[aslyfox]

Does anyone have a definitive answer regarding the price anomalies between the old smc coated variants and the new HD versions? One would immediately think that the new HD coated versions of the 'new' Limited lenses should by all intents and purposes be more expensive, not less expensive. What strange marketing rationale is at play? Is there anything else about the HD coated lenses that we don't know?

Perhaps a loss of the famed " pixie dust " that the FA SMC Limiteds are reputed to have

[stevebrot]

Thanks for your reply. Does that mean lower quality? May I ask the source of your information?

I'm still not convinced by the marketing strategy. Better usually means more expensive. Is that the case in this instance?

I would not be too concerned about the marketing strategy. They changed the coatings and a few of the internals and the result costs a few dollars less money. Perhaps it it due to economies of production related to the revised aperture blades? Who knows.

In regards to the coatings...as noted above, the "Ghostless" (not SMC)* coatings on the FA Limiteds and some other late FA models is pretty cool. By all reports, it is also pretty expensive. Whether the HD coating is better is debatable. I suspect that reviews on this site will compare both versions in detail.


Steve

(...has "ghostless" on the FA 77/1.8 and FA 35/2.0 and is dubious of the HD hype...)

* The specialty coatings are not part of the labeling.

[house]

Thanks for your reply. Does that mean lower quality? May I ask the source of your information?

I'm still not convinced by the marketing strategy. Better usually means more expensive. Is that the case in this instance?

HD appears to be better than smc. It reduces flare, ghosting and has better transmittance according to Pentax.

The ghostless coating might be as good or better than hd but it seems to be used very sparingly and only on some surfaces?

I dont remember the source, possibly the pentax website, but hd is much less complicated to apply. I think its also more durable.

Comparisons have been made between hd and smc da limiteds showing improvements. The upcoming hd vs smc fa limited comparison will show if there are improvements over the smc ghostless combo as well.

[aslyfox]

HD appears to be better than smc. It reduces flare, ghosting and has better transmittance according to Pentax.

The ghostless coating might be as good or better than hd but it seems to be used very sparingly and only on some surfaces?

I dont remember the source, possibly the pentax website, but hd is much less complicated to apply. I think its also more durable.

Comparisons have been made between hd and smc da limiteds . . .

here is the review, draw your own conclusions -

HD vs. SMC Pentax Limited Primes
Introduction

. . . .

HD vs. SMC Pentax Limited Primes
Conclusion
So, which lens series is better: the old SMC or the new HD Limiteds? It turns out that most of the changes made between these two lineups can only be compared subjectively, including the external appearance, bokeh, and star burst effects. What we can objectively conclude is that the HD lenses do a much better job of suppressing ghosting, and in harsh lighting they may produce images with more contrast. Although ghosting is never fully eliminated, in some cases it is so hard to spot with HD lenses that you won't need to have to apply any post-processing whatsoever to your photos.



Subjectively, we prefer the SMC 15mm over the HD 15mm for its beautiful star bust rendering; we can safely settle for the SMC version because the observable improvement that the HD coating delivers on this particular lens is smaller than on the others. We wouldn't mind having the HD versions of the remaining 4 lenses, however!

We'd like to point out that you might notice the a bigger improvement in bokeh between the SMC and HD 40mm Limiteds than the other lens pairs. In addition, the HD 35mm should be commended as it does a much better job on handling hotspots than the SMC 35mm and it exhibits virtually no ghosting whatsoever, two traits that are desirable for night photography. . .

HD vs. SMC Pentax Limited Primes
Conclusion
So, which lens series is better: the old SMC or the new HD Limiteds? It turns out that most of the changes made between these two lineups can only be compared subjectively, including the external appearance, bokeh, and star burst effects. What we can objectively conclude is that the HD lenses do a much better job of suppressing ghosting, and in harsh lighting they may produce images with more contrast. Although ghosting is never fully eliminated, in some cases it is so hard to spot with HD lenses that you won't need to have to apply any post-processing whatsoever to your photos.

SMC Pentax & HD Pentax Limited Primes: Full LineupFull Black SMC & HD Pentax Limited Prime Lineup - Click to Enlarge

Subjectively, we prefer the SMC 15mm over the HD 15mm for its beautiful star bust rendering; we can safely settle for the SMC version because the observable improvement that the HD coating delivers on this particular lens is smaller than on the others. We wouldn't mind having the HD versions of the remaining 4 lenses, however!

We'd like to point out that you might notice the a bigger improvement in bokeh between the SMC and HD 40mm Limiteds than the other lens pairs. In addition, the HD 35mm should be commended as it does a much better job on handling hotspots than the SMC 35mm and it exhibits virtually no ghosting whatsoever, two traits that are desirable for night photography.

Read more at: HD vs. SMC Pentax Limited Primes Review - Conclusion | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[Jeff]

HD appears to be better than smc. It reduces flare, ghosting and has better transmittance according to Pentax.

The ghostless coating might be as good or better than hd but it seems to be used very sparingly and only on some surfaces?

I dont remember the source, possibly the pentax website, but hd is much less complicated to apply. I think its also more durable.

Comparisons have been made between hd and smc da limiteds showing improvements. The upcoming hd vs smc fa limited comparison will show if there are improvements over the smc ghostless combo as well.

Many thanks for checking it out.

[Adam]

Does anyone have a definitive answer regarding the price anomalies between the old smc coated variants and the new HD versions? One would immediately think that the new HD coated versions of the 'new' Limited lenses should by all intents and purposes be more expensive, not less expensive. What strange marketing rationale is at play? Is there anything else about the HD coated lenses that we don't know?

I think they are just normalizing the prices. The SMC lens prices have gone through several revisions and cycles of rebates, so it's hard to use a single value as the baseline.

[Jeff]

here is the review, draw your own conclusions -





Read more at: HD vs. SMC Pentax Limited Primes Review - Conclusion | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Thank you Allen. I will have to come to some conclusion as to what I am looking for. I am looking at the 31 and the 77 ( I already have the 43) as part of the Marie Kondo-ing of my lens collection! No doubt when I'm asleep tonight my dreams will be full flare and ghosting and contrast! I've been looking at the Ricoh special site for the Limiteds - the Evidence section - and cannot make up my mind about HD or SMC.

First world problems...

---------- Post added 05-25-21 at 10:08 PM ----------

I think they are just normalizing the prices. The SMC lens prices have gone through several revisions and cycles of rebates, so it's hard to use a single value as the baseline.

Why are the smc coated Limiteds being sold at such a premium to the new and supposedly better HD coated lenses? Has Ricoh run down stocks so much that they can play the scarcity card?

[Henrico]

Back to my original post; the one who did the new diagram forgot to draw the last element, these lenses have the same formula (see description lens info).

HD coated lenses visibly reflect less than SMC coated ones, you can look a bit deeper in this lenses. So that will effect a bit in less flare and ghosting.

These redesigned SMC/HD lenses can be cheaper because ROI on R&D already are earned back. It is also a marketing strategy, how much/few profit is acceptable related to the turn over.

By the way; pictures with some ghosting in it can be full of character, so it is not by definition a disadvantage.

[Adam]

Why are the smc coated Limiteds being sold at such a premium to the new and supposedly better HD coated lenses? Has Ricoh run down stocks so much that they can play the scarcity card?

In the US, the HD 31mm is actually launched at $50 above the base MSRP of the SMC 31mm, the 43mm is the same, and the 77mm is $100 above than the base MSRP but the same as the lowest current selling price...so in practice there is no difference at launch. I'd expect the prices of the SMC lenses to increase slightly before stock runs out, as incentives on outgoing gear often expire.