[Jasvox]

To the OP, may I suggest you check out the Pentax lens reviews section on this forum as well as the lens section search function. You may find yourself with more than enough information, more than you have imagined yet. Also, why not check out the PPG and look at the myriad of examples from each lens in the Pentax lineup?

Jason

[braver]

Sure, but specific comparisons help for the specific question. I'm still curious about 43mm vs 40mm.

[jsherman999]

Sure, but specific comparisons help for the specific question. I'm still curious about 43mm vs 40mm.

There are probably 100 threads in this forum alone addressing that specific comparison, which was why the 'use search' suggestion was made

Basically:

43ltd: Faster, more DOF control, sharper center up to about f/4 where they even out, very sharp center even wide-open, more '3-d' due to edge-center disparity and other factors.

40ltd: Cheaper, smaller, faster to lock AF, better edge->edge sharpness, less CA, a tiny bit more contrasty perhaps.


.

[braver]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the summary @jsherman999! Now it makes sense to search.

[Marc Sabatella]

That was my main reason for getting the the 28mm. When using the DA 40 for dinner table portraits I had to leave my chair and move 1-2 meters away from table. With the 28mm I can just sit there and fire away.

I agree; a 28 and 40 make for a great combo. Of course, it's not just dinenr table portraits. I think of the difference as 28 = "scene with people in it", 40 = "people with a little context". Part of me wonders if I'd like 24mm more than 28mm, although I confess I do like the fact that my whole kit shares the same 49mm filter size. Not that I use filters often - but interchangeable *caps* are nice. My 40 mostly goes capless, BTW - hood only seems ike all the protection it needs in my bag.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

The 40 is exceptionally small, for sure. It has a built-in hood, so a rubber one is unnecessary. It's not pocketable, no. As to why they're asking "so much" for it... build quality, the R&D needed to get a lens that small... who knows? The only question that matters is if it's worth it to you.

Personally, as someone who owns all five DA Limiteds, I'd suggest the DA 35 as the one to start with. Ideal walkaround FOV for me, incredible versatility, and unrivaled IQ.

Well, considering they did that R&D some time in the early 80's for the original 40mm pancake and then just added screw drive autofocus, I would think that it should not add that much to the current price...

[rparmar]

I wonder, how does the FA 43/1.9 compare to the DA 40/2.8 Ltd.?

The 43 is insanely good. The 40 is insanely small. I've seen great images from both. But the FA43 is magic. Read thousands of posts for more debate.

As to the original question, any of the three DA lenses would be a great addition to a kit. I would favour the DA35 which is insanely sharp and more versatile than any other prime. That said, I sold mine since I prefer faster lenses (none of the DA qualify) and 35mm on APS-C yields a FOV I am not comfortable with. I was never thrilled with 50mm on film either.

Still, if I had money I would buy one again and keep it crazy-glued to a second body as a perfect all-rounder.

[tokyoso]

If I absolutely have to have an FA limited and save up majorly for it, it would probably be the FA 77, judging from what I read.

[Rondec]

If I were to buy the DA limiteds in any particular order, I would start with DA 40 (smallest, most useful as a walk around, fastest focusing lens I own), followed by the DA 70 (beautiful portrait lens, also tiny) and finish with the DA 35. I own all three of these, but I bought the 35 first followed by the 40 and the 70. Since getting the 40, I seldom use the 35 except for macro type shots. The 35 is a beautiful lens, it just isn't as useful to me as a walk around due to a little slower focusing.

As mentioned above, if you are willing to spend a little more, any of the FA limiteds could be substituted. They are a little faster, a little bigger and a little slower with regard to auto focus speed (also they are a little more expensive). If you want examples of photos, look in the pentax photo gallery. There are a bunch there and I imagine it will be just as hard to choose after looking there.

For me, with the ability to shoot up to iso 1600, f2.8 is plenty fast on a lens, but I know some people like faster lenses for decreased depth of field and faster shutter speeds...

[GeneV]

If I were to buy the DA limiteds in any particular order, I would start with DA 40 (smallest, most useful as a walk around, fastest focusing lens I own), followed by the DA 70 (beautiful portrait lens, also tiny)..

I just received my DA 70 today, and put it through its paces. Nicely sharp, but not a huge amount of difference between wide open and the middle apertures. However, is that hood really necessary? Without it, the lens is almost as tiny as the DA40, but with the hood, it does not look much smaller than the FA77.

[Marc Sabatella]

Well, considering they did that R&D some time in the early 80's for the original 40mm pancake and then just added screw drive autofocus, I would think that it should not add that much to the current price...

While it is commonly assumed these lenses are optically identical, there is pretty decent evidence (interviews with Pentax folks, test results, etc) that this is not in fact the case.

[Marc Sabatella]

I just received my DA 70 today, and put it through its paces. Nicely sharp, but not a huge amount of difference between wide open and the middle apertures. However, is that hood really necessary? Without it, the lens is almost as tiny as the DA40, but with the hood, it does not look much smaller than the FA77.

As with any hood, there are situations where it doesn't matter at all, others where it makes all the difference in the world. If it's any consolation, even with the hood it's still a lot *lighter* than 77. Also, I like the fact that the hood is removable, as it allows me to use it (in collapsed position) on my M28/2.8 where it works great, as well as on my M100/2.8 in extended position where it's presumably better than nothing.

[SOldBear]

I just received my DA 70 today, ...is that hood really necessary? Without it, the lens is almost as tiny as the DA40, but with the hood, it does not look much smaller than the FA77.

Go back to page 1 of this thread and take a look at the photos in my post. See the hood attached to the DA 21? It's is very similar to the hood of the DA 40 but consists of two step-down adapter rings: a 49-37mm followed by a 37-30.5mm. I use the same setup for the DA 70. You can "kind of" see it in the last photo.

If you use this setup with the DA 21, be careful though. The 49-37mm ring has to be very thin, or you'll have vignetting.

[Blue]

While it is commonly assumed these lenses are optically identical, there is pretty decent evidence (interviews with Pentax folks, test results, etc) that this is not in fact the case.

While the M was used as a starting point for the Da design there are clear differences in the optics. The DA ltd also has the mystical Pentax "Ghostless" Coating.

M 40mm


DA 40mm





The Da has a minimum focusing distance of .4 and .13x mag compared to .6 and .08 for the M. Also the M sold new for ~ $75 in the 80s.

M 40/2.8

[Rondec]

I just received my DA 70 today, and put it through its paces. Nicely sharp, but not a huge amount of difference between wide open and the middle apertures. However, is that hood really necessary? Without it, the lens is almost as tiny as the DA40, but with the hood, it does not look much smaller than the FA77.

As Marc says, there are times when a hood is important and there are times when it isn't. I don't find the 70 terribly prone to flare, but if you shoot right into the sun it will do so. I have mine screwed on all of the time and then use a 43mm plastic squeeze cap on the end of it. I am just paranoid about losing the metal lens caps that come with the limiteds...