[Aperturae]

All with the FA77

[brecklundin]

some quick shots with 77mm yesterday

great lens but ...
I'm still trying to accept this (77mm x1.5) focal length, I prefer wider.
I'm thinking to sell this 77mm and then buy 31mm

Heretic!! Let us BURN HIM!!! Who has the matches??!!

BTW, Love the first & last shots...the others arr nice as well.

[julia]

^

just simple sunset




street performer

[Urkeldaedalus]

Local governance is often exciting.

FA77

[rparmar]

Local governance is often exciting.

andsomemorecharacters

[Andi Lo]

All these recent shots makes me question my sanity for wanting to defect to canon for the 17mm TS. Maybe I should keep the K100d even after defecting and keep the limiteds in mind

[roverlr3]

Here's a few from possibly my favorite FA Limited. The 43.
"3 Hopi Pots" 1/25, f-5.6,ISO 320.
"Frosty Rose" 1/250, f-13, ISO 640,
"Kerosene Can" 1/160, f-11, ISO 640.
All shot on my K20

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

     

[rparmar]

shadows of a band



FA77. More traditional band shots through the link.

[paulelescoces]

Hi All,

Very interested in joining your club

Will be travelling to New York early January and still cannot decide what I want to come home with... hoping for some input which will hopefully help me to decide.

See the following Possibilities...
DA*16-50
FA31
FA43
FA77

I already have the DA*50-135, 18-55 AL2, K50 1.4

Love the 50-135 but I hear that the 16-50 is not quite of the same level, I have not had any technical issues (SDM etc..) with the 50-135 but unsure to take a risk with the 16-50...
Would like a lowlight monster.. with AF to replace the K50
... the 31 and 77 could be a good but is $$$, expecially the 31 (could fo 43 & 77 for less $$).
What do you typically use for the wider end (DA21/15?)... if I went FA Ltd I would likely still use the kit zoom to cover down to 18mm.?

[Boris]

@ Paulelescoces

You're asking a series of questions at once. Personally I shyed away from DA* zooms, mainly because they don't cover F(ool) F(rame)... Yes, I am a fool. If you want to start with FA limiteds, I humbly suggest that you start with FA 43. It is very limited lens in a sense that it has all the limited attributes. It seems to be cheapest of the bunch and it would fit nicely with the fact that you already have (and hopefully use) K 50/1.4. If you get bitten by the limited bug, then you can decide which to buy next - 31 or 77.

I never owned any of 18-55 kit lens varieties, so I couldn't possibly tell. But I usually tend to shoot with just one lens and one focal length which is not necessarily your style. Yet, I am going to hazard a guess that once you see and/or print your shots from FA 43 reasonably big, you might not look back at your kit lens.

If you have the money and want to go slightly wider then FA 31 is a good option.

Until recently my wide lens was DA 21 which is truly excellent (almost exactly the same physical dimensions as FA 43, by the way). But I shelled out for FA 20/2.8 and it does not seem to be any worse. Since I tend to shoot with the wide lenses at distances closer than infinity (read - not landscape), that bit of an extra speed combined with surprising sharpness wide open makes FA 20/2.8 very competitive compared to DA 21. DA 21 however is more available and usually cheaper.

If you're not bitten with the FF bug, then DA 21 is a safe way to go which probably won't disappoint you.

I don't have DA 15 and never held one so that I cannot comment on it from the first-hand experience.

[NaClH2O]

Hi Paul

I think you are asking two questions? First of all, which FA you start with I think depends on how and what you shoot. If you like head and head + torso portraits, and short tele shots, go with the 77. Full body portraits standard shots, go with the 43. Wide(ish) angle shots, go with the 31. One consideration you mentioned is that the 31 is quite expensive. Many ppl say forget the 31 and go with the FA 35mm f/2.0. I own the 35mm and it's a nice lens but no where near the FA 31 in overall IQ. Obviously that is my opinion, but if I hit the lotto tomorrow, my first purchase would be a FA 31 Ltd (I already have the 43 and the 77). All that said my personal advice would be get the 43 first, it's kinda middle of the road in terms of focal length, and has all the "magic" of the other FA Ltds.
As far as wide is concerned, I'd suggest the DA 12-24mm f/4.0. Very good lens. Not cheap, but quite sharp, excellent color rendition, excellent contrast, and minimal distortion, even at 12mm.

NaCl(hope that helps)H2O

[rparmar]

See the following Possibilities...
DA*16-50
FA31
FA43
FA77

Well, the zoom won't help you join our club, so forget that one.

I bought the FA43 first and for a while it was my only "fast 50". IMO it has absolutely the best rendering of the FA crew but is not as useful as a focal length -- I often bump up against the minimum focus distance.

The FA77 is the most useful lens since the longer focal length means you can get more magnification even if you can't physically get closer.

This will annoy some but I have never seen the "magic" in shots from the FA31 and never bothered buying it. If it was 28mm, rather than the 32mm it actually is, I would be tempted. The area around 35mm on APS-C I find quite uninteresting as it's neither one thing nor another. The bokeh is lovely though -- no denying that!

All the FA lenses are solid professional tools -- pure joy to work with.

[Urkeldaedalus]

Love the 50-135 but I hear that the 16-50 is not quite of the same level, I have not had any technical issues (SDM etc..) with the 50-135 but unsure to take a risk with the 16-50...
Would like a lowlight monster.. with AF to replace the K50
... the 31 and 77 could be a good but is $$$, expecially the 31 (could fo 43 & 77 for less $$).
What do you typically use for the wider end (DA21/15?)... if I went FA Ltd I would likely still use the kit zoom to cover down to 18mm.?

I quoted this part because I think you hit on the Pentax wide angle lens conundrum in this paragraph. Currently with the Pentax lineup you kind of have to choose between a lens that is a "low light monster" and a good true wide angle. Absent some options from Sigma, I don't believe there are any options for Pentax at this time that are both wider than 30 mm and faster than f/2.8.

On a side note: Has anybody tried the Sigma 20 f/1.8? This lens has always intrigued me.

I bring this up because I think the DA*16-50 is actually a very good lens, but it really shines when you use it stopped down to f/4 or higher. The FA31 on the other hand is great at f/1.8, but it would really be nice for my shooting preferences if it were a little wider. In fact, when I say it would be really nice, I mean it would be about perfect.

The good news is that as a compliment to the DA*50-135, I think either lens would work well. It really just depends on what photos you're looking to take with the wide option.

In answer to your last question, when I owned the DA16-45 and the FA31 at the same time, I still found the DA16-45 useful in some situations, so yes I still think you would use your kit zoom. If you're looking for a way to replace your kit zoom entirely I'd suggest the DA*16-50 or either the DA21 or 15. Note: for the price of the FA31 you could instead buy both a DA15 or DA21 as well as a FA43. Something to consider.

[nulla]

Hi All,

Very interested in joining your club

Will be travelling to New York early January and still cannot decide what I want to come home with... hoping for some input which will hopefully help me to decide.

See the following Possibilities...
DA*16-50
FA31
FA43
FA77

I already have the DA*50-135, 18-55 AL2, K50 1.4

Love the 50-135 but I hear that the 16-50 is not quite of the same level, I have not had any technical issues (SDM etc..) with the 50-135 but unsure to take a risk with the 16-50...
Would like a lowlight monster.. with AF to replace the K50
... the 31 and 77 could be a good but is $$$, expecially the 31 (could fo 43 & 77 for less $$).
What do you typically use for the wider end (DA21/15?)... if I went FA Ltd I would likely still use the kit zoom to cover down to 18mm.?

I have the DA* 16-50 along with the 3 FA limiteds. It is a great lens and I use it more often than the DA* 50-135.

Neil

[arpaagent]

I have the DA* 16-50 along with the 3 FA limiteds. It is a great lens and I use it more often than the DA* 50-135.

Neil

Agreed, DA* 16-50 is really a sweet lens, I think it's almost as good as 50-135. The only thing that I knock the 16-50 for is some noticeable purple fringing on high contrast borders. It's hard not to use it because it performs just as well as pretty much all of my primes at apertures above 2.8 (not shabby at 2.8 either, but a fast lens stopped down one or two to 2.8 will beat it). FA20/2.8, F28/2.8, etc don't seem to be much (if any) better IQ wise, but are a lot smaller. The 16-50 is a very versatile lens and with decent High ISO these days, can definitely be used indoors during the day and even at night if there is enough artificial illumination. Can't do that with the kit lens, at least not at 55mm F5.6.

Of course, back to the Limiteds, I have the 43 and love it. As long as I don't need to go wide, I'd rather have the 43 on my camera than the DA* (unless I need weather sealing). I'm sure that the same would apply with either of the FA Limiteds as long as I don't need the versatility of a zoom. I don't know how I feel about the DA Limiteds vs the DA* 16-50, because they are not really faster than the DA*, so the advantages you get are pretty much just size and build quality.