[GlennG]

I mentioned the 15 and 35 because they are two DA LTD lenses I own, and am very familiar with. As regards the other members in the DA LTD family, based on pictures others post I would tend to agree that all DA Limiteds share a "family look", with perhaps some minor variance. Somewhat hard for me to say it with as much certainty as with the 35 and 15, you understand, but yes, my general impression is that.

I probably have that range covered on at least 10 lenses, but each does something the other doesn't. FA31 adds speed and amazing resolution. Because it is fast, sharp, light and compact, I still use the FA 35/2 as well as the FA 31

Thank you, and thank you. I have read these types of posts for years and have struggled a bit with the differences between the DA Limiteds and FA Limiteds. So your information here helps quite a bit. In fact, I have probably consumed so much time trying to discern the differences, I would probably have been time and money ahead to have just bought all of them, compared, and then sold them if any are sufficiently redundant. In general (very general) the "trends" that I think I can see people saying is that the FA's are sharper at peak, have more unique character, and may have more optical "flaws", along with being a little faster. The DA's have been described as more even, well balanced, controlled, digital, but also slightly less unique in the artistic department, along with being a little slower - just really good without being special.

[Driline]

The DA's have been described as more even, well balanced, controlled, digital, but also slightly less unique in the artistic department, along with being a little slower - just really good without being special.

That's a great answer. At least in my experience between the DA's and FA's.

[Mikesul]

I probably have that range covered on at least 10 lenses, but each does something the other doesn't. FA31 adds speed and amazing resolution. Because it is fast, sharp, light and compact, I still use the FA 35/2 as well as the FA 31.

This is true. Especially at this level of quality each lens has characteristics which make it special. So it is not possible to say that one is better or that one can be dispensed with.

[GeneV]

This is true. Especially at this level of quality each lens has characteristics which make it special. So it is not possible to say that one is better or that one can be dispensed with.

I'd say the same thing about the ~70mm range. I have both the DA70 and the FA77, and use them both. I could go into the details of why, but basically I like the DA better for places and things, and the FA for people. Then there are the multiple zooms which include that FL with pluses and minuses.

[KDAFA]

I have read these types of posts for years and have struggled a bit with the differences between the DA Limiteds and FA Limiteds... In general (very general) the "trends" that I think I can see people saying is that the FA's are sharper at peak, have more unique character, and may have more optical "flaws", along with being a little faster. The DA's have been described as more even, well balanced, controlled, digital, but also slightly less unique in the artistic department, along with being a little slower - just really good without being special.

Pretty much agree, with a couple of remarks:

1. Without making technical measurements, ie. deriving from subjective comparisons of many real-life photos taken, I've found the sharpness of DA35 LTD to be in the same league as FA43 - that is to say, unbelievable.

2. "... really good without being special"... Well, as mentioned, I have not seen anything, whether outside Pentax or inside, that gives the DA LTD "look" - its amazing colours, tremendous clarity, superb micro-contrast, overall picture contrastiness (see how it handles shadows, as just one example), and the way it renders fine detail. I find this "look" very beautiful indeed, and unique - don't see it elsewhere. In my book, that's special!

---------- Post added 11-17-14 at 06:34 PM ----------

I have both the DA70 and the FA77, and use them both. I could go into the details of why, but basically I like the DA better for places and things, and the FA for people.

In using both the FA and DA Limiteds, I've frequently found one or the other best suited to a given scene. I've trained my eye to discern, and choose accordingly. To me, it's often a case of different work for different lens-family.

---------- Post added 11-17-14 at 06:41 PM ----------

...Especially at this level of quality each lens has characteristics which make it special. So it is not possible to say that one is better or that one can be dispensed with.

Agree fully.

As I mentioned immediately above, I've found that there's enough work for everyone - it's not a case of choosing the FA LTD lens-family over the DA LTDs, or vice versa - there's different work best suited for the strengths of each lens family. I personally would not, and indeed cannot, discard either lens family - they're both special and needful. (In so saying, I acknowledge that cost is always a real concern for most of us, and these lenses aren't cheap - no offence intended).

On a related note, this is why I've also posted, elsewhere in this forum, that it's really quite meaningless to say which of the three FA Limiteds is supreme.

[krema]

Pretty much agree, with a couple of remarks:

1. Without making technical measurements, ie. deriving from subjective comparisons of many real-life photos taken, I've found the sharpness of DA35 LTD to be in the same league as FA43 - that is to say, unbelievable.

2. "... really good without being special"... Well, as mentioned, I have not seen anything, whether outside Pentax or inside, that gives the DA LTD "look" - its amazing colours, tremendous clarity, superb micro-contrast, overall picture contrastiness (see how it handles shadows, as just one example), and the way it renders fine detail. I find this "look" very beautiful indeed, and unique - don't see it elsewhere. In my book, that's special!

---------- Post added 11-17-14 at 06:34 PM ----------


In using both the FA and DA Limiteds, I've frequently found one or the other best suited to a given scene. I've trained my eye to discern, and choose accordingly. To me, it's often a case of different work for different lens-family.

---------- Post added 11-17-14 at 06:41 PM ----------


Agree fully.

As I mentioned immediately above, I've found that there's enough work for everyone - it's not a case of choosing the FA LTD lens-family over the DA LTDs, or vice versa - there's different work best suited for the strengths of each lens family. I personally would not, and indeed cannot, discard either lens family - they're both special and needful. (In so saying, I acknowledge that cost is always a real concern for most of us, and these lenses aren't cheap - no offence intended).

On a related note, this is why I've also posted, elsewhere in this forum, that it's really quite meaningless to say which of the three FA Limiteds is supreme.

Wow. The depth of discussion here went way beyond my experience. Now I have to read and re-read the thread to try to glean the essentials from it.

One of the immediate things I took away from this thread was that there are more considerations to serious lens choices than are apparent at first.

To try to simplify matters a bit I bought a set of extension tubes to get close to 1:1 magnification with an older manual focus lens to see just how much macro shooting I would do with a macro setup in hand. I didn't shoot nearly as many macro shots as I expected to. I found that I shot much more with a normal lens and kept gravitating back to that setup than the macro. Maybe I've just been enjoying so many great macro shots out there on flickr that I got ahead of myself. It looks like these types of lens choices are more psychology than technical.

I'm quite sure now that if I had t he 31mm on my K-01 it probably would not come off very often.

[KDAFA]

...One of the immediate things I took away from this thread was that there are more considerations to serious lens choices than are apparent at first.

I've found that while a lens' technical parameters and measured values thereof have their use, there is more to it than just that.

The character of a lens in real-world use also involves other qualities - sometimes difficult or even impossible to measure - which nonetheless impact the pictures it produces.

We're talking about the character of a lens here. And certainly, Pentax Limited lenses (both DA & FA) possess character! It's something that can evoke quite a bit of passion among enthusiasts.

[phs]

The ears don't look OOF to me. Even the plant which is farther back is still in focus. Framing to have the subject within a context helps to achieve the 3D effect.

Well... I've read in another post somewhere a similar thing, but with a different wording, IIRC, something like: "for the subject to be completely in focus".
This has been bugging me as, for instance, in the man's portrait on the first page of this thread, the ears are OOF, but they don't compromise the rendering at all...

---------- Post added 10-22-16 at 10:50 AM ----------

Maybe they're still trying, but so far succeeded only with the 15 and 35.

Any of the other DA's, or just the 35 and 15? I would tend to think, as the most modern of all high grade lenses, all of the DA Limited lenses would be given something extra special by the Pentax designers. I mean, why wouldn't you? And if the DA Limited 35 and 15 are the only ones with special rendering, why would the designers only chose those two, and not the others?

[Digitalis]

The pentax FA31 is a remarkable lens, it's a weird focal length, with a weird optical design, but it produces superb images. I have only had two copies of the DA35mm f/2.8 Limited macro lens on my test bench and from what I have seen it is an incredible lens, but it tends to be a bit clinical in its rendering compared to the FA31.


Pentax K-1 - SMCP-FA31mm f/1.8 ASPH Limited - ISO 100 @ f/11 30s -

[Fenwoodian]

The pentax FA31 is a remarkable lens, it's a weird focal length, with a weird optical design, but it produces superb images.


Pentax K-1 - SMCP-FA31mm f/1.8 ASPH Limited - ISO 100 @ f/11 30s -

I agree. The 31/1.8 Limited is by far my all time favorite Pentax lens. I'm not saying it's better than some of the old, rare Pentax lenses (e.g. 135/1.8), but as far as Pentax lenses that are currently available, the 31/1.8 is extremely special.

Lately, I've been shooting my Pentax 31/1.8 exclusively in the pixel shift mode on my K1. It's colors and sharpness are OUTSTANDING in pixel shift!!

[phs]

If Pentax makes the 31 with quick shift, I'd get one in a heartbeat.

I agree. The 31/1.8 Limited is by far my all time favorite Pentax lens. I'm not saying it's better than some of the old, rare Pentax lenses (e.g. 135/1.8), but as far as Pentax lenses that are currently available, the 31/1.8 is extremely special.

Lately, I've been shooting my Pentax 31/1.8 exclusively in the pixel shift mode on my K1. It's colors and sharpness are OUTSTANDING in pixel shift!!

[Digitalis]

If Pentax makes the 31 with quick shift

Just push the lens mount button to uncouple the screw drive from the lens - instant quick shift.

I'm not saying it's better than some of the old, rare Pentax lenses (e.g. 135/1.8)

This might surprise you but I haven't even held a SMC-135mm f/1.8. It is a lens that has thus far never been in my possession. Instead, I have a Carl Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO in F mount that is simply sublime to work with.

[Fat Albert]

The pentax FA31 is a remarkable lens, it's a weird focal length, with a weird optical design, but it produces superb images. I have only had two copies of the DA35mm f/2.8 Limited macro lens on my test bench and from what I have seen it is an incredible lens, but it tends to be a bit clinical in its rendering compared to the FA31.


Pentax K-1 - SMCP-FA31mm f/1.8 ASPH Limited - ISO 100 @ f/11 30s -

An absolutely gorgeous pic. BUT I don't think it's the best example of the 31's uniqueness; I think that the 35 could've equaled that scene. What do people mean by 'clinical', anyway? Color fidelity? Sharpness?

[Digitalis]

What do people mean by 'clinical', anyway? Color fidelity? Sharpness?

Basically it is because the PSF is a bit hard edged*. Contrast is high even at f/2.8, but considering the PSF the high inherent contrast works against the lenses otherwise excellent qualities at focus distances greater than 0.2m. Even wide open at f/2.8 MTF figures across the image field are good, peak center performance being reached by f/5.6 with the corners trailing behind slightly, Equilibrium between edge sharpness and the center is only realized at f/11, at apertures smaller than that: diffraction drives resolution down. The roll off between in focus and out of focus elements is harsh due to the aforementioned PSF.

*The appearance of PSF geometry can be altered by stopping the lens down however the inherent spherical aberrations of the lens will still have effect on foreground/background bokeh

[UncleVanya]

The question of clinical is very hard to answer for me but it does seem some lenses render sharp images that lack life.