[DogLover]

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.

I have no problem with most of this, but disagree that speed is no longer as relevant. Shallow DOF is the main appeal of fast lenses for me, not light-gathering. It's still entirely usable (even with AF), just not in every situation.

[robgo2]

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.



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.

Way off topic here, but you seem to know nothing about the health effects of environmental lead. I would suggest that you educate yourself before spouting off on the supposed harm done by environmentalists. Perhaps you or your children were not exposed to lead in the soil and in paint, but millions of other children were with serious health and neurological/cognitive consequences.

Rob

[robgo2]

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

Although I have no special knowledge on this subject, it would surprise me if Pentax has not updated their production process since the FA Limiteds were introduced. Why would they not utilize the best technology available? It makes no sense to do otherwise.

Rob

[paperbag846]

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.

The design of the DA limiteds and FA limiteds are, in fact, different. All DA limiteds have coatings that filter a different spectrum (helps with some aberrations, and some loss of contrast) and a rear element design difference that minimize internal camera reflections. This accounts for the superior flare resistance of the DA LTDS. The FA limiteds are high contrast, but they don't compare to the DA limiteds.

Now Pentax could take their FA limiteds and update them, but then they would not be *FA* limiteds.

That said it's not bad using them on digital (any FA lens) you just need to be more aware of flares etc.

[paperbag846]

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.

Why do the FA limiteds need to be better in EVERY way for you? Why do you care? If you are happy, be happy. If you are going to discuss this, then bring facts to the table. You're making a pretty poor case for your argument by saying "well, even though Pentax says so, you can't REALLY be sure".

Different coatings are not going to destroy a lens. I've used *single* coated lenses and gotten great results (as long as I was careful about the sun). Inversely, the DA 40 allowed me to point the lens pretty much anywhere.

[DogLover]

You're making a pretty poor case for your argument by saying "well, even though Pentax says so, you can't REALLY be sure".

You're coming in really late to this discussion and I think we've pretty well moved on, plus, your bias precedes you and negates your argument. However, in the interest of fairness, I didn't say what you're accusing me of. My point was that Pentax didn't say so. As far as I know, there is no official statement from Pentax regarding this, and you have no special knowledge, so the point is moot.

[rparmar]

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.

While that is true it is not relevant. All other factors being equal, what is the best lens for the job? There are no better lenses than the FA Limited trio in (or near) their focal lengths. Not if you value sharpness, bokeh and rendering. The lenses were simply designed to different criteria.

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

Also true, but in this area there is no contest. Now, if we want to argue the merits of different 100mm macro lenses I would provide my own personal choice but admit there are other good options. Ditto 24mm street lenses.

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.

How is having the best tool not the best thing? If you can afford it, go for it!

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.

Since this effect is the same on all lenses, DA or FA, it is a complete red herring.

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.

But having fewer options and less capability is never "best" by any use of that term that still retains a smidgen of meaning.

Oh well, as others have noted, this topic has been done to death. Some can see the differences and others cannot. Whether the difference is worth the asking price is a personal matter between a photographer and her accountant. But arguing that the DA70 is better because its coating is digitally optimised is wishful thinking.

[builttospill]

Way off topic here, but you seem to know nothing about the health effects of environmental lead. I would suggest that you educate yourself before spouting off on the supposed harm done by environmentalists. Perhaps you or your children were not exposed to lead in the soil and in paint, but millions of other children were with serious health and neurological/cognitive consequences.

Rob

Whoa! Settle down. Just because I used an example to illustrate changes in manufacturing processes over the years and shared a personal opinion with it doesn't make me uneducated on the dangers of lead. Whether or not my children or I have been exposed to lead doesn't have anything to do with it, while experience contributes to education it isn't always necessary, and I certainly don't need to eat paint chips to know about lead toxicity.

[builttospill]

I agree a lens that does the job well is what matters. I owned both the 43 and 40 at the same time. In my experience the 43 was superior, and because of my personal preference I sold the 40.

But speaking of the 40 it also works well on a film camera, just as the 43 works great on a digital.

[paperbag846]

Just because I used an example to illustrate changes in manufacturing processes over the years and shared a personal opinion with it doesn't make me uneducated on the dangers of lead

I hope you didn't feed the lens to your children!!!!!

[builttospill]

I hope you didn't feed the lens to your children!!!!!

It's okay, the radiation from the old Taks made them immune!

[robgo2]

Whoa! Settle down. Just because I used an example to illustrate changes in manufacturing processes over the years and shared a personal opinion with it doesn't make me uneducated on the dangers of lead. Whether or not my children or I have been exposed to lead doesn't have anything to do with it, experience isn't a synonym of education, only a means-one of many. Perhaps before you spout off you shouldn't be so ignorant or assuming of others opinions and positions.

Excuse me, but you're the one who said:

Environmental activists have pushed a lot of changes on companies and products, not all for the better.

The implication is quite clear: It's too bad that the tree-huggers forced us to take lead out of lenses. To me, this indicates that you do not really understand the reasons for removing lead from products such as gasoline, paint, glass etc. You do not appreciate the impact that environmental lead has had upon millions of children all over the world, especially poor children. Otherwise, you would not have made such a cavalier statement.

I hope that you will take this opportunity to learn more about the public health impact of lead toxicity and also about the tremendous gains that have already been made by eliminating lead from many commercial and industrial products.

I will say no more on the subject.

Rob

[paperbag846]

your bias precedes you and negates your argument

It's not really a *bias* if I've tried both and drawn my own conclusions.

And most often, I'm arguing what Spotmatic is arguing. I'm not going to run around stating that the FA ltds are bad lenses. I will maintain that they are WAY overkill for a beginner, and a poor investment for a learning photographer. I've experienced it first hand (as a learning photographer!) Most people aren't made of money, and not many people here are willing to say something like:

"Well, the FA limited trio are great. But collectively they run you about 2000 dollars, and you can get about 85% of the performance from a zoom like the Tamron 28-75 for about 400 dollars. Moreover, unless you are a highly skilled photographer, the difference in performance hardly matters."

And yes, I've used the Tamron. If you want to play with low dof as a beginner, I can't recommend the FA 50 enough. If you don't mind spending a LOT of money, sure, go for the best.

Just be aware that they are only the *best* in SOME circumstances!

A) DA 70 has a LOT less CA than the FA 77.
B) FA 50 has smoother bokeh than the FA 43, DA 40 is more flare resistant and higher contrast.
C) FA 31 is crazy expensive for the performance, can flare quite a bit, is pretty soft wide open (i.e., not much better than a 2.8 zoom. A little better, esp. with respect to bokeh, but that's pretty picky).

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.

[builttospill]

You do not appreciate the impact that environmental lead has had upon millions of children all over the world, especially poor children. Otherwise, you would not have made such a cavalier statement.

Wow Rob, I'm impressed you got "lead doesn't affect rich kids" from my statement. I was hoping that one would have gone unnoticed. Great detective work!

[DogLover]

It's not really a *bias* if I've tried both and drawn my own conclusions.

And most often, I'm arguing what Spotmatic is arguing. I'm not going to run around stating that the FA ltds are bad lenses. I will maintain that they are WAY overkill for a beginner, and a poor investment for a learning photographer. I've experienced it first hand (as a learning photographer!) Most people aren't made of money, and not many people here are willing to say something like:

"Well, the FA limited trio are great. But collectively they run you about 2000 dollars, and you can get about 85% of the performance from a zoom like the Tamron 28-75 for about 400 dollars. Moreover, unless you are a highly skilled photographer, the difference in performance hardly matters."

And yes, I've used the Tamron. If you want to play with low dof as a beginner, I can't recommend the FA 50 enough. If you don't mind spending a LOT of money, sure, go for the best.

Just be aware that they are only the *best* in SOME circumstances!

A) DA 70 has a LOT less CA than the FA 77.
B) FA 50 has smoother bokeh than the FA 43, DA 40 is more flare resistant and higher contrast.
C) FA 31 is crazy expensive for the performance, can flare quite a bit, is pretty soft wide open (i.e., not much better than a 2.8 zoom. A little better, esp. with respect to bokeh, but that's pretty picky).

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.

....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!