Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-28-2011, 04:48 PM   #46
Veteran Member
dgaies's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maryland / Washington DC
Posts: 3,917
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
Sorry I responded to two things at the same time. I quoted you because builttospill didn't really say anything of substance, but I wanted to respond to your price quotes, which are more important to the discussion here. Basically all I'm trying to say if buying used means you can avoid tax, which saves you a good chunk of cash on a 500 dollar item.
No worries. And you're right, especially in Canada and other countries where the tax on new goods is fairly high, buying used saves you even more.

04-28-2011, 07:53 PM   #47
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
FA43 back in stock at B&H

QuoteOriginally posted by Vote4Pedro Quote
South Florida's craigslist never has FA or DA lenses for sale. I check it out often. The only pentax anything I've seen is film cameras and unremarkable lenses. Ebay is a rip. Sure the FA 43 shows up in the PF marketplace every now and then, but I'm not an impulse buyer, and someone is always sure to be more impulsive than me and jump on it. So, yeah, I think that a new FA 43 is what I'm considering.
Well, you are in luck. After being out of stock for nearly two weeks, the 43 Limited is now listed by B&H as back in stock at the prior price of $570. Given the build and image quality of this lens, I consider that price to be quite reasonable and certainly not worth fretting about while struggling to find a used lens for $50-75 less. As a comparison, Amazon has the FA43 listed for $750.

Rob
04-28-2011, 08:20 PM   #48
Site Supporter
Nick Siebers's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,152
Woo woo! Although, if you want the modern contrasty look with super bright colors, the DA40 has that and more. The FA43 appears to me just a teeny bit more retro.
04-28-2011, 08:50 PM   #49
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,675
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
Sorry I responded to two things at the same time. I quoted you because builttospill didn't really say anything of substance, but I wanted to respond to your price quotes, which are more important to the discussion here. Basically all I'm trying to say if buying used means you can avoid tax, which saves you a good chunk of cash on a 500 dollar item.
Come on PB, just because you don't agree with what I have to say doesn't mean there's no substance to what I write. I think I disagree with 99.9% of the stuff you post on these forums, but you're certainly welcome to express your differing opinions. Even though I often disagree with you, it doesn't mean I can't see where you're coming from; and I think you might have even made one or two good points somewhere along the lines.

So I guess that means you're welcome to say you don't think my post has substance, but in all fairness, expressing an unintelligent opinion like that makes it hard for me, and possibly others, to see the substance there. Saying something like that certainly doesn't add to the discussion, so let's all try to contribute positively to best help the issue in question.

04-28-2011, 09:09 PM   #50
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by builttospill Quote
Come on PB, just because you don't agree with what I have to say doesn't mean there's no substance to what I write.
Generally, this is true. You add a lot to the discussion and I can accept that your point of view regarding photogear (and the practice of photography) is just as valid as mine. However I wasn't even taking about the merits of the FA 43. Half of your post was discussing my "bias" against the FA LTDs (not really that accurate), but more importantly, was not even what I was discussing, so I think I'm justified in saying that there was not much substantive content in your post. I was simply suggesting to the OP, who has no way of trying the 43 out for himself before purchasing it, a way to try the lens with no risk of losing a single penny. The OP should be aware that it might require a bit of work, but money ALWAYS requires work. It's worth it IMHO.

I've used this system myself. The DA 40, 70, and 50 1.7 have moved through my collection, and in the process I've made about 100 dollars. The retail markup and tax are costs you will never recover, but it's easy to recover the *actual* value of the lens.

I'd hope that is a helpful contribution to the discussion.
04-29-2011, 06:08 AM   #51
Pentaxian
panoguy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,290
To the OP: CameraLensRentals.com - Pentax 43mm f/1.9 Limited (Black) smcP-FA Lens Rental
04-29-2011, 07:37 AM   #52
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 60
Original Poster
Nice! I might try this out.
04-29-2011, 04:57 PM   #53
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by Nick Siebers Quote
Woo woo! Although, if you want the modern contrasty look with super bright colors, the DA40 has that and more. The FA43 appears to me just a teeny bit more retro.
I cannot tell if you are using "retro" in the pejorative sense, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you mean that the FA43 renders tones and colors more subtly than its younger sibling. In my book, that is a good thing. Also in my book, the FA43 is the finest lens that I have ever owned. I have had it for about one month now, and I am still knocked over by the images it produces.

I am not knocking the DA40 in the least. I have no doubt that it is a fine lens in its own right.

Rob

04-29-2011, 05:53 PM   #54
Site Supporter
Nick Siebers's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,152
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
I cannot tell if you are using "retro" in the pejorative sense, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you mean that the FA43 renders tones and colors more subtly than its younger sibling. In my book, that is a good thing. Also in my book, the FA43 is the finest lens that I have ever owned. I have had it for about one month now, and I am still knocked over by the images it produces.

I am not knocking the DA40 in the least. I have no doubt that it is a fine lens in its own right.

Rob
No, not pejorative at all, the FA 43 is my favorite lens. It just happens that the DA40 is my second favorite lens, which is why I have both despite their obvious overlap in uses. I would agree with "subtle" or even "more life-like" for the 43, where the 40 might be a tiny bit "cartoonish" with its bright colors and contrast. I just wondered, given the OP's description of praise of his Tamron macro over the M 50/1.7, if he might prefer the DA "look".

I have thought of shooting the same subject with both lenses to see if the difference is real or in my head (or perhaps in the k100d's sensor vs the K20d's) but have not done so.
04-29-2011, 06:19 PM   #55
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by Nick Siebers Quote
No, not pejorative at all, the FA 43 is my favorite lens. It just happens that the DA40 is my second favorite lens, which is why I have both despite their obvious overlap in uses. I would agree with "subtle" or even "more life-like" for the 43, where the 40 might be a tiny bit "cartoonish" with its bright colors and contrast. I just wondered, given the OP's description of praise of his Tamron macro over the M 50/1.7, if he might prefer the DA "look".

I have thought of shooting the same subject with both lenses to see if the difference is real or in my head (or perhaps in the k100d's sensor vs the K20d's) but have not done so.
Nick,

Well, I am glad that we agree on the qualities that make the FA43 so special. "Life-like" is a good way to describe its rendering character. This goes way beyond pure sharpness and resolution. I am fortunate to own all three of the FA Limiteds, and I think that they render very similarly. Sometimes I have difficulty distinguishing which lens was used for a given photo and have to check the EXIF data to be sure. At this point, I have to give the nod to the FA43 as the best of the lot. I am a former Contax shooter, and I find the FA Limiteds to be very reminiscent of my beloved Zeiss Contax G lenses. Man, those are great pieces of glass. I still have my whole kit. If Contax had carried on and produced a digital rangefinder, as did Leica, I would still be using them. As it is, I have no complaints about my Pentax lenses. The FA Limiteds can hold their own against the best from any manufacturer.

I do not own any of the DA Limiteds, although the DA15 is tempting. At this point, I use a DA*16-50 for wide angle work. My impression is that it is not far behind the DA15 and DA21 in IQ.

Rob
04-29-2011, 06:28 PM   #56
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
The nice thing about colour and contrast is that it can be taken away easily in post. It's much harder to add it back.

Both the 50mm and 77mm FA have the same look to my eyes as far as colour goes. It's just less saturated. I think it's the way they are designed (for film).
04-29-2011, 09:55 PM   #57
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
The nice thing about colour and contrast is that it can be taken away easily in post. It's much harder to add it back.

Both the 50mm and 77mm FA have the same look to my eyes as far as colour goes. It's just less saturated. I think it's the way they are designed (for film).
It's not simply a matter of strong vs. weak contrast and color. It's much more a matter of the rendering of subtle transitions in contrast and color. The FA Limiteds excel in this aspect of lens performance. Some might call it microcontrast, but I'm not really sure that that explains it fully. In any event, this ability to transmit the most subtle variations in tone and color is what produces the remarkably three dimensional, life-like images that are the signature of the three FA Limiteds. Some photographers may prefer or have learned to accept the somewhat harsher rendering of other lenses. That is their privilege.

As an aside, the same principles pertain to raw converters, although few people appreciate it. Some converters render tonal and color transitions better than others, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Rob

Last edited by robgo2; 04-30-2011 at 09:18 AM.
04-30-2011, 03:09 AM   #58
Pentaxian
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,221
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
The nice thing about colour and contrast is that it can be taken away easily in post. It's much harder to add it back.
It's just ridiculous!
The truth is opposite
You can easily adjust contrast, but it's harder to get tones back.
04-30-2011, 08:22 AM   #59
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
It's just ridiculous!
The truth is opposite
You can easily adjust contrast, but it's harder to get tones back.
This is true. If the tonal and color "microtransitions" are not there in the first place, you cannot digitally create them. By the same token, even if they are present in the raw file, but your raw converter cannot render them faithfully, then you will lose some of the magic. So which raw converter do I think is best in this regard? Capture One by a wide margin.

Hey, did I just coin a new term--"microtransition?" Almost certainly, there is a more technical term for this phenomenon known only to optics experts.

Rob
04-30-2011, 12:58 PM   #60
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
You can easily adjust contrast, but it's harder to get tones back.
You cannot add contrast without taking away information from the original data. You also cannot add "tones" (or colour fidelity) without taking away information from the original data. You can easily take this information away though, without changing anything.

I find it is easier to make a DA lens look like an FA lens with post-processing than the other way around. My experience.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
af, fa, k-mount, lens, pentax, pentax lens, quality, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:40 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top