[BarryE]

First off I know there's a detailed review on this subject, but ...

In the detailed review the edge and centre flare results were less significant on the 77 & 43, but marked on the 31. I have HD and SMC versions of the 77 43 (don't ask, why - it wasn't greed ) and to be honest, I'm not that sure I can really tell a great deal of difference in usage, overall. Yes the HD versions, clearly offer greater flare resistance, but oddly this seems to be a bit sort of, well 'digital' to my eye - the transitions from very bright to mid tones are dramatic. On the SMC the ghosting and flaring somehow make the images more realistic/better balanced. Subjective, I know. The CA and bokeh are much the same, as we demonstrated in the detailed test. The starbursts are much better on the SMC versions. So overall, I'm not convinced the HD version produces more pleasing photos for all subjects.

Now to the 31. My SMC version flares. Predictable. The HD version's flare as shown in detailed test, controls flare better. But, would the HD's flare resistance produce a "better" photo in overall usage, taking into account my feeling that the HD produces a "digital" (as I'm calling it) effect. Plus CA, bokeh and starbursts are much easier to compare/predict from the detailed test.

So what might others think about the SMC v HD versions in actual use, particularly the 31, as I'm clear enough with my subjective view of the 77 & 43.

Many thanks

[UncleVanya]

I only have the SMC versions but I do have the HD versions of some of the DA limiteds. I also owned the SMC and HD versions of the 18-50.

My overall view is that there’s a subtle difference at best. I certainly can’t see it reliably without an A/B direct comparison… which makes me question what the value really is. The 18-50 included the hood and so I kept that version. Several tests show that lens as sharper in HD but I’m not sure I could see any real differences.

The HD 70 vs SMC 77 is as close as I can get to a more direct comparison. I see value in both and I don’t think “digital” when I use the 70.

Good luck.

[angerdan]

So what might others think about the SMC v HD versions in actual use, particularly the 31, as I'm clear enough with my subjective view of the 77 & 43.

In my opinion a small advantage can be possible, but this topic is already discussed on 30+24+8 posts:
How much better will the new HD FA Limiteds really be compared with smc coatings? - PentaxForums.com
Comparative review: HD Pentax-FA Limited Trio vs SMC Pentax-FA Limited Trio - PentaxForums.com
What is the difference from SMC to HD - PentaxForums.com

[BarryE]

In my opinion a small advantage can be possible, but this topic is already discussed on 30+24+8 posts:
How much better will the new HD FA Limiteds really be compared with smc coatings? - PentaxForums.com
Comparative review: HD Pentax-FA Limited Trio vs SMC Pentax-FA Limited Trio - PentaxForums.com
What is the difference from SMC to HD - PentaxForums.com

I had seen these, but I'm further down the line now having used the SMC and HD versions of the 77 and 43. Many of these comments were based on earlier experiences and interpretations of the detailed report.

When I said "digital" - I haven't done a test of the same situation between the two, as I'm not really inclined that way to be honest - what I'm trying to convey is that the ghosting/flare around a bright object using the SMC versions tend to mean there is a smearing around the light source, whereas the HD version doesn't have this to the same effect. Yes this may be more accurate/controlled, but the more gradual transitions in intensity are, to me, more subtle. Maybe more film like, ie less digital. Anyway, that's what I was trying to say.

[btnapa]

So what might others think about the SMC v HD versions in actual use

I only have the SMC version of all three. I like your assertion that the SMC images look more natural. The only thing I do not like about these lenses is the heavy CA that does not go away until f5.6 or so. As we know, that is an easy fix in post. I used my 28-105 for everyday applications but for paid assignments requiring the best image quality and sometimes wide open apertures, I used the trio. However, over the years, the 43mm has gotten the most use for some reason. I love all three and call them my "poor man's Leicas!"

[house]

This video by an occasional poster here is quite good at showing the difference

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

In addition the Pentax ambassador or whatever he is Takumichi Seo has talked about how the smc FA31 is like agate and hd FA31 like crystal. He seems enamoured with the smc but translations etc may well misrepresent his views. Personally my experience, without side by side comparisons, is that HD coated lenses are slightly better. More contrasty, less prone to flare and ghosting and have subtly better colours. Look for and compare the bloom in highlights in addition to ghosting in the above video.

[BarryE]

This video by an occasional poster here is quite good at showing the difference
https://youtu.be/aTloDDBHa0g

In addition the Pentax ambassador or whatever he is Takumichi Seo has talked about how the smc FA31 is like agate and hd FA31 like crystal. He seems enamoured with the smc but translations etc may well misrepresent his views. Personally my experience, without side by side comparisons, is that HD coated lenses are slightly better. More contrasty, less prone to flare and ghosting and have subtly better colours. Look for and compare the bloom in highlights in addition to ghosting in the above video.

Thank you. You reminded me of this video, which is helpful, but it's another dramatic lighting situation that clearly shows the difference in contrast. The ghosting in the SMC 31 can be very, obvious. The HD version mitigates this, but does not remove it - guess this is down to the optical formula, rather than just the coatings.

Re: Takumichi Seo he's part of the trend that I respond to in the way Ricoh's marketing is going with these more subdued/reflective videos. I found his 31 version (thank you) @:

You Tube

You Tube

confirming well what I feel about the HD v SMC versions. The SMC coatings are very suitable for overcast woodland (my key landscape subject matter) producing a more dreamy image, but when the sunbreaks though they are challenged, especially with flare/ghosting. I do love these small Limiteds, because, for me, fitting one switches my head into a mindset which is different for each lens and very different from a large zoom. The small size increases my mobility, and I like to think creativity. I suppose, I have to accept that the SMC and HD lenses are actually subtly different, and probably in woodland more different than for other subjects, due to the frequent extremes of lighting encountered there. A place for an SMC and HD version of the 31?

[northcoastgreg]

clearly offer greater flare resistance, but oddly this seems to be a bit sort of, well 'digital' to my eye

Well if by "digital" one means a generally more contrasty, "crispier" image---well, I suppose that could be true. My two FA limiteds are SMC, and while I might have considered upgrading them to HD if I were very wealthy and it really didn't cost me, as circumstances now stand, I'm fine with the SMC. The HD coatings pay bigger dividends in zoom lenses with cheaper glass and a lot more of it. I do have a couple of the HD DA limiteds, and the advantage, to the extent there is one, is not so much in flare control, bu in the contrast and vibrancy of the images produced by these HD coated lenses. In particular, more of the middle part of color spectrum, especially the greens and yellows and oranges, get through the lens to sensor, increasing the richness of those colors.

[JPT]

I attended a short presentation and try-out of the 43mm lens last year. There was a short talk about the product at the start. It was interesting because the presenter (Ricoh Imaging staff) explained that they think the HD coating is the least significant of the three improvements to the 43mm.

He said the order of significance is like this:
1 - Rounded aperture blades for improved bokeh
2 - SP coating for better long-term durability
3 - HD coating for reducing flare

So for 2 and 3, I can see it is mostly subjective. If you like the SMC look, there is no strong reason to upgrade. The SP coating is objectively going to be a plus for this lens.

I have an SMC 77mm Ltd and I don’t see a compelling reason to upgrade, but I just want to make the point that HD is not the most significant upgrade.

[BarryE]

I attended a short presentation and try-out of the 43mm lens last year. There was a short talk about the product at the start. It was interesting because the presenter (Ricoh Imaging staff) explained that they think the HD coating is the least significant of the three improvements to the 43mm.

He said the order of significance is like this:
1 - Rounded aperture blades for improved bokeh
2 - SP coating for better long-term durability
3 - HD coating for reducing flare

So for 2 and 3, I can see it is mostly subjective. If you like the SMC look, there is no strong reason to upgrade. The SP coating is objectively going to be a plus for this lens.

I have an SMC 77mm Ltd and I don’t see a compelling reason to upgrade, but I just want to make the point that HD is not the most significant upgrade.

Interesting. Thanks.

I think I'm correct in thinking the rounded blades change the starbursts, so maybe an advantage/disadvantage.

The SP coating is definite plus.

It's a fine balance between the two types, but with either they're lovely lenses to use.

[Joetitch]

Just to hop on my personal soap box.
Due to human nature we are completely incapable of anything other than a subjective opinion about anything. We cannot be objective about anything. We may strive to be objective but will ultimately fail. This statement too is subjective.🤪

[BarryE]

Just to hop on my personal soap box.
Due to human nature we are completely incapable of anything other than a subjective opinion about anything...

... or where anything actually is, as Heisenberg concluded. Bring on the robots ...

[Joetitch]

... or where anything actually is, as Heisenberg concluded. Bring on the robots ...

How were the robots programmed???🤪

[bdery]

Glad to see my review quoted :P I still stand by what I had written at the time: if you got the SMC (like I do), they're fine and there's little incentive to upgrade. If you don't, the HD are probably the best choice.

Another way to put it: if the SMC's flare is bothering you, the direct solution is to get the HD. If you're happy, there's always a new lens around the corner but your current lens didn't get worse because of a new product on the market.

[BarryE]

Glad to see my review quoted :P I still stand by what I had written at the time: if you got the SMC (like I do), they're fine and there's little incentive to upgrade. If you don't, the HD are probably the best choice.

Another way to put it: if the SMC's flare is bothering you, the direct solution is to get the HD. If you're happy, there's always a new lens around the corner but your current lens didn't get worse because of a new product on the market.

But, of the SMC version: I dislike the ghosting a lot. Don't mind the flaring as sometimes it works nicely to soften things. Ambivalent about the bokeh differences between the two versions. Much prefer the starbursts of SMC. Tend to prefer the softer, less contrasty look. So as in so many things in life I sit in the middle

In my earlier comments I decided not not use the word contrasty, rather I chose "digital" as I wanted to distinguish between the overly, to my taste, high saturated and intense images that are so prevalent these days, instead I tried to describe how flare mediates the transition from a bright highlight to the surrounding midtones in the SMC version, unlike the HD which transitions between the intensity levels much quicker. I then realised how I might be describing/thinking about film's behaviour as it reaches its maximum brightness as opposed to digital sensors, which are binary. Maybe this is why the SMC works, if it wasn't for the very nasty ghosting

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