[Conqueror]

I am not thinking about acquiring any of these now. Maybe a little expensive, and I don't think I could get the magic out of these.

From my experience with the 31.. very little is required to make it sing ... it is that good

Soon I will be able to try the 77

[GlennG]

From my experience with the 31.. very little is required to make it sing ... it is that good

Thanks. Good to know. Maybe one day......

[Nicolas06]

If one considers focal length, yes the 43 & 35 Limited are fairly close (similarish).

But in terms of rendering style or "flavour", they're different - and I'm not specifically referring to shallow DOF work here, neither corner-to-corner sharpness. The two just have different rendering character, yielding a different effect/look to the images.

Thus a lot depends on what one is looking for, photographically, from the aesthetic point of view.

In fact, even among the Three Princesses which share much commonality, the 43 imparts its own signature character, a (subtly) distinct look from its two siblings, the 31 & 77.

Oh sure it is not exactly the same, FA43, on top of its bokeh/pixie dust has an FA color rendering. Less constrasty by default, maybe a bit warmer. DA35 has very constrasty color rendering, very deep blacks. For that it is similar to DA15 and DA20-40. In some condition it can provide its own pixie dust/rendering in its own way, quite diffferent from the FA43.

Now with PP by touching at micro constrast setting and in DxO what they call "DxO clear view" you can in the right condition increase quite a lot the 3D pop of a lense and with DxO Film pack, you can control the type of color rendering you want. I'am not saying you make the 2 lense give the same results, but theses tools give you much more control and possibilities in term of rendering than have just 2 different type of lenses for rendering. This is the equivalent on film to choose your film type or on lightroom of what some plugins do provide.

Now sure, I do recognize the interrest of having great lenses and use the lense specificities to help creativity. This is just that again that if I think I need both FA43 and DA35 ltd, this mean I could likely find 1-2 more lenses arround this focal range and I could do the same for many other focal range. I would end up with 20-30 lenses at least with a few quite expensive and objectivelly this would not improve my photographic practice that much. But it would control a good share of money, more than I'am willing to accept and it would also complicate my life as a photographer. I don't want to have to wonder for 1 hour what lenses I should put in the bag and to wonder why I didn't got this specific one in the end that would have better rendered this subject... That's not fun - to me - at all.

I really prefer to have a few lenses, each one carefully choosed, but this choice can be made one time, and not to made over and over each time I go out or take a photo. Each lense I own will be best for some kind of shoot and for each focal length range I try to find the one that best mach the most likely usage I would have with it. That's why I got FA77 instead of DA70 and why I got DA35 instead of FA43 or FA31.

[KDAFA]

... That's why I got FA77 instead of DA70 and why I got DA35 instead of FA43 or FA31.

Sure mate, no problem.

[KDAFA]

... I actually favour it [43] more than the 31...

I use the 43 and 77, and also look at pictures taken by others in this forum using the 31. No mistake - all three are incredible; with the 43 narrowly my favourite.

There's a certain "fire" or "intensity" or "passion" it imbues to its images; also, a certain "in-your-face" presence. It's got a unique magic character to it. Hard to put in words, but it's there.

---------- Post added 07-23-15 at 05:27 PM ----------

I agree - I much prefer my best shots with the 43 to my best shots with the 31. But they are both sweet.

Agreed. As mentioned above, all of the Three Princesses are absolutely fabulous lenses - Pentax jewels. And, there's just something about the 43....

[mikeSF]

i didnt see if this link was posted in here yet, but it is a nice read (old article from LuLa):

https://luminous-landscape.com/sm-02-05-02/

[monochrome]

I'd like to know how many people out there only own the three Amigos and use nothing else but them. I think I could survive on just those three, but I would miss my F*300 badly. Ok, so four lenses for me

I did once many years ago see a member sig:

K20D | FA31 | FA43 | FA77

but I can't remember who and I don't think he's been here in a long time.

[mwilky55]

I really enjoyed the LuLa article. Very well written and very affirming for this thread. Thanks!

---------- Post added 07-23-15 at 09:25 PM ----------

I did once many years ago see a member sig:

K20D | FA31 | FA43 | FA77

but I can't remember who and I don't think he's been here in a long time.

There are just so many good lenses. Argghhh! The F300, K35, vivitar 105. Special lenses all.

[Ash]

My experience with the FA Ltds has been nothing short of brilliant with every shot taken with them.
31 is a workhorse on APS-C. It is just stunning in rendition and the f/1.8 capability is very handy as well as useable.
On FF it might just be a perfect go-to WA lens.
43 is quite special for me. It is both light and sharp yet sturdy and striking in colour rendition. The quirky bokeh is pleasant enough for me to use it in single or couple portraiture as well as some close ups.
I can see this as being an interesting 31 replacement on FF.
77 to me is just amazing. It may be my favourite, but that is mainly because of its beautiful bokeh and rendering. The FL is perfect for my portraits on APS-C and it keeps me wanting to shoot with it.
I would use it even more on FF.

I have also experienced the DA Ltds. Honestly, I couldn't fault any of these either. I prefer their rendering to that of the DA 12-24 at 15 and 21mm and in comparison to DA*16-50 and 50-135 at 40 and 70mm respectively. I prefer the smaller sizes, but each tool is for their own purpose. I don't do weddings anymore so I have less use for my Tamron 70-200 (concert/events use mainly) and so love to use the 77 when I can. I can't truthfully put any FA Ltd over their near-equivalent DA Ltd in output, but I do like how the FA Ltds have the extra stop or so of aperture for low light shooting.

[KDAFA]

My experience with the FA Ltds has been nothing short of brilliant with every shot taken with them...

I have also experienced the DA Ltds....

I can't truthfully put any FA Ltd over their near-equivalent DA Ltd in output...

Like you, I use both FA & DA Ltd's.

I see them as two fabulous series of glass by Pentax, having similarity yet distinctiveness in their rendering character.

"Complementary" is how I would see the two series.

With the FA & DA Ltds, Pentax shooters are blessed with not one but TWO (!) ranges of top-notch glass, with remarkable rendering quite unlike anything else on the market.

[BarryE]

I have also experienced the DA Ltds. Honestly, I couldn't fault any of these either. I prefer their rendering to that of the DA 12-24 at 15 and 21mm and in comparison to DA*16-50 and 50-135 at 40 and 70mm respectively. I prefer the smaller sizes, but each tool is for their own purpose. I don't do weddings anymore so I have less use for my Tamron 70-200 (concert/events use mainly) and so love to use the 77 when I can. I can't truthfully put any FA Ltd over their near-equivalent DA Ltd in output, but I do like how the FA Ltds have the extra stop or so of aperture for low light shooting.

Ash, this quote is subjectively helpful. I keep reading how wonderful these three FAs are, and I've found myself itching to try them. However, I'm happy with the 70 & 21 Ltds I have now. I'm not completely happy with the 40 ltd, however. It renders nicely in the centre, but drops off a little more at the edges than I'd like Also, the AF is not as consistent with this lens, I find. This leaves me thinking about filling the gap between the 70 and the 21. I'm inclined to go for the 35 macro ltd, but I get drawn to the FA31 often, especially as it receives so much forum time. (I do wonder if this is because many forum members have this lens left over from the film days and they are itching to rekindle it on a FF digital ...). Reading your comments, and few similar ones, settles my slight LBA troubles a little, making me less desiring of a DA ltd swop for the FAs. I'm getting closer to making the 35 macro ltd decision now ...thanks !!

[robthebloke]

Ash, this quote is subjectively helpful. I keep reading how wonderful these three FAs are, and I've found myself itching to try them. However, I'm happy with the 70 & 21 Ltds I have now. I'm not completely happy with the 40 ltd, however. It renders nicely in the centre, but drops off a little more at the edges than I'd like Also, the AF is not as consistent with this lens, I find. This leaves me thinking about filling the gap between the 70 and the 21. I'm inclined to go for the 35 macro ltd, but I get drawn to the FA31 often, especially as it receives so much forum time. (I do wonder if this is because many forum members have this lens left over from the film days and they are itching to rekindle it on a FF digital ...). Reading your comments, and few similar ones, settles my slight LBA troubles a little, making me less desiring of a DA ltd swop for the FAs. I'm getting closer to making the 35 macro ltd decision now ...thanks !!

That's a tough one. I've got all the limiteds, both FA and DA. Unless you need the macro, and if you can afford it, I'd say go for the 31 or 43.

The 31 doesn't have as much bokeh as the 43 or 77, but the bokeh it has is buttery smooth (the 77 is also sublime in this regard). The DA35 bokeh is a little skittish with busy backgrounds (it's not quite as good as the DA40), but then the macro does make it more versatile.

The big difference between the DA and FA series is the rendering. The DA series have punchy saturated colours, and fairly high contrast. The FA series are more understated, but that leads to colours that are closer to real life. If you've already got DA lenses, the FA limiteds rendering may be worth adding to your bag.

FWIW, This morning I was thinking which lens to take, and I've picked up the 43mm, which has been mounted to a black bodied KM loaded with HP5. I do love the DA limiteds, but that's one thing they can't do sadly....

[lytrytyr]

The DA35 bokeh is a little skittish with busy backgrounds (it's not quite as good as the DA40), but then the macro does make it more versatile.

While the DA 35 Ltd bokeh is not very good with distant subjects
(and indeed worse than the DA 40 Ltd and XS lenses),
the macro bokeh on the DA 35 Ltd is very smooth.



---------- Post added 07-25-15 at 09:56 PM ----------

DA35 has very constrasty color rendering, very deep blacks. For that it is similar to DA15 and DA20-40.

I use the DA 15, DA 35, and DA 20-40 a lot, along with the DA 70.
The DA 20-40 is much gentler than the DA 15 and DA 35, but with vivid colors.
OTOH, while the DA 70 is also gentler, its colors are less vivid, with an attractive pastel quality.

[KDAFA]

...the macro bokeh on the DA 35 Ltd is very smooth.

Agreed. Superb.

And for non-macro usage, its bokeh in the majority of situations is actually quite good, if used carefully.

[Nicolas06]

While the DA 35 Ltd bokeh is not very good with distant subjects
(and indeed worse than the DA 40 Ltd and XS lenses),
the macro bokeh on the DA 35 Ltd is very smooth.

And DA35 is quite constrasty, resistant to flare with great colors... Perfect for a landscape. Not all picture have to be with shallow deph of field neither