[hadi]

I owned a Sigma 15mm back in the day.
Small and sharp but a fisheye. Could make a difference in your decision.

shouldn't be an issue to de-fish or de-distortion it via post process, right?
someone wrote a review where they did defish it post process in the pentax-3rd-party review with that same thing

[audiobomber]

shouldn't be an issue to de-fish or de-distortion it via post process, right?
someone wrote a review where they did defish it post process in the pentax-3rd-party review with that same thing

I've not used the Sigma fisheye but de-fishing is a one-click option in DXO Optics Pro 11 and Lightroom.

[mnhoj]

I've done a lot of defishing as it's a nice budget way of getting a cheaper small fast recilinear(in most cases) but it does stretch the edges differently(more). Playing with different lightroom profiles gives different results.

I'd occasionally give it a 10% crop. The stretch and the corner smear is much less noticeable and you're still left with a very wide fov and pretty sharp edges.

And there's fisheye hemi which straightens verticals(I think) but is not free and not worth the trouble imo.

[mconwxdr]

I was about to go to bed until I saw this thread. Thanks a lot :-).

I can only speak for the DAs on APS-C, but the Limiteds are a big reason I’ve stuck with Pentax (along with compact bodies, build quality and affordable WR). I’ve used the 15,21,40, and 70 (all SMC) and when flipping through old shots I can usually tell right away when they were used compared to my zooms and A-series primes. They’re all a joy to use because of their compactness, mechanics, and build quality of course, but other thoughts:

15: I had a bit of a love/hate relationship with it. It’s capable of eye-popping colors and contrast — and maintains these qualities even pointed at the sun — and it’s center is razor sharp above f/5.6 or so, but the field curvature is very noticeable below ~ f/6.3. I really wanted better results edge-to-edge at f/4-7.1 as I often shoot in low light without much time or desire to fiddle with a tripod. The 12-24 or wide end of the 16-45 worked better in those situations when larger aperatures were needed (not to mention I need the practicality of a zoom in these situations too). But I really miss that superb flare resistance sometimes.

21: I didn’t warm up to this like I did the 15. It has the Limited look to the images, but my copy had a slight cool cast that I couldn’t seem to completely fix to my liking in post. But the center sharpness is there, and the field curvature problem wasn’t as bad.

40: I will never part with it. I can’t believe the SMC version sells for as low as it’s going for now (as low as $125 on eBay recently). It has every bit of the eye-popping quality of the 15, but with edge-to-edge sharpness. One “issue” is the somewhat harsh and oddly-dreamy OOF areas at 2.8 (but I’m guessing you know this already since you have the XS). One non-XS issue is the hood and cap are ridiculously expensive to replace (although the JJC version of the hood for $10 works fine). If I’m not needing anything wide this is my go-to lens.

70: Pretty much everything about the 40 applies to the 70, without the dreamy OOF areas wide open. Of all the lenses I’ve sold I may regret this the most (along with my first copy of the 15). The microcontrast and colors are superb. I just didn’t seem to need that focal length much (my 40 was fine for the portraits I was doing). But I went back and looked at the shots I took of my daughter a few years ago with it, and man it’s nice.

So much great info here...but all the interest in this thread should be enough of a sign that these lenses are absolutely worth it.

[Fogel70]

I don't think I can add much about the optical perfornance of the limiteds. But I want to add another factor that makes them so desirable to me.

The joy in using them, because of their compact size and excellent build quality.
I guess I'n a sucker for precision machined products made of metal, but it is an important factor for me.
They are the closest thing you get to a MF Leica or Zeiss lens but with AF on a DSLR.

(It's also why I enjoy using old m42 Takumar lenses.)

I really hope Ricoh will continue develop new generation limiteds for FF, because it is one of the unique advantages Pentax system have.

[aslyfox]

I don't have any of the limited

But I have the DA 40 XS

Other than the metal vs plastic construction and quick shift

Does any one know of any other significant differences between it and the 40mm limited

From the in depth review, it appears the optics are the same

[UncleVanya]

I don't have any of the limited

But I have the DA 40 XS

Other than the metal vs plastic construction and quick shift

Does any one know of any other significant differences between it and the 40mm limited

From the in depth review, it appears the optics are the same

Curved aperture blades. The xs SMC coated version has the curved blades that the HD limited version has and the SMC limited version lacks.

[BigMackCam]

IOther than the metal vs plastic construction and quick shift

Does any one know of any other significant differences between it and the 40mm limited

From the in depth review, it appears the optics are the same

Curved aperture blades. The xs SMC coated version has the curved blades that the HD limited version has and the SMC limited version lacks.

Optically they're the same, based on everything I've read.

In addition to the all-metal build and quick-shift focusing, the Limited versions accept common-sized filters and hoods (without having to use step-up rings). Also, they carry hyperfocal distance markings which can be useful when you're trying to get as much of a scene as possible into acceptable focus. The HD version adds slightly improved optical coatings. The SMC version gives better opportunities for diffraction stars on light points because it lacks rounded aperture blades.

[aslyfox]

So, would the purchase of the 40mm limited make sense

Yes, no, maybe

[BigMackCam]

So, would the purchase of the 40mm limited make sense

Yes, no, maybe

Personally, I think you're all set with the XS. You certainly don't need both, so if the Limited is calling you, look to flip the XS

[Rondec]

So, would the purchase of the 40mm limited make sense

Yes, no, maybe

I wouldn't buy the DA 40 limited if you own the XS. If you really like that focal length, the tactile experience of using the DA limited is better than using the plastic XS lens.

At the same time, if you are interested in getting a DA limited, I would look at one of the ones (15, 21,35, or 70) over the 40. A lot depends on your style of shooting (my impression is that you like longer lenses), but you could do a lot worse than pick up a used copy of the DA 15 limited.

[Saltwater Images]

One of the nice features of carrying a bag of HD DA Limited's plus a D FA 100 f/2.8 Macro WR is that they all have a 49mm filter thread. This means you can carry one really good polarizer and a high quality variable ND filter. Not a whole lot to pack. Easy to invest in higher quality filters - sure you can use step up/down rings with different filter sizes but a 49mm standard size keeps it simple.

[ffking]

I don't have any of the DA limiteds, but I do have all 3 FA Ltds - yes they are sharp and small and quite fast and beautifully built - a joy to use - but the reason that they are worth it to me comes down to character - The are my street lenses, and the supply that extra something that can lift an image out of the ordinary - it's not something you need or necessarily even want for landscape or more technical photography, but they transform the K-1 into a street camera. If you're into that type of photography and don't have a dedicated Leica or whatever, they will deliver the look.

[audiobomber]

I wouldn't buy the DA 40 limited if you own the XS. If you really like that focal length, the tactile experience of using the DA limited is better than using the plastic XS lens.

Aside from sturdier construction, the Limited has half as much CA and has a compact lens hood.

[Alex645]

So, would the purchase of the 40mm limited make sense

Yes, no, maybe

Maybe!

Yes, if you want smoother bokeh backgrounds.
Yes, if you want to reduce glare and improve contrast when shooting into a bright sky or light sources.

No, as your money will be better spent on other limiteds which will give you a much more significant difference with your overall photography.
No, if you like the starburst effect at night stopped down on your XS or the dreamier wash of lower contrast shooting into bright light.

IF it is one of your main lenses used, I would upgrade. But if it is infrequently used, it's not worth the upgrade.