[rparmar]

Not sure to what the gratuitous "if you're going to resort to this" is meant to refer.

My phrase "if you're going to resort to this" might have been out of place, and if so, I apologise. I was merely trying to establish the fact that different levels of expectation establish different criteria for quality, and that Zeiss are not immune to critique on this level. Using rare anecdotal cases of failures is no way of criticising a range as a whole, since none are perfect. And it seemed to me you were indeed resorting to this sort of criticism of the FA31 Limited.

It indicates that a telecentric SLR lens does better on a "flat" sensor than a short-register rangefinder lens. Which is why Leica and Ricoh use special microlenses in sensors designed to work with rangefinder lenses.

Perhaps you are right. But I am not sure this makes any sense, given that a sensor with non-linear distribution of angled microsensors would have to be designed for a specific lens. It could never match a range of interchangeable lenses, as Fuji themselves declared in a white paper on release of the FinePix X100. I am also sceptical that this factor would account for the IQ difference on display here.

[lytrytyr]

Thank you for the response.

Using rare anecdotal cases of failures is no way of criticising a range as a whole, since none are perfect. And it seemed to me you were indeed resorting to this sort of criticism of the FA31 Limited.

In the absence of data like Lensrental repair statistics (they don't rent Pentax lenses),
reports of the kind I cited are one of the few sources of information on the failure modes of Limited lenses.
We have the same kind of dilemma dealing with SDM issues.

For studio use it may not matter.
As you pointed out, you can "just send back a bad copy."
But that is not an option under extended use out in the field,
or for lenses like the ZK range which are no longer in production.

Perhaps you are right. But I am not sure this makes any sense, given that a sensor with non-linear distribution of angled microsensors would have to be designed for a specific lens. It could never match a range of interchangeable lenses, as Fuji themselves declared in a white paper on release of the FinePix X100.

The match between sensor angle and incident ray angle doesn't have to be perfect,
but should at least be approximate.

[JoostW]

But how do you know it is a rare case then? I never said the copy i owned was made bad, i just was not satisfied with the IQ wide open for a lens of that kind of money. And furthermore i saw samples of photo's that looked far better than what my copy produced. So indeed i changed it and never looked back.

I do know it is rather easy to find likewise stories about the lens (not sharp, CA problems up till f/7,1, focusing issues etc). Are all those people wrong? Or could it be you have to be carefull and double check if the copy you get is a good one?

And comparing a leica guy telling CZ is bad, to a pentax guy who says be carefull and you might want to consider a likewise lens of a 3e party manufacter are different kind of things. Just my 2 cents.

[eddie1960]

Thank you for the response.



In the absence of data like Lensrental repair statistics (they don't rent Pentax lenses),
reports of the kind I cited are one of the few sources of information on the failure modes of Limited lenses.
We have the same kind of dilemma dealing with SDM issues.
For studio use it may not matter.
As you pointed out, you can "just send back a bad copy."
But that is not an option under extended use out in the field,
or for lenses like the ZK range which are no longer in production.
The match between sensor angle and incident ray angle doesn't have to be perfect,
but should at least be approximate.

using any data gleaned from the forum (or for that matter the internet in general)as a means of determining breakdown ratios is flawed'
the only true measurement is # of repairs vs number sold.
only gathering data from repair centers cand the manufacturer can tell you that. You can get this data but you will pay for it (certainly it is a tool for purchasing for retail)

Based on history failure rates in the 1st year willbe in the 4-5% range max, after that it will decline to negligible until wear and tear service kicks in. this is based on numbers i had access to when i was in retail. I no longer have access, but in 25 + years they really didn't change much in any category

in general people will go online and find a place to bitch about everything while few will go online and find a place to say mine was fantastic.

[lytrytyr]

using any data gleaned from the forum (or for that matter the internet in general)as a means of determining breakdown ratios is flawed'
the only true measurement is # of repairs vs number sold.
only gathering data from repair centers cand the manufacturer can tell you that. You can get this data but you will pay for it (certainly it is a tool for purchasing for retail)

LensRental's repair statistics do give a small sample,
or at least a lower bound for failure rates
if suppliers cherry-pick what they send to that company:

LensRentals.com - Lens Repair Data 4.0

in general people will go online and find a place to bitch about everything while few will go online and find a place to say mine was fantastic.

Not necessarily. There are several endorsements in this very thread.

[eddie1960]

Not necessarily. There are several endorsements in this very thread.

true but the number of complainers versus the people praising is way out of whack with the reality of the true number of issues. sometimes here it looks like a 1:1 ratio of happy unhappy

[rparmar]

For studio use it may not matter.
As you pointed out, you can "just send back a bad copy."
But that is not an option under extended use out in the field,
or for lenses like the ZK range which are no longer in production.

Quite true. My comment was too flippant. I would say that given the very low incidents of negative comments regarding the FA Limited lenses, combined with their observable fit & finish, they can be considered in the same class as Zeiss manufacturing, though perhaps not Leica. In use, however, I prefer Zeiss and Pentax, since I find the Leica focus far too tight. (Then again I have marginal experience with them, since I dislike the rangefinder system.)

About the only consistent FA Limited issue is the asymmetric ninja star shape of the FA 43 apertures. Since this never seems to matter in a resulting photo, I've not let it convince me the lens is anything other than one of the very best made (considering ergonomics, rendering, and build).

[rparmar]

true but the number of complainers versus the people praising is way out of whack with the reality of the true number of issues. sometimes here it looks like a 1:1 ratio of happy unhappy

It is indeed human nature that we will flock to a public forum to complain. This makes sense, since in this way we might find either a solution or reassurance.

Contrariwise, those who issue praise rarely do so in a constructive way. Glowing reviews are more likely to fulfil an emotional function than any other.

[interested_observer]

• Contax Carl Zeiss 28mm f2.8 Distagon T* Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

• https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/154533-shootou...teds-peer.html

• https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/60011-super-mu...-distagon.html

[normhead]

For everyday around the house kinds of shots, I'm happy with my point and shoot an Optio W10. That cost me $300. Why would I pay $1000 for a 4/3 camera? The Optio fits in my pants pocket and goes everywhere with me, always available, never miss a shot. That doesn't mean I don't get out the K-5 or the K20D when I have a shot that will benefit from them. Prove to me your Panasonic is better than my Option W10... being facetious here, just pointing out how annoying this kind of post is. However, if you really think people should take your first post seriously, you should answer it.

[br.davidson]

Sorry that this post annoyed you so much, but you're kind of making the same point as I was. That point being that maybe we should use something that's good enough instead of coveting an expensive lens with a legendary reputation.

I also never said the Panasonic was better than the FA31, just that it might make a cheaper/smaller/lighter alternative. Also, my 4/3 camera (GF2) was $290, not $1000. I'm glad you like your W10 and that it works for you. I think we should all use whatever camera works best for our needs and makes sense financially.

As for people taking any of this seriously, we're on a camera forum. The only thing worth taking seriously on forums is helping people out with technical issues. The rest are just discussions for people who like to talk about gear and/or photography. If this thread annoys you so much, then there are hundreds of other threads for you to add some seriousity to. Might I suggest the K-z thread that is based entirely on a blurry image of the name of the next Pentax camera?

[normhead]

I usually think of something as an alternative if it does the same thing. Just a matter of semantics I guess.

[rparmar]

For everyday around the house kinds of shots, I'm happy with my point and shoot an Optio W10. That cost me $300. Why would I pay $1000 for a 4/3 camera?

Since you can get one with a pancake prime for that same $300 the question becomes "why would anyone do any different?" These days people have phones as good as p'n's and generally want something better if they're investing in a dedicated camera. Of course everyone is different, but p'n's are getting squeezed out of the market.

[rparmar]

interested_observer: Very nice info and great review of the Zeiss Distagon. Thx.