[Nicolas06]

The DA 35 Ltd and DA 20-40 each have distinct unique properties,
which in turn are different from the properties of Hirakawa's FA 43 and FA 77,
or from the FA 31 Ltd.

I didn't mention the DA 70, but it has its own rendering -- "gentle", "pastel",
which some photographers have used to great effect.

So it does not really make sense to talk about a single "DA rendering",
or to reserve the term "artistic" for the FA Limited lenses.

Sure each is different, but there "constants" or familly in rendering. It is easy to spot (at least for me) the familly. FA share some property, warmer maybe, still softer color. The OOF look clearly different with more shifting in colors than DA (violet/green variation depend of before/after focus). The colors are overall less punchy but still subtle tone are really present and rendered.

On the contrary DA ltd are more punchy colors, they are optimized for digital and it clearly show by having a different rendering than FA and that is shared by the different DA. Out of all the DA I tryed, none have the same level of "3D pop" the FA ltd do exibit.

I would agree then the FA31 and FA77 have softer OOF overall while the FA43 can have quite present bokeh in particular for highlight. The DA15 as one of most punchy DA rendering maybe with also DA20-40. The DA do not exibit the "spicy" design of the philosophy of FA ltd to undercorrect a bit some optical features to get more "interresting" rendering. The DA tend more to aim more neutral while still having nice colors.

Theses are also other obvious properties like the wider apperture of FA ltd, the apperture ring, lack of quick shift, less flare resistance overall for the FA ltd.

To me the FA20-35 render more like FA35 or FA28 than of DA20-40... And I see quite some aspect of the DA35 ltd or DA15 or DA70 in the DA20-40, more than of what I see from the FA77 or FA35...

At least for me even they are all different, there clear common point and differents per familly.

[starbase218]

The DA 35 Ltd and DA 20-40 each have distinct unique properties,
You said that you "didn't get" the DA 20-40,
so I was referring to its special rendering
as its key feature for me
(on top of being compact, WR, and so on).

My opinion is mostly based on what I read on the Lenstip review. They say it's not a bad lens, but considering the high price, limited zoom range and relatively slow aperture, you should expect much more then "not bad". In fact, they seem to imply the lens is smart marketing by Pentax: call it a Limited, give it a good (ok, excellent) build quality and it will sell, solely because of the reputation of the Limiteds, even if you ask top money for it.

In that sense, I actually do get this lens. I just don't like what I'm getting.

Unless they're wrong, of course. But their reviews are usually pretty thorough.

[emalvick]

I'm digressing a bit because I must have been under a rock. I didn't realize til just now that they labeled the 20-40 as a limited. Is this the only DA limited that is a zoom lens? Were there FA zooms that were limited, too (perhaps the 20-35)?

I haven't really seen enough samples from the 20-40 to make any comments, and I'm not sure I'll look, but I guess the interesting comparisons will be between the 20-40 and the 16-50 (at least to some extent).

[Cambo]

The 77 Limited vs the DA* 55 vs the FA* 85...by someone who can really shoot portraits.

I know there's individual threads, but I'd love to see it all in one place.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Trudger1272]

Is this the only DA limited that is a zoom lens?

Yes and no FA Ltd zooms, just The Three Amigos.

A shootout I'd LOVE to see... The 77 Limited vs the DA* 55 vs the FA* 85...by someone who can really shoot portraits.

Might as well add the 70 Ltd and maybe even the 43 Ltd.

[emalvick]

The 77 Limited vs the DA* 55 vs the FA* 85...by someone who can really shoot portraits.

I know there's individual threads, but I'd love to see it all in one place.

Cheers,
Cameron

That starts to get to be a can of worms, especially if you include even more (like the 43 suggested) or perhaps even the 90~100 macros, etc.

The comparisons would be so subjective. It might be interesting if the compositions could be kept similar (i.e. foot zooming), but for portraiture, I can see the framing needs driving which lens people would use, maybe. I shoot very few portraits, and when I do, I primarily use a 30 mm, 43 mm, and 77 mm. The choice is more about whether I want a head shot or the full person in the shot.

[Nicolas06]

That starts to get to be a can of worms, especially if you include even more (like the 43 suggested) or perhaps even the 90~100 macros, etc.

The comparisons would be so subjective. It might be interesting if the compositions could be kept similar (i.e. foot zooming), but for portraiture, I can see the framing needs driving which lens people would use, maybe. I shoot very few portraits, and when I do, I primarily use a 30 mm, 43 mm, and 77 mm. The choice is more about whether I want a head shot or the full person in the shot.

Even if everything is the same you would need to have many different cases that could drive the strength and weekness of each lense. You might need 20 scenarios or something made to show the difference between the lenses and shoot all theses lenses. That a huge work and you want to be done by a good photographer... That would need to have all lenses and subjects and time.

[emalvick]

Even if everything is the same you would need to have many different cases that could drive the strength and weekness of each lense. You might need 20 scenarios or something made to show the difference between the lenses and shoot all theses lenses. That a huge work and you want to be done by a good photographer... That would need to have all lenses and subjects and time.

Right... thus my can of worms comment. I think people naturally look for someone to have done all the work and more, but it never happens. Or, when someone has done the work, it is only based on that one photographer. The element that really drives the invalidity of comparisons of lenses is that the photographer matters, and that photographer's ability to use a lens. Skilled photographers can make a supposedly inferior lens look perfect. They know the weakness of the equipment and work with it. You'd never know the lens is weak.

[Nicolas06]

Right... thus my can of worms comment. I think people naturally look for someone to have done all the work and more, but it never happens. Or, when someone has done the work, it is only based on that one photographer. The element that really drives the invalidity of comparisons of lenses is that the photographer matters, and that photographer's ability to use a lens. Skilled photographers can make a supposedly inferior lens look perfect. They know the weakness of the equipment and work with it. You'd never know the lens is weak.

I can confirm for sure that for example:
- DA50-135 is a great lens.
- FA50 is okish but lack sharpness at wide apperture, really.
- FA77 is overall far superior than the 2 previous lenses.

But this is maybe with my experience, way of shooting... So I'am sure this is like this for me, but I can't be 100% of what it would be if I had DA*55 or sigma 85mm f/1.4... Something I'am very unlikely to do as I don't see a reason to use theses while I have a smaller and very good lense already. I'am so very unlikely to ever buy a DA70 for the same reason.

[emalvick]

Yeah I only have the 77, and M 50/1.7, the 43, and a couple of others. My experience is those FA limiteds are great, and I'll never by the DA versions of them for the same reason. The FA limiteds (and the M50) are the only lenses faster than f/2 that I own that I've been successful with wide open. I have a few others that haven't worked for me (although they're all Sigma, so it just be my own inability to work with the brand).

[Rondec]

I own the DA *55 and the FA 77 and both are plenty sharp with good rendering. The 55 tends to have a little more neutral rendering of backgrounds, while the 77 can really spice things up in the background, but I wouldn't really let one go, because they are very different focal lengths.

I would say that my experience with the 55 is that it is head and shoulders above the other 50mm options out there for the k mount.

[Nicolas06]

I own the DA *55 and the FA 77 and both are plenty sharp with good rendering. The 55 tends to have a little more neutral rendering of backgrounds, while the 77 can really spice things up in the background, but I wouldn't really let one go, because they are very different focal lengths.

I would say that my experience with the 55 is that it is head and shoulders above the other 50mm options out there for the k mount.

i think that couting the DA55 size, the spicy rendering of FA43 and my very pleasant FA77 experiance, would I look for a very moderate tele bellow the FA77 in focal that would be more this FA43 than the DA*55. I don't want to have to many lenses neither so 55 vs 77 look like a little too near to me... But that's really personnal I guess.

I'am bit afraid of the FA43 "diva" behavior (while the FA77 is honestly really great) and I still don't know if I would make more use of FA31, DA35 ltd of FA43 if I ever replace my DA35 plastic wonder overall... But the size of DA*55 is more or less a no go for me... And as you said, the other 50mm do not look that interresting then.

[Rondec]

i think that couting the DA55 size, the spicy rendering of FA43 and my very pleasant FA77 experiance, would I look for a very moderate tele bellow the FA77 in focal that would be more this FA43 than the DA*55. I don't want to have to many lenses neither so 55 vs 77 look like a little too near to me... But that's really personnal I guess.

I'am bit afraid of the FA43 "diva" behavior (while the FA77 is honestly really great) and I still don't know if I would make more use of FA31, DA35 ltd of FA43 if I ever replace my DA35 plastic wonder overall... But the size of DA*55 is more or less a no go for me... And as you said, the other 50mm do not look that interresting then.

I looked at the FA 43 when I was considering what lens to buy, but I own the DA 40 and frankly, I don't really like the focal length. It either isn't long enough or wide enough on APS-C. I bet I would like it on full frame, but I wanted something a little longer even than my FA 50 was. But if someone likes a 40-ish lens, then the FA 43 is pretty sweet.

[mattb123]

I have two DA* lenses (16-50 and 60-250) and three DA Limiteds (15, 40, 70).

I take the a zoom (or both on two bodies) if I'm doing a paid shoot and need the versatility, for fast moving sports, if conditions are especially harsh, or sometimes I just like a zoom instead of a prime.

For a lot of landscape and walk around shooting I take the primes because they are so nice and small and I love the results. I go in phases between which I use more but I think the primes are my favorite in most situations and especially for landscapes.

[lytrytyr]

My opinion is mostly based on what I read on the Lenstip review. They say it's not a bad lens, but considering the high price, limited zoom range and relatively slow aperture, you should expect much more then "not bad". In fact, they seem to imply the lens is smart marketing by Pentax: call it a Limited, give it a good (ok, excellent) build quality and it will sell, solely because of the reputation of the Limiteds, even if you ask top money for it.

In that sense, I actually do get this lens. I just don't like what I'm getting.

Unless they're wrong, of course. But their reviews are usually pretty thorough.

Their reviews are good from the optical engineer's point of view,
and the DA 20-40 actually fares very well there,
even discounting the fact that it's a zoom.

That said, the Lenstip/Optyczne reviews do not address photographer's issues like rendering,
where the Limited Zoom really excels (IMHO, based on intensive use of the lens over the past year).

Moreover, Lenstip/Optyczne is notorious for being "cheap".
Disregarding photographic qualities, and being overly sensitive about the prices of lenses,
that site lays a lot of negative criticism on the Pentax Limiteds (FA, Zoom, etc.).