[joshuamcateer]

Lots of people on here, and on other sites seem to rave about them. But in reading the reviews, they generally seem mediocre, awkward, old-fashioned, and extremely expensive. From my understanding, they were designed in Pentax's early digital days, for crop sensor cameras with fairly low pixel densities (but many of the do cover ff), and so you might expect them to be a little soft and not have the best autofocus. Both of which seem to be common complaints.

I recently got my first Pentax, a K-1, and I do like it, but there still aren't very many lenses for it, and it seems that people suggest these extremely expensive limited lenses as the saviour of the system.

Am I wrong, am I missing something about the system? Is it their nostalgic charm? Do they capture that quintessentially Pentax light that each epitomises what it is to shoot Pentax (just like the creamy Leica-look. Or that Hasselblad feel)?

Thanks awfully,

Josh

[pepperberry farm]

welcome to the forum - hope you enjoy your K-1....

[brofkand]

Popular Photography in the early aughts rated the FA Limiteds as the best lenses on 35mm period - for any mount and for any system. Including Leica.

They are sharp sure, but a cooke triplet is sharp as well. They have a certain rendering that can't really be replicated. The FA 43mm, the only one I currently own, never has its rear cap affixed because it's always on one of my cameras. I might as well cement it onto my MZ-S.

You should begin by reading the reviews on Pentax Forums submitted by users. They're all here, in the FA Prime section: Pentax FA Prime Lenses - Reviews and Specifications - SLR and Interchangeable Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[wibbly]

i can understand your question until you get to the "extremely expensive" part.

all the Fa limiteds can be had for 4-800 dollars in the market place.


to me they just have a certain character about their rendering that makes them wonderful to use. they aren't necessarily clinically excellent, but that's boring anyway.

great colors, great bokeh, wonderful build quality and small size, i love them.



that's not to say they are for everyone.

maybe you should try to rent/borrow one and have a go to see what all the fuss is about. it's a bit of a je ne sais quoi

[narual]

I think he's referencing the DA limited lenses. Or trolling. Or both.

[cdurfor]

As an owner of the FA77mm and FA31mm, thse two lens travel everywhere with my K-1. Sharpness and color rendition. What else could one want? Oh, their metal construction is awesome, they are light and very fast.... Now what else could one want?

[robthebloke]

Don't confuse the DA limiteds with the FA limiteds. On APSC, the DA limiteds are fantastic lenses, but (mostly) useless on FF. On FF however, you need the FA limiteds. Let's just imagine for a moment that the FA77 lens is one of the best lenses ever made. Let's imagine that the 85mm f1.2 canon lens is a better lens (it probably is). Now imagine a lens that was a third of the size, a third of the weight, with image quality that gets you to 99% of what the canon can do for a third of the price. Just for a moment, imagine that such a lens exists.....

.... Now go on eBay and start hunting for a used FA77. 5 minutes with that lens, you'll understand the love for the FA limiteds around here!

(they're all amazing, but if you can only afford one, get the 77)

[jlstrawman]

Oh boy, another whiner...

there still aren't very many lenses for it

Rubbish. Virtually every Pentax lens made and most any lens with an m42 mount will work on the K-1

[wibbly]

sorry, i got confused by the statement of k1 ownership.


if he's talking about the Da limiteds, then the overly expensive part is even more confusing.

[Adam]

Lots of people on here, and on other sites seem to rave about them. But in reading the reviews, they generally seem mediocre, awkward, old-fashioned, and extremely expensive. From my understanding, they were designed in Pentax's early digital days, for crop sensor cameras with fairly low pixel densities (but many of the do cover ff), and so you might expect them to be a little soft and not have the best autofocus. Both of which seem to be common complaints.

I recently got my first Pentax, a K-1, and I do like it, but there still aren't very many lenses for it, and it seems that people suggest these extremely expensive limited lenses as the saviour of the system.

Am I wrong, am I missing something about the system? Is it their nostalgic charm? Do they capture that quintessentially Pentax light that each epitomises what it is to shoot Pentax (just like the creamy Leica-look. Or that Hasselblad feel)?

Thanks awfully,

Josh

Optically the Limiteds are fine. Nothing wrong with their resolution.

But the true appeal is their design philosophy: metal barrels, compact size, AF.

[joshuamcateer]

Popular Photography in the early aughts rated the FA Limiteds as the best lenses on 35mm period - for any mount and for any system. Including Leica.

They are sharp sure, but a cooke triplet is sharp as well. They have a certain rendering that can't really be replicated. The FA 43mm, the only one I currently own, never has its rear cap affixed because it's always on one of my cameras. I might as well cement it onto my MZ-S.

You should begin by reading the reviews on Pentax Forums submitted by users. They're all here, in the FA Prime section: Pentax FA Prime Lenses - Reviews and Specifications - SLR and Interchangeable Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

The digital rev reviews seemed pretty scathing. Although, I just looked, the review on here for the 43mm do seem very good. However, there seem to be several comments like

"Sharpness:
I gave this a 5 because when it focuses, it's pretty good, especially at screen size. But a pixel peep reveals that the lens lacks the resolution of its FA31 and FA77 sisters. Perhaps the biggest problem with this lens is its poor contrast, even stopped down until you hit f/5.6 or so. Using flash helps a bit but compared to what other lenses can do on the K-1, the FA43 is a huge disappointment.

I'm not even commenting on wide open performance. I'm trying to shoot this at f/3.2 to f/4 and not seeing acceptable results. Flash helps a bit but the off-center performance is quite poor even stopped down a bit. A normal lens like this should really be accomplishing a lot more." from MadMathMind

And none of them are *that* fast. I have a 50mm 1.4 (8 element) takumar that you could say similar things about (although without af, somewhat less sharp, and a stop faster), and it cost about a fifth as much.

Maybe I'll just have to try one and see

[joshuamcateer]

Oh boy, another whiner...



Rubbish. Virtually every Pentax lens made and most any lens with an m42 mount will work on the K-1

It's a valid criticism of the system. For a modern full frame camera, there should be plenty of full frame autofocus primes and zooms. I have a hand full of m42 mount lenses, and they're great, but you can't do anything quickly with them. Hell, I mounted lenses off of my pentacon six onto a m4/3 camera, it doesn't mean that it's practical to do for all types of photography.

[reh321]

Oh boy, another whiner...

I viewed the OP's question as being very reasonable.

Rubbish. Virtually every Pentax lens made and most any lens with an m42 mount will work on the K-1

That depends on what you mean by "will work". Many lenses issued since the advent of the digital era will work only in crop-mode, so the user loses much of the advantage of having a FF camera. The lenses issued before the digital era are FF, but many are MF, and all lack the coatings which designers put on modern lenses to deal with the fact that light reflects off a sensor differently from how it reflects off film. These issues don't seem to bother many Pentax fans, but it is unfair to state that they shouldn't bother anyone.

BTW - I do have a number of legacy lenses, and I enjoy using them at times, but I'm not going to criticize someone for having standards that differ from mine.

[joshuamcateer]

I viewed the OP's question as being very reasonable.

That depends on what you mean by "will work". Many lenses issued since the advent of the digital era will work only in crop-mode, so the user loses much of the advantage of having a FF camera. The lenses issued before the digital era are FF, but many are MF, and all lack the coatings which designers put on modern lenses to deal with the fact that light reflects off a sensor differently from how it reflects off film. These issues don't seem to bother many Pentax fans, but it is unfair to state that they shouldn't bother anyone.

BTW - I do have a number of legacy lenses, and I enjoy using them at times, but I'm not going to criticize someone for having standards that differ from mine.

I agree. I love using old lenses, and old cameras. Sometimes they have a wonderful look or feel (I think ebay is also extremely happy that I like them, I'm sure I keep their site open). Although, I use them less than I did after I got the m42-kmount adapter stuck in my k-1 (the horror).

But sometimes you need sharp, fast, work-horse lenses to get the photos you need.

[c.a.m]

Am I wrong, am I missing something about the system?

Firstly, welcome to Pentax Forums.

Your choice of the K-1 is interesting in that you seem to have aprehensions about the Pentax lens system. Are you looking for a particular combination of focal length and aperture? Or are you looking for quiet auto-focus capabilities? Or a particular zoom range? Or lightweight zoom lenses? How many lenses do you need to fit with your current shooting style and interests?

I think with a bit more research and browsing through this site and others, you'll find that the Pentax Limited lenses are held generally in high regard. While I don't want to be pedantic, "mediocre, awkward, old-fashioned" are rarely used to describe the FA-Ltd or DA-Ltd series. Take a look also at the countless sample images -- I trust you'll see plenty of goodness along with liberal doses of 'pixie-dust.'

(just like the creamy Leica-look. Or that Hasselblad feel)?

Well, each brand has its own 'look' and 'feel'.


- Craig