[AfterPentax Mark II]

I've owned the F 50 1.4 and sold it but it's the same size as my current FA 50 1.4.
I've never seen a F 28 2.8 but I've owned and sold the A 28 2.8 - I imagine their around the same size.
Both are too big! I needed a lens close to flush with the grip.
Really it was a close call for me getting the optically identical 40 XS, but I wanted the HD coatings, quickshift, and shiny lettering...

and thanks for your appreciation for others enjoyment of photography
I appreciate your comments and contributions to the forums!

Have you tried multiple 40 Ltds? or just the one you own?
If just the one I would encourage trying a second copy

Hi FozzFoster, I have tried this 40mm on all my Pentax's now and with all of them and I am afraid I have a bad copy. On none of them I get an acceptable result. I thought about buying the HD version, but on the other hand I have the 20-40mm Ltd and I get great results with it, so why bother to buy the newer HD 40mm version. Instead of spending the money on the 40mm I bought the 11-18mm at a very reduced price and I like it very much, a bit heavy, but lovely for walking through the woods and getting most of the tree(s) in the frame.

[RedRuff]

Well I just ordered a 40mm DA LTD then read this thread... I'm kinda scared now

[FozzFoster]

I bought the 11-18mm at a very reduced price and I like it very much, a bit heavy, but lovely for walking through the woods and getting most of the tree(s) in the frame.

I have the 11-18 too and it's one of my most favourite lenses!

---------- Post added 05-08-21 at 06:59 PM ----------

Well I just ordered a 40mm DA LTD then read this thread... I'm kinda scared now

I certainly have no regrets :P

[jhaji]

This lens is in fact so unsharp I at one point had compared it to my Tak Bayonet 135 f2.5 and found that at f4 the Tak bayonet was sharper... when cropped to the same fov. Yikes!

The Tak Bayonets that I've laid my hands on have been very sharp. I concur with you on the M 200//4.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

I've owned the F 50 1.4 and sold it but it's the same size as my current FA 50 1.4.
I've never seen a F 28 2.8 but I've owned and sold the A 28 2.8 - I imagine their around the same size.
Both are too big! I needed a lens close to flush with the grip.
Really it was a close call for me getting the optically identical 40 XS, but I wanted the HD coatings, quickshift, and shiny lettering...

and thanks for your appreciation for others enjoyment of photography
I appreciate your comments and contributions to the forums!

Have you tried multiple 40 Ltds? or just the one you own?
If just the one I would encourage trying a second copy

Hello FozzFoster, I did take your advice and bought myself another one, this time the HD DA 40mm. Put it on the K-01 and took pictures with it. Did the same with the SMC version. What I did first was taking pictures inside in low-light with the HD, the SMC and the DA 35mm F2.4 just for comparison. The pictures where sharp from all three, but the SMC version was rather dull in colouring, the HD a lot more colourful but both got beaten by the 35mm. The dull colours made me think of the first time I walked around with the Samsung GX10 with the 18-55 and the FA 28-70 (Japan version). I had the same experience, compared to the colours of the 18-55 the 28-70 was rather dull and that was in good light and outside.
So I went on a walk to take pictures with the HD 40mm and was surprised how nice the colours were and did the same with the SMC version. I must say that the SMC performed better than I was used to. The colours were not that bad and I actually like them. The thing is it needs good light and it was a sunlit day with a cloudy sky and the result was very good. On a sunlit day without clouds it is in trouble as well and colours are quite dull. But the HD is a completely different animal. It performs well under excellent, good and bad circumstances. The 20-40mm at 40mm gives far better results that gave me the WOW effect but this new HD does so too. So I have to retrace my steps and shamefacedly have to admit that the SMC is not the worst lens I have I declared so vehemently, but is under circumstances a nice lens. So now I have two 40mm Ltd's. I can send the HD back, but it is actually such a good lens and it was discounted to 2/3 of the original price that I decided to keep it as well and it becomes my K-01 lens. I bought the SMC one all those years ago for the K-01 and did not like it. I have a feeling that the update to HD is not only a change of the coatings used but that Ricoh did something else as well, but we know Ricoh and they will not tell you what they did. Perhaps it has to do with manufacturing (or who did it) the glass used. But it comes close to the more modern 20-40mm and the 35mm F2.4 (which is an amazing lens if you think about how affordable it is, I dare not call it cheap, that would ring the wrong bell).

[lesmore49]

Well I just ordered a 40mm DA LTD then read this thread... I'm kinda scared now

I have one. I'm quite pleased with it. My copy seems quite sharp. I've had it for quite a few years.

[FozzFoster]

But the HD is a completely different animal. It performs well under excellent, good and bad circumstances.

I've never handled an smc version, only my HD version - so I am very glad to hear that you found significant differences to warrant the HD!

WOW effect but this new HD does so too.

I noticed this too on my 40 LTD. Love the colours and POP! - I definitely need to get a 20-40 one of these days! just sounds incredible

So I have to retrace my steps and shamefacedly have to admit that the SMC is not the worst lens I have I declared so vehemently

I'm impressed when someone is open to challenging their beliefs and welcomes changing their opinion when proven elsewise. Very good!

[RedRuff]

I have one. I'm quite pleased with it. My copy seems quite sharp. I've had it for quite a few years.

The SMC DA40mm I bought ended up with fungus and focusing problems... I don't think I've even taken any photos with it yet, but I'm looking forward to using it

[lesmore49]

The SMC DA40mm I bought ended up with fungus and focusing problems... I don't think I've even taken any photos with it yet, but I'm looking forward to using it

Very handy focal length is my 40 Limited.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

I noticed this too on my 40 LTD. Love the colours and POP! - I definitely need to get a 20-40 one of these days! just sounds incredible

Glad you wrote this, sometimes I do think that I am imagining things, I did not get this difference between the SMC and HD one from this Pentaxforums article HD vs. SMC Pentax Limited Primes Review - Conclusion | PentaxForums.com Reviews. Perhaps they were only busy with the Bokeh, but there is more to the changes than just a different shape of the diaphragm blades and the HD coating, if I may conclude this from my experience with the two lenses.

[zapp]

DA 560
Too long by design, extra long shortest focus distance, no *, not full frame, optically not in the high end league.

[beholder3]

I think all of the following are utter crap and not worth $10:

• DA 16-45
• F 28-80

[Hythloday]

DA 16-45 but I remember it being a really solid lens, optically. Good for landscapes and portraits. Never had any complaints

The DA16-45mm is a very good lens. The problem is decentred copies. I bought my first 16-45mm in 2006 and it proved to be decentred. I exchanged it for a new copy which was fine. I sold it, but regretted it last year. So I bought one second-hand. But it was decentred. I bought one new (old stock) which is fine. I am quite happy with it. 94% of the reviewers recommend this lens: SMC Pentax-DA 16-45mm F4 Reviews - DA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[Gary H Perth]

The two Pentax lenses that have disappointed me compared to others in the same series are the M 135mm/f3.5 and the Super-Takumar 135mm f3.5. I leave the M135 on the shelf and take the A 100mm f2.8. On my Takumar outings, I take the Super Multi Coated 150mm f4.

[Grossy]

All of those really nice big lenses that run in the mid 5 figure range.... They make me drool too much