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

**Rondec** · 04-04-2011, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by nanthor

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)

Do you actually know something that the rest of us don't? As far as I know, the coatings are basically the same. Both sets of lenses are quite flare resistant and have excellent contrast. The FA limiteds may be a little warmer in color rendition, but overall, I would have a hard time saying that the DA limiteds coating is worse than that of the FA limiteds.

The reason why people like the FA limiteds better than the DA limiteds is that they are faster and still quite sharp wide open.

DogLover · 04-04-2011, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

The reason why people like the FA limiteds better than the DA limiteds is that they are faster and still quite sharp wide open.

Actually, that's just icing for me. The unique rendering is the biggest strength of the FA's over the DA's in my book.

**nanthor** · 04-04-2011, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

Do you actually know something that the rest of us don't? As far as I know, the coatings are basically the same. Both sets of lenses are quite flare resistant and have excellent contrast. The FA limiteds may be a little warmer in color rendition, but overall, I would have a hard time saying that the DA limiteds coating is worse than that of the FA limiteds.

The reason why people like the FA limiteds better than the DA limiteds is that they are faster and still quite sharp wide open.

No, I don't know that the coatings are any different. I was referring to a post just previous to mine that made it seem like an early 43mm limited had different coating and special glass compared to the later 43 limiteds. I was asking the two posters who seemed to be discussing this if they could back up the claim. It would seem to me that no company would purposely make an inferior lens at a later date. An example would be Leica, as good as their lenses were back in the 70s and 80s, they have steadily improved the image quality with each new design. So the inference that an early 43mm would be special or better than one made today would surprise me. I think it's just creating lore.

paperbag846 · 04-04-2011, 07:36 PM

In general, it's a wash as far as appropriateness goes. It comes down to price vs. speed for me.

For those who don't like processing color in post, the FA ltds also have a different color palate to them that some prefer.

DogLover · 04-04-2011, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by nanthor

No, I don't know that the coatings are any different. I was referring to a post just previous to mine that made it seem like an early 43mm limited had different coating and special glass compared to the later 43 limiteds. I was asking the two posters who seemed to be discussing this if they could back up the claim. It would seem to me that no company would purposely make an inferior lens at a later date. An example would be Leica, as good as their lenses were back in the 70s and 80s, they have steadily improved the image quality with each new design. So the inference that an early 43mm would be special or better than one made today would surprise me. I think it's just creating lore.

No, that's a real thing. Axl can give you more of the low-down, but very early 43's had glass with lead in it and slightly different coatings.

**nanthor** · 04-04-2011, 08:03 PM

Hi, have they been shown to be better, worse, or just different than the later 43's? If different, does anyone know in what way, cooler, warmer, different rendition? I had a very early 31mm and wasn't happy with it compared to my 77 and 43. I recently bought another 31mm and it seems to be the best limited I've ever owned, so it's just a bit confusing that the qualities seem to differ over the years.

DogLover · 04-04-2011, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by nanthor

Hi, have they been shown to be better, worse, or just different than the later 43's? If different, does anyone know in what way, cooler, warmer, different rendition? I had a very early 31mm and wasn't happy with it compared to my 77 and 43. I recently bought another 31mm and it seems to be the best limited I've ever owned, so it's just a bit confusing that the qualities seem to differ over the years.

Kinda adds to the mystique, though, doesn't it?

Spotmatic · 04-05-2011, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by Cambo

Limiteds started coming out in the film days...about 96-97 I believe.

I personally find it ODD that they're still issuing them (full-frame lenses) without a camera to go with it. I STILL think there's a rangefinder in the wings, they're just waiting for really good EV's.

Cheers,
Cameron

Pentax still produces them because they sell and are profitable. It appears that they were designed with the LX in mind...not digital. Digital at the time was in its infancy. Perhaps there was an AF LX but it got sidelined. I dunno.

Pentax 43/1.9 Limited

The FA Limiteds are very good lenses that have achieved cult status and luxury item prices. They are not necessary to get good images. Color rendition is easily altered in PP. I like the DA Limiteds. To each their own.

I was salivating for the DA* 30mm f1.4. I truly wonder if the cult status and sales of the FA 31 killed it?

Spotmatic · 04-05-2011, 10:08 AM

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.

Good point. I was wondering what all the fuss is about and why one would pony up the $$$ for big apertures on APS bodies. The 85 f 1.4 comes to mind too. These were really meant for film or FF.

Spotmatic · 04-05-2011, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

Do you actually know something that the rest of us don't? As far as I know, the coatings are basically the same. Both sets of lenses are quite flare resistant and have excellent contrast. The FA limiteds may be a little warmer in color rendition, but overall, I would have a hard time saying that the DA limiteds coating is worse than that of the FA limiteds.

The reason why people like the FA limiteds better than the DA limiteds is that they are faster and still quite sharp wide open.

The DA coating is optimized for digital, sensors are different than film. The coating on the FA's is not the same. That said, there is nothing 'wrong' with either one.

DogLover · 04-05-2011, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Spotmatic

The DA coating is optimized for digital, sensors are different than film. The coating on the FA's is not the same. That said, there is nothing 'wrong' with either one.

Do you have any proof of this, because if you do you may be the only one. It seems that you are trying to usurp paperbag as the main FA Ltd. doubter here on the forum. He's been reining in his rhetoric of late while you seem to be increasing yours. The above is a tempered insult and an insinuation that the FA's are inferior because they have "film-optimized" coatings. Nothing wrong with preferring the DA's, but we do get kind of tired of reading it in every thread.

builttospill · 04-05-2011, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

Do you have any proof of this, because if you do you may be the only one. It seems that you are trying to usurp paperbag as the main FA Ltd. doubter here on the forum. He's been reigning in his rhetoric of late while you seem to be increasing yours. The above is a tempered insult and an insinuation that the FA's are inferior because they have "film-optimized" coatings. Nothing wrong with preferring the DA's, but we do get kind of tired of reading it in every thread.

Agreed. I'm pretty sure the coating are the same, as there wasn't much time between the release of the last FA Limited and DAs.

Originally posted by nanthor

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)

I don't think it's always the company's decision. If I had the decision I'd still use leaded gasoline in my vehicles. More power, more effeciency and a lead coating to reduce friction and wear & tear, but I can't, because it burns up the catalytic converter. Pentax can't put lead in all their glass and coating anymore either. Environmental activists have pushed a lot of changes on companies and products, not all for the better.

Now I need to mention I don't know if the original FA 43 is better or not, with the lead. I haven't used both. Maybe axl could give us his opinion for a better idea.

gnaztee · 04-05-2011, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

The above is a tempered insult and an insinuation that the FA's are inferior because they have "film-optimized" coatings.

An insult? Really?! Insulting to whom?

Nevertheless, the coatings are different, as spec'd on Pentax's website, and the DA Ltds are listed as "optimized for digital," but it doesn't say that the coatings are optimized for digital. So, hard to say if the claim is true.

DogLover · 04-05-2011, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by gnaztee

An insult? Really?! Insulting to whom?

Nevertheless, the coatings are different, as spec'd on Pentax's website, and the DA Ltds are listed as "optimized for digital," but it doesn't say that the coatings are optimized for digital. So, hard to say if the claim is true.

Where do you see that on Pentax's website?

oliver939 · 04-05-2011, 01:06 PM

but if pentax still produce FA, they have to be "optimized for digital" or?

I can not imagine that theses lenses are still dedicated for film SLR, film shall be a very small part of their usage now

04-05-2011, 02:09 AM	#38
Spotmatic Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ft. Myers Florida Posts: 169	Originally posted by Cambo Limiteds started coming out in the film days...about 96-97 I believe. I personally find it ODD that they're still issuing them (full-frame lenses) without a camera to go with it. I STILL think there's a rangefinder in the wings, they're just waiting for really good EV's. Cheers, Cameron Pentax still produces them because they sell and are profitable. It appears that they were designed with the LX in mind...not digital. Digital at the time was in its infancy. Perhaps there was an AF LX but it got sidelined. I dunno. Pentax 43/1.9 Limited The FA Limiteds are very good lenses that have achieved cult status and luxury item prices. They are not necessary to get good images. Color rendition is easily altered in PP. I like the DA Limiteds. To each their own. I was salivating for the DA* 30mm f1.4. I truly wonder if the cult status and sales of the FA 31 killed it? Last edited by Spotmatic; 04-05-2011 at 05:24 AM.

04-05-2011, 10:48 AM	#41
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by Spotmatic The DA coating is optimized for digital, sensors are different than film. The coating on the FA's is not the same. That said, there is nothing 'wrong' with either one. Do you have any proof of this, because if you do you may be the only one. It seems that you are trying to usurp paperbag as the main FA Ltd. doubter here on the forum. He's been reining in his rhetoric of late while you seem to be increasing yours. The above is a tempered insult and an insinuation that the FA's are inferior because they have "film-optimized" coatings. Nothing wrong with preferring the DA's, but we do get kind of tired of reading it in every thread. Last edited by DogLover; 04-05-2011 at 12:39 PM.

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

04-04-2011, 06:31 PM	#31
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by nanthor 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) Do you actually know something that the rest of us don't? As far as I know, the coatings are basically the same. Both sets of lenses are quite flare resistant and have excellent contrast. The FA limiteds may be a little warmer in color rendition, but overall, I would have a hard time saying that the DA limiteds coating is worse than that of the FA limiteds. The reason why people like the FA limiteds better than the DA limiteds is that they are faster and still quite sharp wide open.

04-04-2011, 07:04 PM	#32
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by Rondec The reason why people like the FA limiteds better than the DA limiteds is that they are faster and still quite sharp wide open. Actually, that's just icing for me. The unique rendering is the biggest strength of the FA's over the DA's in my book.

04-04-2011, 07:28 PM	#33
nanthor Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Michigan Posts: 55	Originally posted by Rondec Do you actually know something that the rest of us don't? As far as I know, the coatings are basically the same. Both sets of lenses are quite flare resistant and have excellent contrast. The FA limiteds may be a little warmer in color rendition, but overall, I would have a hard time saying that the DA limiteds coating is worse than that of the FA limiteds. The reason why people like the FA limiteds better than the DA limiteds is that they are faster and still quite sharp wide open. No, I don't know that the coatings are any different. I was referring to a post just previous to mine that made it seem like an early 43mm limited had different coating and special glass compared to the later 43 limiteds. I was asking the two posters who seemed to be discussing this if they could back up the claim. It would seem to me that no company would purposely make an inferior lens at a later date. An example would be Leica, as good as their lenses were back in the 70s and 80s, they have steadily improved the image quality with each new design. So the inference that an early 43mm would be special or better than one made today would surprise me. I think it's just creating lore.

04-04-2011, 07:36 PM	#34
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	In general, it's a wash as far as appropriateness goes. It comes down to price vs. speed for me. For those who don't like processing color in post, the FA ltds also have a different color palate to them that some prefer.

04-04-2011, 07:49 PM	#35
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by nanthor No, I don't know that the coatings are any different. I was referring to a post just previous to mine that made it seem like an early 43mm limited had different coating and special glass compared to the later 43 limiteds. I was asking the two posters who seemed to be discussing this if they could back up the claim. It would seem to me that no company would purposely make an inferior lens at a later date. An example would be Leica, as good as their lenses were back in the 70s and 80s, they have steadily improved the image quality with each new design. So the inference that an early 43mm would be special or better than one made today would surprise me. I think it's just creating lore. No, that's a real thing. Axl can give you more of the low-down, but very early 43's had glass with lead in it and slightly different coatings.

04-04-2011, 08:03 PM	#36
nanthor Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Michigan Posts: 55	Hi, have they been shown to be better, worse, or just different than the later 43's? If different, does anyone know in what way, cooler, warmer, different rendition? I had a very early 31mm and wasn't happy with it compared to my 77 and 43. I recently bought another 31mm and it seems to be the best limited I've ever owned, so it's just a bit confusing that the qualities seem to differ over the years.

04-04-2011, 08:14 PM	#37
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by nanthor Hi, have they been shown to be better, worse, or just different than the later 43's? If different, does anyone know in what way, cooler, warmer, different rendition? I had a very early 31mm and wasn't happy with it compared to my 77 and 43. I recently bought another 31mm and it seems to be the best limited I've ever owned, so it's just a bit confusing that the qualities seem to differ over the years. Kinda adds to the mystique, though, doesn't it?

04-05-2011, 10:08 AM	#39
Spotmatic Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ft. Myers Florida Posts: 169	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. Good point. I was wondering what all the fuss is about and why one would pony up the $$$ for big apertures on APS bodies. The 85 f 1.4 comes to mind too. These were really meant for film or FF.

04-05-2011, 10:13 AM	#40
Spotmatic Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ft. Myers Florida Posts: 169	Originally posted by Rondec Do you actually know something that the rest of us don't? As far as I know, the coatings are basically the same. Both sets of lenses are quite flare resistant and have excellent contrast. The FA limiteds may be a little warmer in color rendition, but overall, I would have a hard time saying that the DA limiteds coating is worse than that of the FA limiteds. The reason why people like the FA limiteds better than the DA limiteds is that they are faster and still quite sharp wide open. The DA coating is optimized for digital, sensors are different than film. The coating on the FA's is not the same. That said, there is nothing 'wrong' with either one.

04-05-2011, 12:32 PM	#42
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	Originally posted by DogLover Do you have any proof of this, because if you do you may be the only one. It seems that you are trying to usurp paperbag as the main FA Ltd. doubter here on the forum. He's been reigning in his rhetoric of late while you seem to be increasing yours. The above is a tempered insult and an insinuation that the FA's are inferior because they have "film-optimized" coatings. Nothing wrong with preferring the DA's, but we do get kind of tired of reading it in every thread. Agreed. I'm pretty sure the coating are the same, as there wasn't much time between the release of the last FA Limited and DAs. Originally posted by nanthor 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) I don't think it's always the company's decision. If I had the decision I'd still use leaded gasoline in my vehicles. More power, more effeciency and a lead coating to reduce friction and wear & tear, but I can't, because it burns up the catalytic converter. Pentax can't put lead in all their glass and coating anymore either. Environmental activists have pushed a lot of changes on companies and products, not all for the better. Now I need to mention I don't know if the original FA 43 is better or not, with the lead. I haven't used both. Maybe axl could give us his opinion for a better idea.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-05-2011, 12:41 PM	#43
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772	Originally posted by DogLover The above is a tempered insult and an insinuation that the FA's are inferior because they have "film-optimized" coatings. An insult? Really?! Insulting to whom? Nevertheless, the coatings are different, as spec'd on Pentax's website, and the DA Ltds are listed as "optimized for digital," but it doesn't say that the coatings are optimized for digital. So, hard to say if the claim is true.

04-05-2011, 01:05 PM	#44
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by gnaztee An insult? Really?! Insulting to whom? Nevertheless, the coatings are different, as spec'd on Pentax's website, and the DA Ltds are listed as "optimized for digital," but it doesn't say that the coatings are optimized for digital. So, hard to say if the claim is true. Where do you see that on Pentax's website?

04-05-2011, 01:06 PM	#45
oliver939 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: europe Posts: 156	but if pentax still produce FA, they have to be "optimized for digital" or? I can not imagine that theses lenses are still dedicated for film SLR, film shall be a very small part of their usage now