[mccarvindh]

The 40 will do just fine for those of us on a severe budget. Thanks for the comparison and setup.

call me crazy, but i think the 40mm looks better than the 43mm at f4... =/

The DA 40 can definitely hold its own!

Cool test! Exposure wide open is naturally a little uneven, but IQ looks pretty darn good across the board. The 31 wide open might be the least sharp, although hard to say from just one shot. I always found the 31 a little tricky. The 77 (a lens I have never tired) looks nice!

Thank you, yes the IQ is great with all these(or for that matter any pentax) Limiteds.

[mccarvindh]

It depends on what you mean by "better." The DA40 is at least as sharp, but it also exhibits somewhat stronger, less subtle contrast. Also, look at the flowers in the background. They are much more pleasingly blurred in the FA43 shot, and I cannot believe that that is entirely attributable to an additional 3mm focal length. Rather, this is the vaunted bokeh that is characteristic of the FA Limiteds. Indeed, the FA31 has softer bokeh, and it is 9mm shorter than the DA40.

That said, I really don't think that anyone should draw firm conclusions based on these samples. Thanks to the OP for doing the work.

Rob

Thank you for your keen observation and comment. In retrospect I think I am happy to have done this "comparison". I am learning quite a bit from the discussion.

[mccarvindh]

I love Flying Dog beer.

Oh, and thanks for the comparison!

Flying dog rocks! Have you tried their Double dog? That is one of the best beers I have had.

[violini]

I would suggest that you de-focus DA40 a little and the result would be identical to FA31's. I've seen several side-by-side comparisons already. The verdict: This $1200 legendary FA31, when mounted on a silver camera body, serves excellently as a photographic subject. Its optical performance is equivalent to $12 ebay lens.

[mccarvindh]

I would suggest that you de-focus DA40 a little and the result would be identical to FA31's. I've seen several side-by-side comparisons already. The verdict: This $1200 legendary FA31, when mounted on a silver camera body, serves excellently as a photographic subject. Its optical performance is equivalent to $12 ebay lens.

This is the problem with side by side comparisons! A stroll through the FA and DA limited lens clubs/galleries is more helpful in deciding whether one fancies a lens.

[paperbag846]

I think the FA 31 is much more impressive on film.

On digital, it's simply a 1000 dollar fast-50.

I love 50's, because they look great, and they are cheap.

Cheap.

[Ahab]

The DA40 on your camera is clearly producing the better image. Too much Malbec can distort sight.

[1r0nh31d3]

Not that I have too much grounds to base any of my opinion on. But I like the 43mm images the best.

Is it possible that the distance of your subject is best suited for the 40-43mm focal length? Do lenses have an ideal subject distance for focal lengths? Sorry if this seems like a dumb questions I'm pretty new to this world.

[v5planet]

Not that I have too much grounds to base any of my opinion on. But I like the 43mm images the best.

Is it possible that the distance of your subject is best suited for the 40-43mm focal length? Do lenses have an ideal subject distance for focal lengths? Sorry if this seems like a dumb questions I'm pretty new to this world.

This is not a dumb question at all. Individual lenses often do perform remarkably different when focusing at different ranges and the ability to produce crisp images throughout the full gamut of focus ranges is a mark of an often excellent lens.

[JHD]

Hi JHD I have enabled view of EXIF for today in my flickr stream.

Thanks - between the two tests this should be interesting.

[Cambo]

In response to discussion on this thread https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/143921-fa31-re...ml#post1503354 I did this "comparison". The OP there wanted to know the difference between the DA 40 and FA 31. Many of us explained that these were two different beasts with their own niche uses and one cannot really quantify them. However, some people insisted that they see identical test shots.

I do not believe that test shots of boring stuff on a table can really be useful. But I did it anyway. I also threw in the other two FA limteds (If I am going to ruin an hour or two why not bring out all the limiteds?).

This is what I did. I set the camera up on a tripod (with 2 sec delayed timer) and took wide open shots with the Metz 46 at 1/32 power and at 45 degree angle. Then I repeated with all lenses set at f 4 with the flash power increased to 1/4 power.

WIDE OPEN SHOTS

Personally, I would have found it perhaps more informative if you had kept the subject size the same for all the shots.

But nice work.

Thanks,
Cameron

[robgo2]

I would suggest that you de-focus DA40 a little and the result would be identical to FA31's. I've seen several side-by-side comparisons already. The verdict: This $1200 legendary FA31, when mounted on a silver camera body, serves excellently as a photographic subject. Its optical performance is equivalent to $12 ebay lens.

Did you actually suggest this: We should deliberately defocus lenses in order to achieve a pleasing bokeh? These are the words of someone in deep denial. They are also the words of someone who does not truly understand the concepts of bokeh and rendering. The FA Limiteds are prized not merely because they exhibit creamy soft bokeh, but because they can do so while focused to razor sharpness. They also render subtle tonal transitions exquisitely, and, I might add, differently, than the DA Limiteds. I can understand that some users prefer the crisper rendering of the DAs, which is a matter of personal taste. But to classify the FA Limiteds as junk says far more about the writer than it does about the lenses.

Rob

[farfisa]

Flying dog rocks! Have you tried their Double dog? That is one of the best beers I have had.

I've only tried their Classic Pale Ale when I was in Colorado, I was there on vacation and brought a six pack back in my luggage--the only time I've ever done that.

I was travelling with my wife and my girls, who were 6 months and 2 years old at the time, so I probably should've had better things to do, but I have no regrets--I've never found it up here in Canada.

I still keep an empty bottle and the box, that Ralph Steadman label is art, man!

[Nick Siebers]

Did you actually suggest this: We should deliberately defocus lenses in order to achieve a pleasing bokeh? These are the words of someone in deep denial. They are also the words of someone who does not truly understand the concepts of bokeh and rendering. The FA Limiteds are prized not merely because they exhibit creamy soft bokeh, but because they can do so while focused to razor sharpness. They also render subtle tonal transitions exquisitely, and, I might add, differently, than the DA Limiteds. I can understand that some users prefer the crisper rendering of the DAs, which is a matter of personal taste. But to classify the FA Limiteds as junk says far more about the writer than it does about the lenses.

Rob

I am pretty sure violini was just trolling. If not, I want to know which $12 lens I should be after!

[mccarvindh]

Did you actually suggest this: We should deliberately defocus lenses in order to achieve a pleasing bokeh? These are the words of someone in deep denial. They are also the words of someone who does not truly understand the concepts of bokeh and rendering. The FA Limiteds are prized not merely because they exhibit creamy soft bokeh, but because they can do so while focused to razor sharpness. They also render subtle tonal transitions exquisitely, and, I might add, differently, than the DA Limiteds. I can understand that some users prefer the crisper rendering of the DAs, which is a matter of personal taste. But to classify the FA Limiteds as junk says far more about the writer than it does about the lenses.

Rob

Yes, their labels are beautiful. I am surprised that you dont get this beer up there. It is definitely worth smuggling into Canada.