[DWS1]

Thanks for asking the question. I've wondered the same thing myself.

[Wheatfield]

Your question isn't very clear---but then Pentax's position on this is unique I think in the industry, with maybe only Leica now having similar attitudes. Both lines are rigorously engineered, but the Star lenses (the newest ones at least) are the ones more comparable to what people call "modern" lenses with respect to their clinical characteristics. In so-called modern lenses, the goal seems to be to engineer "character" out, sort of like "Cylon" lenses. The Limiteds are engineered to have some character, with maybe more humanistic qualities

What people call "character" or "pixie dust" is nothing more than optical flaws in the lens design. The design goal of the Star lenses is to make lenses with as few flaws as possible. The design goal of the Limited lenses was to allow optical flaws that the designers could then build a cult around.
For example, the famous 3D effects of the 77mmLTD is nothing more than uncorrected spherical aberration.
Don't get me wrong, the FA Limited lenses are fine optics, but they are also very flawed designs. The DA Limited lenses are really nothing more than slow, mundane lenses tarted up in pretty packaging and given cult status by putting the name Limited to them.
Again, they are OK lenses, the 70mm Limited is every bit as good as the 77, but they are also all optically flawed in one way or another.

The Star lenses are no more clinical than the Limited lenses are flawed.

[RICHARD L.]

The Star lenses are no more clinical than the Limited lenses are flawed.

Well said, man !

[aslyfox]

Either group perfect in their unique way

IMHO

Limiteds original FA design MIJ have " history " but the " Modern " SMC " " AVN " work as well and now there are " HD " ones too

The DA had SMC and HD

the star lens don't have quite the same history but are very good

[Wheatfield]

Either group perfect in their unique way

IMHO

Limiteds original FA design MIJ have " history " but the " Modern " SMC " " AVN " work as well and now there are " HD " ones too

The DA had SMC and HD

the star lens don't have quite the same history but are very good

These speaks strongly to the cult status. The original FA Ltd lenses are considered more desirable because of their country of manufacture, something that has zero impact on their optical performance.

Pentax has maintained a cult status among its users for decades, and this photographic version of the Moonies is what has kept the brand alive, and is absolutely necessary to its future survival.

Cultism is what kept Leica going for decades when they were making cameras that were completely out if step with the times.

Pentax needs to burnish that same reputation while they continue to make cameras that are becoming increasingly out of step with the marketplace.

I think it's what they are doing with their very unique pulling back the curtain and letting us see the high priests of the temple in online interviews and the like, letting them spread the gospel to the masses.

[aslyfox]

These speaks strongly to the cult status. The original FA Ltd lenses are considered more desirable because of their country of manufacture, something that has zero impact on their optical performance.

no disagreement at all

but with anyone with an historical " bent "

" MIJ " is " interesting "

but even SMC improved over time so getting the oldest FA limiteds could be questionable

[Wheatfield]

no disagreement at all

but with anyone with an historical " bent "

" MIJ " is " interesting "

but even SMC improved over time so getting the oldest FA limiteds could be questionable

Note that in the forum marketplace there is a 31mm Ltd that the seller has noted in the thread title as made in Japan.
It rather makes my point for me.

[Bertrand3000]

What people call "character" or "pixie dust" is nothing more than optical flaws in the lens design. [...] For example, the famous 3D effects of the 77mmLTD is nothing more than uncorrected spherical aberration.

What? Pixie dust is just... spherical aberration?

The DA Limited lenses are really nothing more than slow, mundane lenses tarted up in pretty packaging and given cult status by putting the name Limited to them.

What? DA Limited are... mundane?

Burn the heretic! Purify the unbelievers in holy fire!

[Wheatfield]

the star lens don't have quite the same history but are very good

I'm not so sure about that. I have several Star lenses that predate the FA Limiteds. The original lLimited lenses were introduced starting in 1999 with the 77mm.

The A* 85/1.4 is from 1984, as is the A*600/5.6, the FA*24/2 is from 1991, etc. The golden age of Star lenses was from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s.
Originally, a Star lens was just a cut above the more common A/F/FA series lenses. This made them very good indeed.
The Limitef lenses came along later, with Pentax trying a different packaging approach. The Star lenses languished until they revived them with the 60-250 and 55/1.4 DA lenses.
Sadly, they didn't do such a good job with the AF motors in them.

I suspect the philosophy behind the Star lenses isn't all that different from what it was originally, make the best lens possible.

[aslyfox]

I'm not so sure about that. I have several Star lenses that predate the FA Limiteds. The original lLimited lenses were introduced starting in 1999 with the 77mm.. . . .

au contraire mon frere

the first FA Limited was the SMC Pentax-FA 43mm F1.9 Limited

Production Years
1997 to present (in production)

SMC Pentax-FA 43mm F1.9 Limited Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

then the FA 77 and then the FA 31

[peggers]

And a follow on question, how much better are the star lenses than say the standard lenses?

[Wheatfield]

au contraire mon frere

the first FA Limited was the SMC Pentax-FA 43mm F1.9 Limited




SMC Pentax-FA 43mm F1.9 Limited Reviews - FA Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

then the FA 77 and then the FA 31

My bad I forgot about the 43. I suppose I should take mine out. I rarely use it.

---------- Post added Jul 18th, 2021 at 10:05 PM ----------

And a follow on question, how much better are the star lenses than say the standard lenses?

I think if you dig around you will find the MTF curves. On a user level, if you shoot stopped down to f8 all the time, they aren't significantly better. As you open up, the star lenses look better, as their image quality doesn't fall apart anywhere near as badly.

F8 really is the great equalizer.

I believe I read that the D FA* 50/1.4 has some coma wide open, enough that it isn't as well suited to astro photography as some people hoped.
I have yet to find a flaw in the new 85/1.4. It just seems overall excellent.
The DA* 55/1.4 is really nice, but I thought it's bokeh was a bit rough.
I have little to no experience with the Star zooms. My impression of the *60-250 is that the optics were good, but it's autofocus was problematic.

[clackers]

For one the Limiteds are smaller than the Star series, so have optical compromises. They are more likely for you to take on a walkabout shoot as a result, still with high quality.

I knew a rich Nikonian who decided to buy a KP and the entire set of DA Limiteds, because he loved the philosophy.

I think they sit in a special glass case, I don't know that he's ever taken a picture with them, he just loves the philosophy.

[Kerrowdown]

Star (*) lens question

My Star Ladies (Sweetheart Pentax-A*85mm F1.4, Lady Luck Pentax-A*135mm F1.8, Gorgeous Lady Pentax-A*200mm F2.8 ED, Duchess Pentax-A*300mm F4.0) have always performed well for me... and that's what matters to me.

[RICHARD L.]

DA* zooms perform brilliantly. Their resolution peaks around f/8. Uniform sharpness all over, excellent contrast and flare resistance.

DA* 50-135 mm f/2.8 :

DA* 60-250 mm f/4 :