[dadipentak]

Sure, the consumer lenses can deliver very good results under the right conditions but a premium lens will do better and get you shots they can't.

I started out with the Tamron 18-250mm and the 43mm ltd. It was a great combo on our trip to England: the Tamron is really versatile and produced really nice photos in good light while the 43mm got me indoor shots the Tammy just couldn't handle and showed me what real sharpness was.

Sooner or later, you should get yourself a fast prime but be forewarned: you'll want another and another and...

[Luciferase]

I think many people thought the same before buying their first * or ltd, and many will stand to justify their buy and so would you one day.

IMHO,
If you’re are a photographer, then it’s a placebo effect (you’re busier worrying about your composition than sharpness). Whereas if you’re a shopper/ shopaholic, then it’s a measurebation effect (you’ll be concern about your sharpness than to take pictures). I’m a hybrid.

I reckon the kit lens is the best lens for landscapes, as you wouldn’t go under 5.6 anyway. But for the rest of the game (i.e. indoor, wildlife, portrait) the low the F the better, because you need all the speed you can and + a stop down to escape the wide open softness.

[joelovotti]

I own the DA35 LTD and you absolutely can SEE and FEEL the difference.

What you see is:
Beautiful out of focus areas
Spooky great contrast
Sharpness that can't be beat.

The crazy thing about my DA35 LTD is I shoot a photo, load it into LR2 and apply my standard sharpening and guess what, nothing changes. The lens is so sharp that sometimes I can't notice a change using sharpening settings that make the image from a lessor lens get all full of artifacts.

What you feel is:
Quality I haven't felt since my first Pentax in the late 70s.

The DA35 is so versatile it would be a great choice for your first Limited lens.

You get Marco and a Normal perspective.

Of course you need to think about what you shoot and make the best choice for you but buy a Limited or a * if you have the money and ENJOY.

[SpecialK]

by the way, that M 200/4 cost about $70 and i shoot most of my wildlife subjects with that alone. of course, i run screaming for shelter when it starts to rain.

Camera condoms.

Cheap:

]9001132 Op/Tech 18" SLR Rainsleeve for Digital & Film Cameras with Lenses up to 7" Diameter, 18" Long.

or less cheap:

631223 Tenba RC18, 18" Waterproof Nylon Rain Cover for SLR Cameras with a 300mm Lens.

[Eaglerapids]

It's kinda like the difference between a Pinto and a Porsche, both will get you there but the Porsche is a little faster and built a little better:-).
Then again I wouldn't compare any Pentax lens I've shot to a Pinto but the LTD's and * lenses are so refined, they are just a nice package.
Kinda like the difference between a $80 fly rod and a $600 fly rod, both will cast a fly....................
Or a $40 fly tying vise and a $300 vise...
It's the little things that add up.

[kauaiguy]

Camera condoms.

Cheap:

]9001132 Op/Tech 18" SLR Rainsleeve for Digital & Film Cameras with Lenses up to 7" Diameter, 18" Long.

or less cheap:

631223 Tenba RC18, 18" Waterproof Nylon Rain Cover for SLR Cameras with a 300mm Lens.

yah, i've tried the first one, and it's just too hard to hold the camera and manual focus with a long throw ring - the second looks even more cumbersome unless using a tripod. have you used these? maybe i'm doing something wrong?

thanks for the info - i've not seen that second one before.

[axl]

.... but does that show in photographs taken in normal circumstances? Or only in extreme conditions? When the placebo effect isn't there, have you really felt your pictures have gained from the better lens?.....

yes and yes.
Better lens does show in photographs, and pictures do gain from better lenses. Many pointed out wide f stops as a benefit, but it's not all about that. I don't own any * lenses but I have 31ltd and 40ltd. The contrast, colour rendition, sharpness (not alone but all three combined) can't be matched by anything else in my bag. You'll get other lenses, that are fast, that are sharp or have good colours but the main benefit of ltds (at least those I own) is you'll get it all in one (and beautifuly crafted) package

Not that I've owned any *s or limiteds so take this with a grain of salt. IMHO the kit lens is amazing for what it is at f 5.6-8. A "real life" gain I think would be the extra speed. I just got a Tamron 28-75 which is a step up from the kit. Not a star, I know. The sharpness, contrast, and color rendition improvement is definitely there but the only "real life difference" I see from my 2 week use of it is the extra speed. If you dont find yourself in need of stopping up to bigger apertures. I'd say expand the range that you have to give more possibility (fisheye? macro?)

you couldn't be more wrong. I have DA18-55, have been using it for over year exclusively and another year as main wide angle. Comparing kit to lts is like comparing Audi TT to McLaren. Sure, TT is great and fast etc, but you won't notice the difference in ride until you'll sit in McLaren.
Don't get me wrong, I love kit lens to bits, it gave many great shots, but it just gets hammered by 31&40 ltds, in everything (sharpness, colour pop, contrast bokeh etc, no question...

......Let's put it this way:

I have a FA 35. If I started to use, from this point on, a DA 35 limited (ignoring the macro capability of the limited) would it make a noticeable, practical real world improvement in my images over using the FA 35? In my opinion NO. In other words if I was just looking at files created by one or the other lens, without knowing which lens created which file, my expectation is that I would not me able to tell the difference with any degree of accuracy.

......

not the same comparison as kit vs ltd. FA35 is cosidered one of the best FA primes, with outstanding resolution, bokeh etc...
if you compare very good lens with very very good lens, surely the real life difference won't be big, but if you compare medicore kit zoom to very very good lens, there will be difference.... IMHO

Good lenses certainly make a difference in image quality (your FA50 should tell you that)...and in what you can do with them.

f2.8 - f1.4 means you can seriously blow out backgrounds over f3.5 or higher. Better bokeh.
Better contrast and colours
Can shoot in dimmer situations
Much sharper
Lens effects (i.e. 3D quality from 77ltd)
Infinitely better build quality (incl: weather sealing, all metal build, etc)
...etc.

Here's my biggest thing about quality lenses...if the lens can do what I would do in PProcessing on it's own then it has saved me time. In business this time = money (speed of service to clients, etc.) so to me the quality optics are certainly worth it - within reason.

c[_]

this is well put...
nicely summed up the benefits of better lenses (especialy ltds in this case), especialy the last section

at the end of the day it all depends on what do you need/want. Surely no point of getting ltds if you are mainly zoom shooter. If you crave after ultimate IQ * and ltd lenses are good way to go (I'm not saying the only way, as there are many outstandign older lenses). It's pricy way, and sometimes bumpy (with all the bad copies on DA* etc) but very and I stress VERY rewarding one. I was happy with DA18-55, I loved my Sigma 10-20 and considered Sigma 105 excellent (it still is but...) but none of those lenses gave me images like DA40ltd!!! And since I got FA31ltd, it just reassured me that yes, ltds are different to anything else that is out there....
your choice

BR

[wildman]

It's kinda like the difference between a Pinto and a Porsche, both will get you there but the Porsche is a little faster and built a little better:-).

One was taken with a $4500 Sigma Prime telephoto 500mm
One was taken with a $100 (new price) Celestron scope 500mm

Both taken the same day from the same vantage point at the same bird feeder with the same camera. Full frame.

[wildman]

IMHO,
If you’re are a photographer, then it’s a placebo effect (you’re busier worrying about your composition than sharpness). Whereas if you’re a shopper/ shopaholic, then it’s a measurebation effect (you’ll be concern about your sharpness than to take pictures).

If you are a mediocre photographer taking mediocre pictures with your mediocre $200 FA 50 what difference would it make to you using the $730 DA* 55mm f/1.4 SDM? -

- You would be able to take sharper mediocre pictures.

[zmohie]

Ithink one should buy what he realy need.
consumer lenses are good for my budget but for other may be it is not.
you get what you pay for.

[Luciferase]

If you are a mediocre photographer taking mediocre pictures with your mediocre $200 FA 50 what difference would it make to you using the $730 DA* 55mm f/1.4 SDM? -

- You would be able to take sharper mediocre pictures.

Couldn't agree more.

I'm a mediocre photographer happy with my mediocre FA 50/ 1.4.

One was taken with a $4500 Sigma Prime telephoto 500mm
One was taken with a $100 (new price) Celestron scope 500mm

Both taken the same day from the same vantage point at the same bird feeder with the same camera. Full frame.

Wow, there's a huge difference! One makes the bird look all brown with beautiful colours while the other one's colour rendition's so bad the bird looks grey!






In all seriousness, thanks again to all that contributed! This thread makes me want to upgrade one day, but I admit the lens isn't today my setup's limiting factor. It's ... me.


EDIT: I always have a difficulty telling "grey" and "gray" apart...