 70, but when I owned the 40 and 43 at the same time, I preferred the 43 so I went with the 77 too.

axl · 01-10-2011, 03:39 PM

on the coatings....
there are two theories:
a) they are the same
b) they changed between FA and DA.

My stand?
I tend to believe to a) but logically the b) is more plausible.
Why? For exactly the reason others point out. Colour rendition!
If the coatings are the same, then how come the colours are so different?!?
Anybody who saw, compared, shot DA40 vs FA43, or FA lenses (I've tried 3 ltds, FA*24, FA*300/4.5, FA100/2.8 M) in general vs DA lenses (I've tried DA18-55, DA*50-135, DA*55, DA40ltd) will attest that the colours are different. FAs seem to have warm/yellow glow to them. When on AWB the yellows/cyans seem to be favored. In DA lenses it's still warm, but the magentas and deep blues are more favored and deep yellows/reds. Even on manual WB the rendering between the two series (at least in my experience) is markedly different.
In my logic there are two explanations which are possible/plausible: different glass or dfferent coatings....
Many say, there is no proof the coatings changed, but there's no proof for many things....IMO.

builttospill · 01-10-2011, 03:44 PM

Well axl, we know the coating is different on your 43, but I was hoping no one would bring that up!

pentup · 01-10-2011, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

The quickshift I used much more on the DA 70 which has a much easier to access focusing ring.

I was going to ask about that. Good to know. I really think I don't need the speed of the FA77, and the DA70 is mighty tempting...

creampuff · 01-10-2011, 05:26 PM

Got both the DA 70 and FA 77. Is there even a contest? Definitely the FA 77 hands down. Frankly the difference in AF speed is negligible. Both have ridiculously short hoods but the implementation on the DA 70 could be better. I prefer the color rendition of the FA 77 over the DA 70 as axl had mentioned. Both are fine lenses but good as the DA 70 is, I always wish that the background could be less distinct when I shoot head/half body portraits with it. Basically I find f/2.4 is just not wide enough, and the min focusing distance could be closer. That's where the FA 77 shines with the larger maximum aperture and narrower field of view. FA Ltd build quality is definitely a lot better than the DA Ltds. Besides, is there anything nicer looking than a silver FA 77 around?

pentup · 01-10-2011, 09:10 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by creampuff

Basically I find f/2.4 is just not wide enough, and the min focusing distance could be closer. That's where the FA 77 shines with the larger maximum aperture and narrower field of view

I admire anyone who can do a close portrait wider open than 2.4 at that focal length, and keep both eyes acceptably in focus. I can't. This was shot at 2.5, and I wish I'd leaned back a bit, or stopped down. As for backgrounds, they seem to me as much a question of the background's proximity to the subject, as the aperture. I prefer faster lenses as well, but not for the sake of portraits. But that's just because I don't care for the ears blurry, tip of nose blurry, both eyes in focus but only if the person is looking straight ahead kind of shot. I love the 77, but it's an ackward length for portraits on digital, for me. But frankly, so is the 70. I'm used to using a 90 f 2.4 on film.

axl · 01-11-2011, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by builttospill

Well axl, we know the coating is different on your 43, but I was hoping no one would bring that up!

Yes, I do have one of the very first 43s with reportedly different coating and leaded glass but this aside the colour rendition between those two series is definitely different!

**nanthor** · 04-04-2011, 05:32 PM

OK, what's up about the coating and the glass? Are the lenses being made today worser now than the ones first built? Not wanting to start a big controversy but I would want to think that companies are always seeking to improve their quality, not go the other way. So what's the backstory on this? Thanks, Bob. (looking to buy some FA limiteds)

v5planet · 04-04-2011, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by pentup

I admire anyone who can do a close portrait wider open than 2.4 at that focal length, and keep both eyes acceptably in focus. I can't. This was shot at 2.5, and I wish I'd leaned back a bit, or stopped down. As for backgrounds, they seem to me as much a question of the background's proximity to the subject, as the aperture. I prefer faster lenses as well, but not for the sake of portraits. But that's just because I don't care for the ears blurry, tip of nose blurry, both eyes in focus but only if the person is looking straight ahead kind of shot. I love the 77, but it's an ackward length for portraits on digital, for me. But frankly, so is the 70. I'm used to using a 90 f 2.4 on film.

It's all about angle. This is uncropped, wide open at f/1.8 with the 77:

I'll also leave that image up as an example of how sharp this lens is wide open, when you've angled your subject enough to pull the fuzziness of shallow DOF out of the equation.

DogLover · 04-04-2011, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by v5planet

It's all about angle. This is uncropped, wide open at f/1.8 with the 77:

I'll also leave that image up as an example of how sharp this lens is wide open, when you've angled your subject enough to pull the fuzziness of shallow DOF out of the equation.

Nice job.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Using old lenses on new digital camera	sissy64sonny	Welcomes and Introductions	9	06-05-2010 10:03 AM
Heads-up: Two Silver FA LTD's on Keh	joeyc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	03-13-2010 08:26 AM
New to digital, what lenses to purchase	houstonmacgregor	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	07-10-2008 06:34 AM
FA ltd's vs DA ltd's?	beaumont	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	05-17-2008 09:48 PM
ME Super lenses with a digital body? - Is it possible?	Max	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	04-03-2008 06:04 AM

01-10-2011, 02:10 PM	#16
pentup Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Flushing NY Photos: Albums Posts: 413	If the FA's were designed with digital in mind, why are the lens hoods so short? Well, I suppose the point is they were also meant for film -- but I think they made a mistake making them built in. The DA's seem to handle flare better. It's easy enough to supplement the FA hoods, I guess, but it kind of mars the svelte elegance of the things, which is one of the things that makes them so pricey. Not that it matters to me, I love my FA31. The quick shift on the DA40 is not as handy as it might be for me, because the focus throw is so short and the ring is so miniscule. I can't be fair to the DA40 because I just don't feel comfortable with pancakes. I concede it's a great lens considering the price and the compactness. I wonder if the build quality on the FA ltds may have slipped lately? I'm returning a recently acquired FA 77 because the focus ring is loose and there's quite a bit of play in it before focus actually changes. I agree the rendering is beautiful, but it's a focal length that I'm not sure what to do with. Last edited by pentup; 01-10-2011 at 02:35 PM.

01-10-2011, 02:24 PM	#17
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by pentup If the FA's were designed with digital in mind, why are the lens hoods so short? Well, I suppose the point is they were also meant for film -- but I think they made a mistake making them built in. The DA's seem to handle flare better. It's easy enough to supplement the FA hoods, I guess, but it kind of mars the svelte elegance of the things, which is one of the things that makes them so pricey. Not that it matters to me, I love my FA31. No the FA ltds. were clearly designed for film, but they happen to preform very well on digital as well due to their modern design and coatings. Things like the imaging circle, lens hood, and rear element design all point to designed for film. The DAs are the ones designed primarily for digital. I think you really gotta try them for yourself. The differences are pretty obvious with the lenses in hand.

01-10-2011, 02:39 PM	#18
pentup Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Flushing NY Photos: Albums Posts: 413	I was referring to Adam's remarks about the FA ltds and the *ist cameras -- I failed to notice the correction later. So yeah, the hoods aren't the greatest for non-full frame. Trivial compared to other factors, of course. (sorry, paperbag846 -- I added to my post while you were replying)

01-10-2011, 03:08 PM	#19
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by pentup The quick shift on the DA40 is not as handy as it might be for me, because the focus throw is so short and the ring is so miniscule. A common criticism, and valid for many. I have tiny hands, and play guitar, so I don't find it that hard actually. It's very very different from some of the great manual focus lenses from the yesteryear, that is for sure. The quickshift I used much more on the DA 70 which has a much easier to access focusing ring.

01-10-2011, 03:21 PM	#20
germar Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: North Palm Beach, Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 728	Originally posted by paperbag846 I have tiny hands, and play guitar, so I don't find it that hard actually. I have medium sized hands and I am awful at "Guitar Hero," so I shelved my DA 40 bought an FA 31. I'm good with that. germar

01-10-2011, 03:24 PM	#21
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	Originally posted by johnny9fingers ...I will have to start saving for this purchase so there is time for me to mull this over, I do wish it was possible to try both lenses for a while, but they are not available here in the hinterlands of Wisconsin... If you're planning on spending some money on a nice lens it may be worth it to rent each of them first to help with the decision. CameraLensRentals.com - Pentax Standard Lens Rentals rents both of them quite inexpensively for four days. Then you can try them out in Wisconsin. The coatings are the same on both DA and FA Limiteds. As far as my opinion goes I haven't tried the 70, but when I owned the 40 and 43 at the same time, I preferred the 43 so I went with the 77 too.

01-10-2011, 03:39 PM	#22
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	on the coatings.... there are two theories: a) they are the same b) they changed between FA and DA. My stand? I tend to believe to a) but logically the b) is more plausible. Why? For exactly the reason others point out. Colour rendition! If the coatings are the same, then how come the colours are so different?!? Anybody who saw, compared, shot DA40 vs FA43, or FA lenses (I've tried 3 ltds, FA24, FA300/4.5, FA100/2.8 M) in general vs DA lenses (I've tried DA18-55, DA50-135, DA55, DA40ltd) will attest that the colours are different. FAs seem to have warm/yellow glow to them. When on AWB the yellows/cyans seem to be favored. In DA lenses it's still warm, but the magentas and deep blues are more favored and deep yellows/reds. Even on manual WB the rendering between the two series (at least in my experience) is markedly different. In my logic there are two explanations which are possible/plausible: different glass or dfferent coatings.... Many say, there is no proof the coatings changed, but there's no proof for many things....IMO.

01-10-2011, 03:44 PM	#23
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	Well axl, we know the coating is different on your 43, but I was hoping no one would bring that up!

01-10-2011, 04:14 PM	#24
pentup Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Flushing NY Photos: Albums Posts: 413	Originally posted by paperbag846 The quickshift I used much more on the DA 70 which has a much easier to access focusing ring. I was going to ask about that. Good to know. I really think I don't need the speed of the FA77, and the DA70 is mighty tempting...

01-10-2011, 05:26 PM	#25
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Got both the DA 70 and FA 77. Is there even a contest? Definitely the FA 77 hands down. Frankly the difference in AF speed is negligible. Both have ridiculously short hoods but the implementation on the DA 70 could be better. I prefer the color rendition of the FA 77 over the DA 70 as axl had mentioned. Both are fine lenses but good as the DA 70 is, I always wish that the background could be less distinct when I shoot head/half body portraits with it. Basically I find f/2.4 is just not wide enough, and the min focusing distance could be closer. That's where the FA 77 shines with the larger maximum aperture and narrower field of view. FA Ltd build quality is definitely a lot better than the DA Ltds. Besides, is there anything nicer looking than a silver FA 77 around?

01-11-2011, 01:26 AM	#27
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by builttospill Well axl, we know the coating is different on your 43, but I was hoping no one would bring that up! Yes, I do have one of the very first 43s with reportedly different coating and leaded glass but this aside the colour rendition between those two series is definitely different!

04-04-2011, 05:32 PM	#28
nanthor Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Michigan Posts: 55	OK, what's up about the coating and the glass? Are the lenses being made today worser now than the ones first built? Not wanting to start a big controversy but I would want to think that companies are always seeking to improve their quality, not go the other way. So what's the backstory on this? Thanks, Bob. (looking to buy some FA limiteds)

04-04-2011, 05:45 PM	#29
v5planet Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Seattle Photos: Albums Posts: 1,915	Originally posted by pentup I admire anyone who can do a close portrait wider open than 2.4 at that focal length, and keep both eyes acceptably in focus. I can't. This was shot at 2.5, and I wish I'd leaned back a bit, or stopped down. As for backgrounds, they seem to me as much a question of the background's proximity to the subject, as the aperture. I prefer faster lenses as well, but not for the sake of portraits. But that's just because I don't care for the ears blurry, tip of nose blurry, both eyes in focus but only if the person is looking straight ahead kind of shot. I love the 77, but it's an ackward length for portraits on digital, for me. But frankly, so is the 70. I'm used to using a 90 f 2.4 on film. It's all about angle. This is uncropped, wide open at f/1.8 with the 77: I'll also leave that image up as an example of how sharp this lens is wide open, when you've angled your subject enough to pull the fuzziness of shallow DOF out of the equation.

04-04-2011, 05:50 PM	#30
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by v5planet It's all about angle. This is uncropped, wide open at f/1.8 with the 77: I'll also leave that image up as an example of how sharp this lens is wide open, when you've angled your subject enough to pull the fuzziness of shallow DOF out of the equation. Nice job.