[gnaztee]

Where do you see that on Pentax's website?

In the lens descriptions, the DA Ltds (and probably other DAs, I didn't check all) are listed as having SP (Super Protect) coatings, for dust, grease, etc. They (the lenses) are of course also listed as being optimized for digital. The coatings are not listed as being optimized for digital, so stating this is the case would be assumption. However, the FA Ltds do not list SP coatings, so the coatings are different, though how much it affects IQ I have no idea.

[DogLover]

In the lens descriptions, the DA Ltds (and probably other DAs, I didn't check all) are listed as having SP (Super Protect) coatings, for dust, grease, etc. They (the lenses) are of course also listed as being optimized for digital. The coatings are not listed as being optimized for digital, so stating this is the case would be assumption. However, the FA Ltds do not list SP coatings, so the coatings are different, though how much it affects IQ I have no idea.

Sorry, but that doesn't prove they are different. Only that they don't list "SP" on the FA's. I don't claim to know the definitive answer, but my point is that neither Spotmatic nor you do, either. And he did mean it as a veiled insult because that's what he always says. The FA's were great for film, the DA's are great for digital. Implying that the FA's are out-dated relics. Look in the "To 31 or not to 31" thread.

[Rondec]

I guess I would say that from my understanding, what makes a lens "optimized for digital" has little to do with coatings. It has a lot more to do with design -- attempt to make the lens sharp into the border areas, deliver light through micro lenses so that the sensor can use it more efficiently, etc.

Well designed lenses from the past like the FA limiteds are not challenged by the pixel densities offered up by 16 megapixel sensors like the K5, however there may be some older lenses, designed for film, where they will be "out resolved." However, this is even true for the version I of the kit lens, even though it was "designed for digital."

The reality is that what Pentax says "designed for digital" they really mean that it is only guaranteed to cover an APS-C image circle.

[Spotmatic]

Sorry, but that doesn't prove they are different. Only that they don't list "SP" on the FA's. I don't claim to know the definitive answer, but my point is that neither Spotmatic nor you do, either. And he did mean it as a veiled insult because that's what he always says. The FA's were great for film, the DA's are great for digital. Implying that the FA's are out-dated relics. Look in the "To 31 or not to 31" thread.

If I need a mind reader I won't call you. You have no idea what I mean at all. Not even a clue. The FA lenses were designed for FILM. They work on digital. They are also cute cult items on this and other forums. They are nice expensive lenses and the focal lengths are subject to the crop factor on digital. The reason I am stating this is that there are people here that do not realize this. The FA 43 was released in 1997 and digital was but an infant. It was designed to be the perfect normal lens on 35mm FILM and it becomes a short telephoto on digital. Pentax still produces these lenses because the tooling is paid for and they sell.

Read this: Pentax 43/1.9 Limited

Now go walk your dog and stop, incorrectly, trying to read my mind.

Have a nice bokeh. Bokeh and Background Blur - Bob Atkins Photography

[gnaztee]

Sorry, but that doesn't prove they are different. Only that they don't list "SP" on the FA's. I don't claim to know the definitive answer, but my point is that neither Spotmatic nor you do, either. And he did mean it as a veiled insult because that's what he always says. The FA's were great for film, the DA's are great for digital. Implying that the FA's are out-dated relics. Look in the "To 31 or not to 31" thread.

"Definitive?" Perhaps not, but there is strong evidence to support what I'm arguing (as in, why would Pentax not list it for the FAs if the FAs had it?).

As far as the "insult," two things: First, I again ask who is insulted? Is it the FA Ltd lenses that have their feelings hurt? I don't think they'll mind. Second, regardless of what he's said in the past, his last two posts here seem even-handed. I don't find statements like, "To each their own," and "That said, there is nothing 'wrong' with either one," or " In the end it is a personal choice," to be insulting in any way or implying one item is "inferior" to another.

I read through the thread you link to, and I find it strange that Spotmatic's statements are insulting, but you have no problem with something like this:

"The FA Limited lenses are obviously the best lenses in their respective focal lengths. Not only because of their rendering and speed but handling and versatility. They were designed to be better and they are better; this has nothing to do with film versus digital or personal interpretations."

Possibly because you agree with RParmar? This isn't insulting, but Spotmatic hurls insults and is a "broken record" because you disagree with him?

[creampuff]

This whole thread is a storm in a teacup. Whether FA or DA, the lenses do deliver the goods. Imo the "optimized for digital" moniker is little more than marketing speak. For sure some optimization was done to the lens coatings to minimize internal reflections but to me that's just half the story.

Remember that the previous pre-Hoya Pentax management had to make the cost cutting decision to discontinue all but a few FA lenses because the user base had essentially shriveled up due to a succession of frankly forgettable 35mm film cameras and the decline of film. Pentax was very late rolling out a digital SLR and when they did, they didn't have any notable lenses to complement the smaller sensor size. The DA lenses could be made smaller and cheaper due to their smaller image circle and smaller max aperture. Pentax could well have revamped the FA line of lenses and called them DFA (which they did for the 50mm & 100mm macro lenses) but they probably felt that the future would remain with a APS-C sensor and not 35mm FF. "Designed for digital" in Pentax speak means APS-C image circle. The FA Limited lenses remain in the lineup partly because there is still strong demand for them (optical and build quality), there are no other range of lenses with larger max aperture for Pentax and because they still make money for Pentax.

[DogLover]

The FA lenses were designed for FILM. They work on digital. They are also cute cult items on this and other forums.

Thanks for proving my original point so succinctly.

[DogLover]

I read through the thread you link to, and I find it strange that Spotmatic's statements are insulting, but you have no problem with something like this:

"The FA Limited lenses are obviously the best lenses in their respective focal lengths. Not only because of their rendering and speed but handling and versatility. They were designed to be better and they are better; this has nothing to do with film versus digital or personal interpretations."

Possibly because you agree with RParmar? This isn't insulting, but Spotmatic hurls insults and is a "broken record" because you disagree with him?

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.

[rparmar]

The FA Limiteds are superior lenses because they were deliberately designed to be superior. There is no mystery in this. We won't see their like again because today it would no doubt cost double to create them. And no-one would pay that much for a prime.

Do they work on digital? After several thousand shots I'd have to say so. Here's a couple from this weekend, totally at random. FA43 then FA77.

Cork shrine




Danny McCarthy and two special stones

[selar]

This topic has been done to death several times over. Refer to previous threads here and at dpreview. Photozone also says there is no clear winner. So just save some cash and get the da70 or if you already have one or the other use your time to take photos of beautiful people and share them here.

[Spotmatic]

The FA Limiteds are superior lenses because they were deliberately designed to be superior. There is no mystery in this. We won't see their like again because today it would no doubt cost double to create them. And no-one would pay that much for a prime.

Do they work on digital? After several thousand shots I'd have to say so. Here's a couple from this weekend, totally at random. FA43 then FA77.

Cork shrine




Danny McCarthy and two special stones

Robin, as long as people buy them Pentax will produce them. The tooling was paid for a long time ago. They are nice lenses but in the end it is the image that matters. A bad photo done with a stellar lens is still a bad photo. The lens I really wanted was the vaporware DA 30mm f 1.4.

What got me going was the cheerleading. What you or I like may not be the best choice for someone else. Choosing a lens is a personal decision.

Even a Pentax W30 is capable.

[v5planet]

The lens I really wanted was the vaporware DA 30mm f 1.4.

A weather-sealed 30/1.4 would be a dream for me backpacking, and much more appealing to me than the 31...

Was this really on the docket at some point?

[Spotmatic]

A weather-sealed 30/1.4 would be a dream for me backpacking, and much more appealing to me than the 31...

Was this really on the docket at some point?

Yes, it was on the lens roadmap a few years ago...must have drunk too much film and got a DUI and banished from the herd.

[DogLover]

What got me going was the cheerleading. What you or I like may not be the best choice for someone else. Choosing a lens is a personal decision.

Exactly, so how come every time the FA Ltds. are mentioned you have to point out how "they were designed for film, not digital", or that they are "cult items"? My first response to you was that it's fine to prefer the DA's, we just get sick of reading it in every thread. Why is it that every time someone expresses appreciation for the FA Ltds you have to jump in with your counterpoints? I truly don't care what you prefer, I'm just tired of the negativity and question the motive.

BTW, I'll grant you that's a nice image.

[Spotmatic]

Thanks. I was waiting for a pizza in Everglades City and had a W30 in my pocket.

Look at the confusion over coatings. They are different. Likely because sensors and film are different. A lot of the FA Ltd posts are by folks relatively new to photography and they are just asking for help. Having 'the best' lens may not be the best thing for them..at the present time. Plus they have to buy, most of the time, without handling the lens or looking through the VF. A 43 on digital become a short telephoto and the 31 becomes a 'normal'lens. *I* would have paid $800
or so for the DA* 30mm f1.4 but have no interest in the FA 31 'cause I wanted the weathersealed lens. The high ISO ablity of the K5 and future cameras does make f 1.x not as relevent as in the past. The DOF on the 77 is very thin on an APS sensor. So for some a K5 and the DA 70 is a better choice. There is no simple answer in choosing a lens. Best is what is best for YOU.