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

builttospill · 04-05-2011, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

In other words, I think the FA limiteds are *special purpose* lenses. For most people, they can get the *same* satisfaction out of a MUCH LESS expensive lens.

I don't know pb, I'm having a hard time agreeing with this. I see the point you're making here, but I don't think most people here are the ones fitting your description. I don't think you're giving the forum members enough credit, they've done some amount of research which led them to this forum, they're probably not the ones to go and buy a big brand DSLR just to hang around their neck to look cool. Even most people who've only used a kit lens will notice an immediate difference when using a Limited lens, FA or DA. My first lens purchase after buying a Pentax digital (it had been a long time since I had bought a Pentax lens) was the 43. What a great lens to learn on!

gnaztee · 04-05-2011, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

First of all, I don't find the first statement insulting because it's a widely accepted truth. Ha! I said it! Secondly, you're confused. I said paperbag was a broken record, not Spotmatic. Though Spotmatic seems to be striving for that status now, too.

Well, it's a widely accepted opinion, which is my point (full disclosure, I own both types of Ltds). I don't favor one over the other, nor do I get insulted when somebody does

And my bad on the mixup with the broken record statement.

gnaztee · 04-05-2011, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

There are no better lenses than the FA Limited trio in (or near) their focal lengths.

I agree. Although the DA Ltds are equal.

paperbag846 · 04-05-2011, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

....and here I thought we'd come so far. You're just back to making clueless statements now. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you.....the broken record!

Clearly you can't read very well.

If you would read and respond, I would not have to repeat myself. It's like talking to a wall.

paperbag846 · 04-05-2011, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by builttospill

Even most people who've only used a kit lens will notice an immediate difference when using a Limited lens, FA or DA.

I had the same experience going from the kit lens to a 50 dollar lens from the 1970s. Id wager that most people would have that feeling even if they just upgraded to the 16-45.

I think a lot of newbies stumble into this place. I learned everything I know about Pentax from this forum... it's one of the first things that pops up when you google Pentax.

Not a bad thing for someone to buy an FA limited if that is what they really want. But a lot of people don't know that zooms can be VERY satisfactory for way less money if they have only tried the kit, or that some of the non limited lenses are great! There are lots of options! Not just the FA / DA 8!

And most importantly, there are a LOT of ways to build a pretty respectable kit for the same price as ONE FA limited.

**Rondec** · 04-06-2011, 03:39 AM

Why do these discussions turn into running down either DA limited line, or the FA limited line? I will say once again that the number one reason to buy DA limiteds over FA limiteds is cost. Pure and simple. This is also the biggest problem with APS-C. On film, with the FA 31, you are paying a thousand dollars for a fast wide angle lens with character. On APS-C, you are paying a thousand dollars for a moderately fast normal lens. I guess I am just old enough to remember when normal lenses were the cheapest lenses available. Getting a 50mm f1.4 for your 35mm camera was sort of a rite of passage and it never was killer expensive like this.

This is not denigrating the FA limited line at all. Their focal lengths function very differently on APS-C than that which they were created for and if you liked the FA 31 on film, you will likely be frustrated with the field of view on APS-C. The same with the 43. It's a hard focal length for me to like -- not quite wide enough for inside shooting, not quite long enough for most other things.

Anyway, peace to all of you who are lucky enough to own FA limiteds. I am glad that you have them and for your sake, I hope that the prices continue to go up so that you can look at them and think about how much they are worth.

Spotmatic · 04-06-2011, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

Why do these discussions turn into running down either DA limited line, or the FA limited line? I will say once again that the number one reason to buy DA limiteds over FA limiteds is cost. Pure and simple. This is also the biggest problem with APS-C. On film, with the FA 31, you are paying a thousand dollars for a fast wide angle lens with character. On APS-C, you are paying a thousand dollars for a moderately fast normal lens. I guess I am just old enough to remember when normal lenses were the cheapest lenses available. Getting a 50mm f1.4 for your 35mm camera was sort of a rite of passage and it never was killer expensive like this.

This is not denigrating the FA limited line at all. Their focal lengths function very differently on APS-C than that which they were created for and if you liked the FA 31 on film, you will likely be frustrated with the field of view on APS-C. The same with the 43. It's a hard focal length for me to like -- not quite wide enough for inside shooting, not quite long enough for most other things.

Anyway, peace to all of you who are lucky enough to own FA limiteds. I am glad that you have them and for your sake, I hope that the prices continue to go up so that you can look at them and think about how much they are worth.

I agree. $1000 for a normal lens...is not normal. The FA limiteds are fine lenses and if Pentax had a full frame camera I would own them all.

TOUGEFC · 04-06-2011, 04:08 AM

The FA31 is not a normal lens, if your want a normal lens go and spend
$250 on the DA 35 f/2.4 now thats a normal lens, the FA LTD's are something else

**Rondec** · 04-06-2011, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by TOUGEFC

The FA31 is not a normal lens, if your want a normal lens go and spend
$250 on the DA 35 f/2.4 now thats a normal lens, the FA LTD's are something else

Well, it certainly is well made and has great out of focus rendering, but it sure seems a lot like the 50 f2's of the past with regard to field of view and depth of field to me.

selar · 04-06-2011, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I guess I am just old enough to remember when normal lenses were the cheapest lenses available.

You don't have to be very old, just back in 2007 the FA 50/1,4 was the cheapest pentax lens you could buy. I should have bought half a dozen.

**rparmar** · 04-06-2011, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I will say once again that the number one reason to buy DA limiteds over FA limiteds is cost. Pure and simple.

Yeah, but quite obviously a number of people do not want to hear the truth. Like others, I wish the FA Limiteds cost half the price. But economic considerations do not change the reality of the optical design.

This thread has run its course.

robgo2 · 04-06-2011, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

Why do these discussions turn into running down either DA limited line, or the FA limited line? I will say once again that the number one reason to buy DA limiteds over FA limiteds is cost. Pure and simple. This is also the biggest problem with APS-C. On film, with the FA 31, you are paying a thousand dollars for a fast wide angle lens with character. On APS-C, you are paying a thousand dollars for a moderately fast normal lens. I guess I am just old enough to remember when normal lenses were the cheapest lenses available. Getting a 50mm f1.4 for your 35mm camera was sort of a rite of passage and it never was killer expensive like this.

This is not denigrating the FA limited line at all. Their focal lengths function very differently on APS-C than that which they were created for and if you liked the FA 31 on film, you will likely be frustrated with the field of view on APS-C. The same with the 43. It's a hard focal length for me to like -- not quite wide enough for inside shooting, not quite long enough for most other things.

Anyway, peace to all of you who are lucky enough to own FA limiteds. I am glad that you have them and for your sake, I hope that the prices continue to go up so that you can look at them and think about how much they are worth.

Compared to the prices of Leica and Zeiss normal lenses, the FA Limiteds look like bargains, given the similar quality.

Rob

**Rondec** · 04-06-2011, 10:43 AM

There is a reason why I don't own leica or zeiss lenses (or a Leica camera body for that matter).

robgo2 · 04-06-2011, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

There is a reason why I don't own leica or zeiss lenses (or a Leica camera body for that matter).

Same here, but you see my point. Actually, I do own several superb Zeiss Contax G lenses, which were reasonably priced when I bought them in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I would say that my FA Limiteds are in the same class, although it is very hard to compare lens quality when one is used on a film camera and the other on a digital camera.

Rob

pentup · 10-17-2011, 09:17 PM

Obnoxious of me to bump the thread after so long, but in all the talk about "optimized for digital" I don't think anybody mentioned the humble but essential element called the lens hood.

I have a DA40 and an FA31, and while I prefer the 31, the 40 does seem to have much better contrast and flare resistance, and I think some part of that must be owing to the very clever hood of the DA40. There's enough "optimized for digital" for me. The built-in hood on the 31 is pitiful on a small sensor, and even though I've extended mine quite a bit, it's still too short, I think. I know zilch about optics, but I think hoods are too often neglected.

04-06-2011, 10:33 AM	#87
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by Rondec Why do these discussions turn into running down either DA limited line, or the FA limited line? I will say once again that the number one reason to buy DA limiteds over FA limiteds is cost. Pure and simple. This is also the biggest problem with APS-C. On film, with the FA 31, you are paying a thousand dollars for a fast wide angle lens with character. On APS-C, you are paying a thousand dollars for a moderately fast normal lens. I guess I am just old enough to remember when normal lenses were the cheapest lenses available. Getting a 50mm f1.4 for your 35mm camera was sort of a rite of passage and it never was killer expensive like this. This is not denigrating the FA limited line at all. Their focal lengths function very differently on APS-C than that which they were created for and if you liked the FA 31 on film, you will likely be frustrated with the field of view on APS-C. The same with the 43. It's a hard focal length for me to like -- not quite wide enough for inside shooting, not quite long enough for most other things. Anyway, peace to all of you who are lucky enough to own FA limiteds. I am glad that you have them and for your sake, I hope that the prices continue to go up so that you can look at them and think about how much they are worth. Compared to the prices of Leica and Zeiss normal lenses, the FA Limiteds look like bargains, given the similar quality. Rob Last edited by robgo2; 04-06-2011 at 10:07 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

04-05-2011, 08:59 PM	#76
builttospill Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Utah, Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,398	Originally posted by paperbag846 In other words, I think the FA limiteds are special purpose lenses. For most people, they can get the same satisfaction out of a MUCH LESS expensive lens. I don't know pb, I'm having a hard time agreeing with this. I see the point you're making here, but I don't think most people here are the ones fitting your description. I don't think you're giving the forum members enough credit, they've done some amount of research which led them to this forum, they're probably not the ones to go and buy a big brand DSLR just to hang around their neck to look cool. Even most people who've only used a kit lens will notice an immediate difference when using a Limited lens, FA or DA. My first lens purchase after buying a Pentax digital (it had been a long time since I had bought a Pentax lens) was the 43. What a great lens to learn on!

04-05-2011, 09:20 PM	#77
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772	Originally posted by DogLover First of all, I don't find the first statement insulting because it's a widely accepted truth. Ha! I said it! Secondly, you're confused. I said paperbag was a broken record, not Spotmatic. Though Spotmatic seems to be striving for that status now, too. Well, it's a widely accepted opinion, which is my point (full disclosure, I own both types of Ltds). I don't favor one over the other, nor do I get insulted when somebody does And my bad on the mixup with the broken record statement.

04-05-2011, 09:28 PM	#78
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772	Originally posted by rparmar There are no better lenses than the FA Limited trio in (or near) their focal lengths. I agree. Although the DA Ltds are equal.

04-05-2011, 11:20 PM	#79
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by DogLover ....and here I thought we'd come so far. You're just back to making clueless statements now. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you.....the broken record! Clearly you can't read very well. If you would read and respond, I would not have to repeat myself. It's like talking to a wall.

04-05-2011, 11:30 PM	#80
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by builttospill Even most people who've only used a kit lens will notice an immediate difference when using a Limited lens, FA or DA. I had the same experience going from the kit lens to a 50 dollar lens from the 1970s. Id wager that most people would have that feeling even if they just upgraded to the 16-45. I think a lot of newbies stumble into this place. I learned everything I know about Pentax from this forum... it's one of the first things that pops up when you google Pentax. Not a bad thing for someone to buy an FA limited if that is what they really want. But a lot of people don't know that zooms can be VERY satisfactory for way less money if they have only tried the kit, or that some of the non limited lenses are great! There are lots of options! Not just the FA / DA 8! And most importantly, there are a LOT of ways to build a pretty respectable kit for the same price as ONE FA limited.

04-06-2011, 03:39 AM	#81
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Why do these discussions turn into running down either DA limited line, or the FA limited line? I will say once again that the number one reason to buy DA limiteds over FA limiteds is cost. Pure and simple. This is also the biggest problem with APS-C. On film, with the FA 31, you are paying a thousand dollars for a fast wide angle lens with character. On APS-C, you are paying a thousand dollars for a moderately fast normal lens. I guess I am just old enough to remember when normal lenses were the cheapest lenses available. Getting a 50mm f1.4 for your 35mm camera was sort of a rite of passage and it never was killer expensive like this. This is not denigrating the FA limited line at all. Their focal lengths function very differently on APS-C than that which they were created for and if you liked the FA 31 on film, you will likely be frustrated with the field of view on APS-C. The same with the 43. It's a hard focal length for me to like -- not quite wide enough for inside shooting, not quite long enough for most other things. Anyway, peace to all of you who are lucky enough to own FA limiteds. I am glad that you have them and for your sake, I hope that the prices continue to go up so that you can look at them and think about how much they are worth.

04-06-2011, 03:57 AM	#82
Spotmatic Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ft. Myers Florida Posts: 169	Originally posted by Rondec Why do these discussions turn into running down either DA limited line, or the FA limited line? I will say once again that the number one reason to buy DA limiteds over FA limiteds is cost. Pure and simple. This is also the biggest problem with APS-C. On film, with the FA 31, you are paying a thousand dollars for a fast wide angle lens with character. On APS-C, you are paying a thousand dollars for a moderately fast normal lens. I guess I am just old enough to remember when normal lenses were the cheapest lenses available. Getting a 50mm f1.4 for your 35mm camera was sort of a rite of passage and it never was killer expensive like this. This is not denigrating the FA limited line at all. Their focal lengths function very differently on APS-C than that which they were created for and if you liked the FA 31 on film, you will likely be frustrated with the field of view on APS-C. The same with the 43. It's a hard focal length for me to like -- not quite wide enough for inside shooting, not quite long enough for most other things. Anyway, peace to all of you who are lucky enough to own FA limiteds. I am glad that you have them and for your sake, I hope that the prices continue to go up so that you can look at them and think about how much they are worth. I agree. $1000 for a normal lens...is not normal. The FA limiteds are fine lenses and if Pentax had a full frame camera I would own them all.

04-06-2011, 04:08 AM	#83
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	The FA31 is not a normal lens, if your want a normal lens go and spend $250 on the DA 35 f/2.4 now thats a normal lens, the FA LTD's are something else

04-06-2011, 04:28 AM	#84
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by TOUGEFC The FA31 is not a normal lens, if your want a normal lens go and spend $250 on the DA 35 f/2.4 now thats a normal lens, the FA LTD's are something else Well, it certainly is well made and has great out of focus rendering, but it sure seems a lot like the 50 f2's of the past with regard to field of view and depth of field to me.

04-06-2011, 05:42 AM	#85
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Originally posted by Rondec I guess I am just old enough to remember when normal lenses were the cheapest lenses available. You don't have to be very old, just back in 2007 the FA 50/1,4 was the cheapest pentax lens you could buy. I should have bought half a dozen.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-06-2011, 05:48 AM	#86
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,817	Originally posted by Rondec I will say once again that the number one reason to buy DA limiteds over FA limiteds is cost. Pure and simple. Yeah, but quite obviously a number of people do not want to hear the truth. Like others, I wish the FA Limiteds cost half the price. But economic considerations do not change the reality of the optical design. This thread has run its course.

04-06-2011, 10:43 AM	#88
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	There is a reason why I don't own leica or zeiss lenses (or a Leica camera body for that matter).

04-06-2011, 05:31 PM	#89
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by Rondec There is a reason why I don't own leica or zeiss lenses (or a Leica camera body for that matter). Same here, but you see my point. Actually, I do own several superb Zeiss Contax G lenses, which were reasonably priced when I bought them in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I would say that my FA Limiteds are in the same class, although it is very hard to compare lens quality when one is used on a film camera and the other on a digital camera. Rob

10-17-2011, 09:17 PM	#90
pentup Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Flushing NY Photos: Albums Posts: 413	Obnoxious of me to bump the thread after so long, but in all the talk about "optimized for digital" I don't think anybody mentioned the humble but essential element called the lens hood. I have a DA40 and an FA31, and while I prefer the 31, the 40 does seem to have much better contrast and flare resistance, and I think some part of that must be owing to the very clever hood of the DA40. There's enough "optimized for digital" for me. The built-in hood on the 31 is pitiful on a small sensor, and even though I've extended mine quite a bit, it's still too short, I think. I know zilch about optics, but I think hoods are too often neglected.