[Sandy Hancock]

let me show you a massively glaring weakness in this lens.

What you are illustrating is a universal property of rectilinear wide angle lenses. Faces at the edges of the frame will be distorted. The problem here is not with the FA31, but your choice of focal length for the type of shot you're making.

There is a reason that the preferred focal lengths for portraiture are short telephotos. If you want undistorted group shots, use a longer lens and step back further.

[mikesbike]

I agree with Sandy. The central part is actually somewhat exaggerated in front to back, which is to be expected when shooting with a WA lens. If you want accurate perspective in a group shot at moderate distance, and of the background as well, assuming you are still shooting FF with a K-1 or film, the FA 43mm Limited is designed with this in mind. A careful examination will reveal more uniformity in the shots with the DA* 55mm lens, but also that they are uniformly slightly flattened.

[BigMackCam]

The original question was: "Do the limited live up to the reputation?" My contention is no, at least not the FA31. It doesn't nearly offer enough benefits to justify the price tag.

This is where personal preferences and requirements come into play, over and above lens performance. Whether it's a bad, reasonable, good, very good or incredible lens really depends upon the preferences and requirements of the photographer.

I have no opinion on the FA31 as I've never shot one, but I see many credible fans of it (more than enough to believe it justifies its reputation)... yet some credible detractors too (especially on FF).

Other lenses are similarly devisive... Take the DA20-40. Most people love that lens, with some going so far as to say it's a stack of primes that replaces the DA21 and DA40. A few are less impressed, though, and I sit squarely in that group, for very specific reasons. Does that mean it's a less-than-stellar lens? For me personally, yes... but overall, it has too many fans and has produced too much excellent work for me to conclude that. It just doesn't match my preferences and requirements

[ffking]

No, it's a universal property of poorly rectilinear WA lenses. Field curvature. As I say, this is the most expensive prime Pentax makes. I can see this sort of performance in the $300 FA35. The FA43 displays it a lot as well. That's why I really hate that lens. In a normal focal length lens, it's absurd for it to be that bad.

I would say that it's a feature of the design of the lenses - it's not good or bad, just appropriate for some styles of photography and not for others. I happen to love the FA31 ltd for street photography which is where it shines, giving a unique rendition - but there are things I wouldn't use it for, just as I would find a highly corrected lens to be lacking the character I want for that style of picture taking. We're lucky to have the choice, but no lens is perfect for everything.

[mikesbike]

I believe there has to be some compromise made in order to design the Limiteds to be as compact as they are, which is one of the distinctive and desirable properties of the Limited series that has been part of their reputation. Great build, sharp results, compact carrying.

Even so, if there were excessive field curvature, the first indication usually shows up in out-of-focus corners. I have seen no test reviews of the FA 31mm LTD indicating this is the case. If field curvature is so excessive as to present edge distortion, that should show up on distortion grid tests. This leads me to conclude the distortion seen presented here is due to perspective distortion, a common property of wide angle lenses. Added to that is the fact that no wide angle lens can provide normal front-to-back perspective, as that is impossible to achieve simultaneously. Normal perspective is one definition of what a "normal" lens is.

You could throw on a decent 28mm lens and find out what result you get, as it is only slightly wider than the FA 31mm lens. OTOH, you might also consider the FA 35mm f/2, which will definitely have less perspective distortion, yet provide enough wide angle to get good group shots in a smaller area.

[BigMackCam]

I think the biggest thing is that few people really push their lenses. If you're taking it out and shooting sunsets or other things in nice light at f/8, that will mask a lot of the issues the lens has. Similarly, the random nature of 'things' (instead of people) tend to make most kinds of distortion less visible, with a few exceptions (such as putting straight lines near the edges of frames). I ask for more performance and precision within the frame from my lenses, demand accurate focus at f/2.8, etc.;

All of that's absolutely reasonable However... (and you knew there'd be a however, right? ):

Pushing one's lenses is different for different photographers - it means different things.

Distortion doesn't matter to some people so long as it's simple distortion and correctable; others want no distortion at all, or as little as possible... but that brings with it other compromises.

What you consider to be a lacking of performance within the frame, some others will see as the essential character that a lens offers. My absolute favourite lenses to shoot with are some very technically flawed and outdated Soviet models. I have much better lenses technically-speaking, including the areas you find important, but what I want is the odd, imperfect centre-only sharp(-ish!) rendering of a Helios-40-2 at or near maximum aperture; or the rainbow flare from a rangefinder Industar-22 shot into the light etc. You can't "push" many lenses to do those things, and whilst you might not consider that to be pushing them (and I'll admit these are extreme examples - even within my own likes and dislikes), performance and results are subjective based on the preferences and requirements of the photographer.

We had someone post on the forums recently who was unhappy with the stretching out of borders on the DA15, not realising that it's a rectilinear wide angle lens (and hence, performing admirably ). Perfect example

[Sandy Hancock]

Field curvature.

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that term means what you think it means". Field curvature is not the same as linear distortion, and spherical aberration and perspective distortion are completely different again.

The precise reason I use the WA in some circumstances is because backing up is not an option.

Then you have to accept the faces at the edges will look distorted. The wider a rectilinear lens is, the more pronounced the effect is. If you want less of that sort of distortion, you need a *less* corrected lens with more barrel distortion. Fisheye lenses are more forgiving of faces in the corners than rectilinear ultra-wide angles.

I don't always get perfect locations where I can back up 20 feet to take a group shot like this. For the Christmas shots, I had about 8' of hallspace to work with. That's it. The location was dictated by the subjects, who assembled in these costumes at a convention. This was the only plausible spot we could work and get decent photos.

Then ask them to bunch up more

[Rondec]

Wide angles do stretch people at the edges of the image. Just try shooting the DFA 15-30 with a group shot. People look very odd at the edges. If you shoot the FA 31 on a crop camera it isn't going to look the same way because the edges are cropped off by the sensor. The only solution is to back up a little more and keep your group a little more in the middle of your image. I think you would get roughly the same effect with the Sigma 35 f1.4.

You can use any lens for any purpose, but you can't guarantee the results will be flattering to the subject. Mattt posted some portraits done with the DFA 15-30 on the thread devoted to that lens which were amusing, but certainly they weren't the sort of images that you would really want to have after a photoshoot.

[aslyfox]

received my first " limited " lens yesterday

an " experienced " smc Pentax 21mm F3.2 limited

it was acquired from a member via the forum's market place

you can see it here:

Your latest acquisition - PentaxForums.com

quickly took it out for a few photographs which are posted

here

Just Black and White-ur B/W Monochrome photos here - PentaxForums.com

and here

prime, prime, everywhere a prime... - PentaxForums.com

if interested

so far only good impressions

[clackers]

A lens that has awful curvature and distortion outside the 60% crop box for $1000?

That's bizarre, MMM. Try taking the same photos with any other wide angle lens. A Zeiss 28mm Distagon has about 1.8% barrel distortion according to Photozone.

The Pentax FA31 was reviewed on FF by this forum and the conclusion: "The amount of distortion is low for a wide angle lens, at 0.8% both with APS-C and full frame sensors. This low level of distortion will be hard to spot in most scenes, and is easy to correct. Modern cameras include an automatic distortion correction tool, and most post-processing programs will take care of it without trouble."

When you shoot with the DA*55, there's no magic about it, it's a normal focal length, with a more limited view and you're standing further back.

Landscape specialists will often stack multiple images taken with a normal lens rather than use an UWA, to lose distortion.

I really enjoy wide angle lenses. You do alter your shooting technique with them, this is the FA31:

[leekil]

I've owned, I think, virtually every autofocus lens Pentax has made in the normal focal length range before settling on my current kit. The ones that have been removed from my kit and sold have gotten a lot of work before reaching that conclusion; I shot hundreds of photos with the FA43, for instance, noticing the same issues over and over (and losing many great shots) before I decided it's utter trash that's bested in every way by virtually any of the autofocus 50mm lenses.

Well, at least you're consistent with the FA limiteds. Have you tried the 77?

If you don't like the performance of the 31, why do you keep it? Or are you saying it's the best lens at that focal length available, but still not good?

[neokind]

I own the SMC DA 15 & 40, the HD DA 70, the HD DA 20-40, the FA 31, and the FA 77. I love them all.

Many said enough about the lenses but the most important question is what other lenses do you have and what do you want to accomplish that you can't now.

Also to run counter to the group think - you don't need even one of these to make stunning shots. There are images you may need these for, but most of your images won't require them.

It's easier to chase equipment than improve technique

This is easily my favorite comment here. It is indeed far easier to read reviews, view sample photos, lust after, and buy the lens that will change it all. But improving technique takes effort and time (time, otherwise spent doing the aforementioned), and it's hard. My tendency is toward the former, but I aspire to learn to ignore the gear and simply take more pictures.

That being said, I've got the 35mm Macro Ltd, 40mm Ltd, and 77mm Ltd. The 35 and 77 are new to me and I haven't spent enough time with either of them to have formed a solid and well-rounded opinion. I do really like the 35mm so far, though. The 40mm is my go-to lens and I love it. But honestly, my DA 50mm 1.8 takes equally impressive images. I'm no where near skilled enough to be in need of anything more.

[bkpix]

I'm a big fan of the Limited lenses -- I use the 15, 21 and 70 almost daily -- and have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread (unless I've missed it!) is the interesting white paper from Pentax's designer Jun Hirakawa, in which he explains the design philosophy behind the 43 and 77 FA Limiteds (and, presumably, the rest of the line).

Some of the Limiteds' characteristics that a few users don't like, such as field curvature (not to be confused with distortion) and less-than-perfect MTF curves are, in Hirakawa's explanation, a deliberate choice. His technical explanation is a bit over my head, especially in the English translation published in 2000, but the Northcoast Photographer blog offers a somewhat clearer translation of a key section:

An ideal of current lens design is to make the subject plane as flat as possible. Through specific techniques [detailed in the original article], field curvature is reduced, leading to a lens that will produce excellent scores on numerical tests. However, flattening the subject plane comes at a cost: pictures taken with such a lens will lack spice.

Turns out it's not pixie dust after all that makes all the difference, but spice!

[BigMackCam]

An ideal of current lens design is to make the subject plane as flat as possible. Through specific techniques [detailed in the original article], field curvature is reduced, leading to a lens that will produce excellent scores on numerical tests. However, flattening the subject plane comes at a cost: pictures taken with such a lens will lack spice.

This is precisely the reason why some people will love a particular lens and others will be singularly unimpressed. We wonder how opinions can be so polarised, but - as I've said countless times before - lens performance is to a very large extent subjective. It depends on your priorities when shooting and specific use cases.

[cyberjunkie]

It is indeed far easier to read reviews, view sample photos, lust after, and buy the lens that will change it all. But improving technique takes effort and time (time, otherwise spent doing the aforementioned), and it's hard. My tendency is toward the former, but I aspire to learn to ignore the gear and simply take more pictures.

All this should be taken for granted, if one aims to be a photographer, and not a collector (which is perfectly fine, I think I'm both).
I have been a professional photographer, nothing artsy, mainly advertising/catalogs in medium/large format, but even then it was also a hobby. When I could I enjoyed travel photography. Because of that, I hope to deserve to be called a photographer, not just a lens enthusiast, or a collector. The practice comes first, then the equipment. I guess this is true for most creative activities.
Though when one has the basis, and has learned how to use the tools of his/her trade, in most cases it comes natural to develop strong preferences, a kind of affinity with the tools of choice.
Some people realize that the kind of equipment they use affects the final outcome, for technical reasons and for more subtle motivations that have more to do with the way we physically and psychologicaly interact with the instruments we use.
Sometimes these motivations are irrational, or even apparently illogical... but I know of true masters who still use film and a Leica body
Personally I have gone one step further, getting more and more interested in the history of photography (especially photographic lenses), reading plenty of books, and searching the Web for information, to the (very rewarding) point when I realized I could find something new, a tiny bit of new info nobody has written about.
All that didn't come from some academic interest, but was sparked by the simple evidence that some old lenses have a character of their own, and that - just an example - an old triplet like a Trioplan gives you pictures that are completely different from those you get from any modern lens, zoom or prime, no matter how expensive.
When I write "different" I really mean that, not just a subtly different rendition, I actually mean a whole lot different. Of course this is true only in certain conditions and with certain subjects, and I am far from saying it is by any means better. Huge bubble bokeh balloons can be disturbing... but at times the result is simply beautiful, according to my personal taste.
To each his/her own. Fortunately there are different tastes and different points of view. Personally I love to see new ideas and unconventional equipments put to good use. I like lens enthusiasts who experiment with projection objectives and the like, and I don't resonate very much with those who are too anal about their equipment or are always looking for the magic bullet (which of course is an Arabian Phoenix). But in the end I really don't care so much to find it disturbing. Who am I to judge?

Cheers

Paolo