[JensE]

But, of the SMC version: I dislike the ghosting a lot.

This is indeed the main issue for me with my smc FA 31mm and the review (@bdery - did I miss your name on it?) is tempting, but I have not replaced mine yet. I don't agree with the assessment on wide apertures, btw.: Even there, almost eliminating the large ghosts, the difference is rather dramatic.

Don't mind the flaring as sometimes it works nicely to soften things.

I can usually achieve a desired softer, smc-like look with post-processing HD FA images, but not the other way around.

[BarryE]

I can usually achieve a desired softer, smc-like look with post-processing HD FA images, but not the other way around.

Completely valid point. But at this moment I'm sitting in a darkened room editing a set of portrait commissions and it's sunny outside. Know where I'd rather be

[bdery]

ps your reviews have been key components in many of my purchasing decisions. Thanks.

So glad to help you part with your money :P :P

[bdery]

the review (@bdery - did I miss your name on it?)

I indeed wrote the HD vs SMC Limited review

[phat_bog]

I always thought that the photographer adapts the lens to his shootings. That he's not adapting himself and his shootings to the lens. And clearly not to the lens coating. We use the light, we have our eyes to see, our feet to move, our voice to interact and/or command, and so on.
If the lens is good enough with nice characteristics, if the camera works, last thing to worry about is the coating or +1 or -1 in the number of blades.
As it goes, in the good hands an old smc Pentax - Zeiss K 28 2 still beats a a new HD 31 1.8 to the ground . Same thing with an SMC A 50 1.2 vs HD DFA 1.4 (crazy lens if you need huge prints of course..). Having the four of them, it makes no doubt. While I enjoy and favour progress, i find that going from SMC to HD is a progress but why apply it to the already excellent Ltd trio lenses ?.
As for assignments work, it's even more irrelevant as you are much more in control of situations (light, setup, models etc) so it's even much more easier to make a lens adaptable to your needs.
Also, personally I always shoot with the post processing that will have to be done in my mind, if the lens has some defects that I can't sort out differently while shooting with it.
So, in conclusion, this kind of updates to lenses are totally irrelevant imo for most of the photographers. While other type of minor improvements in optics (like closer focusing, improved elements) , mechanics or ergonomics would be much more relevant ...

Adding a little edit : same thing for 645 lenses. I really don't follow the logic of the SMC FA 35mm updated to HD (tested both with colourfull tissues - seen nothing particular) . Or even much more bizarre , the 25mm SMC FA updated to HD DA , with that bizarre new hood and vignetting issues. Ok SDM rocks on on the DA version of course , focusing is great but why change the f* hood and go from FA to DA ? (Had the DA from the start, finally tested both, then I decided to keep the FA version).
And as it comes for prices, why do HD come more expensive than SMC on the market for the same lens? I mean all the R&D, patents, etc was done years ago for the same lens, why pay more just for a new coating & a new iris blade? It should be the opposite imo -> equally priced or even Cheaper than the original SMC versions.

PENTAX needs more new blood than it needs new coatings.

[JensE]

As it goes, in the good hands an old smc Pentax - Zeiss K 28 2 still beats a a new HD 31 1.8 to the ground . Same thing with an SMC A 50 1.2 vs HD DFA 1.4 . Having the four of them, it makes no doubt.

This may well apply to your photography, but it highly depends on what those good hands photograph.

While I enjoy and favour progress, i find that going from SMC to HD is a progress but why apply it to already excellent lenses ?.

If you have a new batch of lenses to coat, why not apply the best coating you have - apparently - economically available?

And as it comes for prices, why do HD come more expensive than SMC on the market ? I mean all the R&D was done years ago for the same lens, why pay more just for a new coating & a new iris blade? It should be the opposite imo -> equally priced or even Cheaper than the original SMC versions.

The HD FA Ltd. lenses, subject of this thread, were released at lower prices than the smc FA Ltd. list prices at that time.

[mikesbike]

I have long owned the FA SMC 43mm and 77mm Limiteds, bought for use with my 35mm film cameras. I have enjoyed them very much. But since getting my K-1 II, with its marvelous imaging capabilities, I have cast eyes towards an upgrade of these time-honored lenses. A few months ago, B&H offered them at a significant temporary price drop, so I went for it. I found I really like the upgrade. I do night scenes fairly often. Street light, bridge lights, building lights, etc. tend to exhibit a blooming effect with the old SMC versions that is cleared up with the new HD versions. Along with this is improved overall clarity and sharpness for the scene. I have also noticed better overall contrast and sharpness in daylight conditions as well. For most scenes I prefer this improvement. I do not consider this a "digital" effect, just better revealing of what is really there, as we would see it. This does not mean we should not put to use such veiling effects for artistic renderings of some scenes. Nothing wrong with that. Such effects can set a certain mood.

For such purposes, some may like a slight veiling tendency from flare even though not blatently visible itself, that "softens" the image. But for most of my uses I prefer the improved qualites of the HD versions. These improvements seem more revealing of the details of the scene. Now, there might be a circumstance where there is some haziness in distance hills, that is seen by the naked eye, which perhaps the HD coatings penetrate to make more clear, but so would a haze filter- with maybe its own downside of extra glass in the mix. However, I have never made this particular comparison. Perhaps the eye would also penetrate the haze enough to visualize detail that would be lost to most lenses not having the superior coatings.

---

Last edited by mikesbike; 04-06-2023 at 04:02 PM.

[bdery]

That he's not adapting himself and his shootings to the lens. And clearly not to the lens coating. We use the light, we have our eyes to see, our feet to move, our voice to interact and/or command, and so on.

These are good intentions, but they don't always stand the test of reality. Moments flee, light changes, chimping doesn't always show everything. Having a tool that you can depend on in your hands lets you concentrate on creating pictures.

[phat_bog]

This may well apply to your photography, but it highly depends on what those good hands photograph.

If you have a new batch of lenses to coat, why not apply the best coating you have - apparently - economically available?

The HD FA Ltd. lenses, subject of this thread, were released at lower prices than the smc FA Ltd. list prices at that time.

Well, I just find coating from the 1970-80's of something like the k28 2 very good. Intact until now, very good. These coatings are older than me, I was born in 85, they age better than I do lol.
And actually I bought 2 hds (43&31) and put the smcs on sale. Then after testing 2-3 , days changed my mind, returned them and cancelled the smcs selling process. I ended up with only one HD limited, the 21.
I work with press, magazines, online & paper. Also industry - high end , agriculture.. , fashion and advertising. Cover cool & known events too. I do business headshots and actors, some models too. I shoot from high ranked officials & int. ceos to employees in factories (what's left of them in western Europe..lol). I shoot most with SMC glass. Studio, outdoor , indoor. Daylight, night. Flash or no flash . Nobody in the pics or from the agencies, told me my pics lacked clarity, focus, were fuzzy or dreamy, bokeh way too busy or shown general disappointment. Clients usually come back, if we manage to talk through our differences. All this, while standards in the business are high for visual quality.
I do direct wifi from the k-1ii s or cable thetering. Or post process when the delays are longer and pp is needed. Things would not change with HD coatings, whatever the camera, MF or FF, whatever the sensor CCD or CMOS or foveon alike. Same stuff happens, same routine, when I use the HDs I have.
At the end of the day on my screens I see missed shots and good shots, some shitty shots and sometimes, rarely, some amazing shots.
That's all that matter. Objectively, coating is at the end of the (wish) list. Unless Pentax makes us a fluorite lens to use, then yes, that would really reaaaallly matter

[btnapa]

if you got the SMC (like I do), they're fine and there's little incentive to upgrade.

I agree. I have the SMC version of all three and love them. The one flaw that bothers me is heavy CA in all three lenses. For most modern lenses stopping down by one or 1.5 stops fixes the issue. With these lenses I have to goto f5.6 for the problem to go away. Nevertheless, I still love them and the CA is an easy fix in post. I though it was a problem with video but found out that most video editing programs have a quick fix for CA too.

[leekil]

Then after testing 2-3 , days changed my mind, returned them and cancelled the smcs selling process. I ended up with only one HD limited, the 21.

What did you not like about them?

[house]

Unless Pentax makes us a fluorite lens to use, then yes, that would really reaaaallly matter

DFA21 element 9, has an abbe of 95
https://opticexplorer.sharedigm.com/#search?query=pentax%2021mm