New HD DA Limited lenses

Andi Lo · 10-10-2013, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by mrbrightside

Getting a full frame, high quality zoom from Nikon is going to be cheaper than getting 3 Pentax HD primes.
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Autofocus Lens (Black) 2164

I've argued for the other side (FF) but if you're even making this comparison, you dont get the point of the DA lim lenses. Even in APS world you can also get the Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 28-75 and basically cover the whole DA limited range. DA lims is for ease of shooting, portability, size, while having no compromise on image quality, especially as the lot of them renders very beautiful saturated colors with amazing contrast.

If these things doesnt matter for you in day to day shooting, by all means go ahead and use the Nikon. I use 28-75 + D600 for my paid work and won't go back to APS primes for to fulfill that role. However that combo is nowhere as fun or feels like an extension of my hand more than the DA 40 (and my takumars, "poor man's limited"

)

If you're just jabbing at the pricing... I agree with you that the current pricing of HD DA Ltd is rather ridiculous, but it will hopefully go down in time.

I've heard someone saying that it's still cheap though, reasoning that the Ltd series deserve to be compared to the best of Leica lenses.

Last edited by Andi Lo; 10-10-2013 at 12:38 PM.

mrbrightside · 10-10-2013, 01:28 PM

The only lenses I know of that had some comparison to Leica are the FA Limiteds, not the HD or DA.

Originally posted by Quicksand

And it weighs more than all five DA Limiteds put together.

If that's your thing, then by all means, go for it.

I'm only replying to the price comment.

If wasting money is your thing, then by all means, go for it.

Quicksand · 10-10-2013, 02:42 PM

Hey, I'm just pointing out that there just might be some reasons to prefer the Limiteds over a large, heavy zoom. Weight is just the tip of the iceberg. I also like how they render, and how primes make me think about photography.

I guess you're entitled to your opinion that I'm wasting my money. If a big zoom is what you like, then use it! If "lower price, more features, and faster" meet all your needs, then I'll posit that the Limiteds are not for you. And honestly, Pentax might not be for you.

But I have to ask - what are you doing in this thread?

**mattb123** · 10-10-2013, 03:22 PM - **4 Likes**

Isn't wasting money why we got into photography in the first place?

psychdoc · 10-10-2013, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by mattb123

Isn't wasting money why we got into photography in the first place?

No. It's not why we got into photography, its what we wound up doing after we got into it. Especially after frequenting photo forums like these!!

mrbrightside · 10-10-2013, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Quicksand

Hey, I'm just pointing out that there just might be some reasons to prefer the Limiteds over a large, heavy zoom. Weight is just the tip of the iceberg. I also like how they render, and how primes make me think about photography.

I guess you're entitled to your opinion that I'm wasting my money. If a big zoom is what you like, then use it! If "lower price, more features, and faster" meet all your needs, then I'll posit that the Limiteds are not for you. And honestly, Pentax might not be for you.

But I have to ask - what are you doing in this thread?

If wasting money is what you like, go waste it! These Pentax HD Limited are made for you.

I have a Pentax camera and Pentax Limited lenses so I'm in this thread reading about the updates.

What are you doing in this thread?

Cynog Ap Brychan · 10-10-2013, 10:15 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by mrbrightside

If wasting money is what you like, go waste it!

For you, purchasing HD limited primes would clearly be a waste of money, for others it is not. If spending money gives an individual satisfaction - either through what it can do, or perhaps the simple pride of ownership (what economists call "utility"), then it is not a waste. That's why some people buy expensive watches, when a cheap one (or a mobile phone) would tell the time just as well. On top of that, the Limiteds hold their value very well. Waste, for me, is when one buys something one does not need, and regrets buying it. I haven't seen too many posts from people who thought their limited lenses were a waste of money.

One should not apply one's own values to others.

airbass · 10-10-2013, 11:29 PM

Something in the "waste of money":

Review: Zeiss 135mm f2 (Canon EF)

Is the Zeiss is as unique as they think? I think the only good, better image quality I get with my K-5 and FA77. So when you look at the test photos taken with new K-3, which are on the Ricoh's www immediately becomes clear that the Limiteds are great lenses. Thus, with the K-3 and DA70 we get jaw breaker for one tenth of the price Canon 5D and Zeiss 135 combo. The only thing that was unique in this test is a model

This is so my little contribution to the discussion about the FF, the lack of professional lenses etc. This whole lamentations about the FF is only a sign of frustration incompetent "photomasstakers" who think that a greater sensor will cover their lack of talent and skills. In my country we used to say that even the hem of her skirt bothered bad ballerina.

**Rondec** · 10-11-2013, 03:41 AM

Photographers end up paying a premium for small improvements in image quality once you get to a certain level. This is always the conundrum. Assuming that the kit lens is your cheapest option, along with a telephoto zoom, is it really worth it to "upgrade." Well, ask the question on the forum and the answer always comes back yes. How much money to spend on the upgrade depends both on how much money you have and how much you value image quality, build of lens, small size, etc.

If you are looking at 30-ishmm lens, you could choose a DA 35 f2.4 (cheap), a DA 35 limited (less cheap), a HD DA 35 limited (even less cheap), a Sigma 35 f1.4, or a FA 31 limited (quite expensive). Each one of these lenses will have reasons that make it worth owning and the differences in rendering between the cheapest option and the most expensive options will be small, but there will be plenty of people who end up buying a FA 31 (even though it is about a thousand dollars new), because they need or want that difference. That isn't wasting money, it is just a personal choice made by a discerning individual.

Buying glass, even expensive glass, gives more satisfaction than buying camera bodies, because you can shoot with it for years, while camera bodies are updated all of the time. There is where the money is wasted if you ask me...

Clavius · 10-11-2013, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

Buying glass, even expensive glass, gives more satisfaction than buying camera bodies, because you can shoot with it for years, while camera bodies are updated all of the time. There is where the money is wasted if you ask me...

+1

Moreover, buying lenses is much more satisfying because they keep their money much better. The resale value of good glass is very nice. Whilst the value that is sunk into a camera is mostly a 100% loss.

You can never go wrong on a lens purchase, unless the mount becomes discontinued.

mecrox · 10-11-2013, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by airbass

Something in the "waste of money":

Review: Zeiss 135mm f2 (Canon EF)

Is the Zeiss is as unique as they think? I think the only good, better image quality I get with my K-5 and FA77. So when you look at the test photos taken with new K-3, which are on the Ricoh's www immediately becomes clear that the Limiteds are great lenses. Thus, with the K-3 and DA70 we get jaw breaker for one tenth of the price Canon 5D and Zeiss 135 combo. The only thing that was unique in this test is a model

This is so my little contribution to the discussion about the FF, the lack of professional lenses etc. This whole lamentations about the FF is only a sign of frustration incompetent "photomasstakers" who think that a greater sensor will cover their lack of talent and skills. In my country we used to say that even the hem of her skirt bothered bad ballerina.

Where I live the Zeiss is twice the price of the FA 77mm but if/when Ricoh reissue the 77mm with HD coatings et al the gap will close. Of course there are many other and perhaps more important considerations to take into account when selecting these or any other lenses but my point is that once you get to this high level, the Zeiss costs more, yes, but a lot more, stratospherically more - absolutely not, for what one is getting. The Zeiss 135mm is not an APS-C portrait lens really (as the 77mm is used currently although it's an FF lens too of course), it's an FF one and for those who love MF. Either lens is a very fine investment if, after careful consideration, some decides that one or other is the right lens for them. Leica folk would say the same for Leica lenses, I expect. There are no bargains at this level.

konraDarnok · 10-11-2013, 04:27 AM

HD flare control looks good

Caat · 10-11-2013, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by konraDarnok

HD flare control looks good

That's a more visible improvement than I would have expected

**monochrome** · 10-11-2013, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by mattb123

Isn't wasting money why we got into photography in the first place?

I thought that was boats and old cars.

Cynog Ap Brychan · 10-11-2013, 09:29 AM - **2 Likes**

I've spent a lot of money on cameras, lenses, women and drink. The rest I wasted.

10-11-2013, 04:11 AM	#731
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Originally posted by airbass Something in the "waste of money": Review: Zeiss 135mm f2 (Canon EF) Is the Zeiss is as unique as they think? I think the only good, better image quality I get with my K-5 and FA77. So when you look at the test photos taken with new K-3, which are on the Ricoh's www immediately becomes clear that the Limiteds are great lenses. Thus, with the K-3 and DA70 we get jaw breaker for one tenth of the price Canon 5D and Zeiss 135 combo. The only thing that was unique in this test is a model This is so my little contribution to the discussion about the FF, the lack of professional lenses etc. This whole lamentations about the FF is only a sign of frustration incompetent "photomasstakers" who think that a greater sensor will cover their lack of talent and skills. In my country we used to say that even the hem of her skirt bothered bad ballerina. Where I live the Zeiss is twice the price of the FA 77mm but if/when Ricoh reissue the 77mm with HD coatings et al the gap will close. Of course there are many other and perhaps more important considerations to take into account when selecting these or any other lenses but my point is that once you get to this high level, the Zeiss costs more, yes, but a lot more, stratospherically more - absolutely not, for what one is getting. The Zeiss 135mm is not an APS-C portrait lens really (as the 77mm is used currently although it's an FF lens too of course), it's an FF one and for those who love MF. Either lens is a very fine investment if, after careful consideration, some decides that one or other is the right lens for them. Leica folk would say the same for Leica lenses, I expect. There are no bargains at this level. Last edited by mecrox; 10-11-2013 at 04:20 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited (black), Sigma UV HD 58mm	CWyatt	Sold Items	3	05-11-2013 10:57 PM
For Sale - Sold: DA Limited 21mm / DA Limited 35mm Macro / DA Limited 70mm	top-quark	Sold Items	3	04-23-2013 05:01 AM
For Sale - Sold: SMCP Pentax-DA 15mm F/4 ED AL Limited and SMCP Pentax-DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited Lenses	Yosemite	Sold Items	3	04-02-2013 05:29 PM
UV filters for DA limited lenses	top-quark	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	04-25-2012 06:34 AM
For Sale - Sold: [EU] Pentax system, K10d, lenses (DA, DA Limited, DA*, F, M, K, Tak), flash	jensm	Sold Items	24	02-04-2010 04:44 AM

10-10-2013, 12:24 PM	#721
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by mrbrightside Getting a full frame, high quality zoom from Nikon is going to be cheaper than getting 3 Pentax HD primes. Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Autofocus Lens (Black) 2164 I've argued for the other side (FF) but if you're even making this comparison, you dont get the point of the DA lim lenses. Even in APS world you can also get the Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 28-75 and basically cover the whole DA limited range. DA lims is for ease of shooting, portability, size, while having no compromise on image quality, especially as the lot of them renders very beautiful saturated colors with amazing contrast. If these things doesnt matter for you in day to day shooting, by all means go ahead and use the Nikon. I use 28-75 + D600 for my paid work and won't go back to APS primes for to fulfill that role. However that combo is nowhere as fun or feels like an extension of my hand more than the DA 40 (and my takumars, "poor man's limited" ) If you're just jabbing at the pricing... I agree with you that the current pricing of HD DA Ltd is rather ridiculous, but it will hopefully go down in time. I've heard someone saying that it's still cheap though, reasoning that the Ltd series deserve to be compared to the best of Leica lenses. Last edited by Andi Lo; 10-10-2013 at 12:38 PM.

10-10-2013, 01:28 PM	#722
mrbrightside Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Scottsdale Posts: 46	The only lenses I know of that had some comparison to Leica are the FA Limiteds, not the HD or DA. Originally posted by Quicksand And it weighs more than all five DA Limiteds put together. If that's your thing, then by all means, go for it. I'm only replying to the price comment. If wasting money is your thing, then by all means, go for it.

10-10-2013, 02:42 PM	#723
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Hey, I'm just pointing out that there just might be some reasons to prefer the Limiteds over a large, heavy zoom. Weight is just the tip of the iceberg. I also like how they render, and how primes make me think about photography. I guess you're entitled to your opinion that I'm wasting my money. If a big zoom is what you like, then use it! If "lower price, more features, and faster" meet all your needs, then I'll posit that the Limiteds are not for you. And honestly, Pentax might not be for you. But I have to ask - what are you doing in this thread?

10-10-2013, 03:22 PM - 4 Likes	#724
mattb123 Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Colorado High Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,872	Isn't wasting money why we got into photography in the first place?

10-10-2013, 03:32 PM	#725
psychdoc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Bham Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 949	Originally posted by mattb123 Isn't wasting money why we got into photography in the first place? No. It's not why we got into photography, its what we wound up doing after we got into it. Especially after frequenting photo forums like these!!

10-10-2013, 09:59 PM	#726
mrbrightside Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Scottsdale Posts: 46	Originally posted by Quicksand Hey, I'm just pointing out that there just might be some reasons to prefer the Limiteds over a large, heavy zoom. Weight is just the tip of the iceberg. I also like how they render, and how primes make me think about photography. I guess you're entitled to your opinion that I'm wasting my money. If a big zoom is what you like, then use it! If "lower price, more features, and faster" meet all your needs, then I'll posit that the Limiteds are not for you. And honestly, Pentax might not be for you. But I have to ask - what are you doing in this thread? If wasting money is what you like, go waste it! These Pentax HD Limited are made for you. I have a Pentax camera and Pentax Limited lenses so I'm in this thread reading about the updates. What are you doing in this thread?

10-10-2013, 10:15 PM - 2 Likes	#727
Cynog Ap Brychan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Gloucester Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	Originally posted by mrbrightside If wasting money is what you like, go waste it! For you, purchasing HD limited primes would clearly be a waste of money, for others it is not. If spending money gives an individual satisfaction - either through what it can do, or perhaps the simple pride of ownership (what economists call "utility"), then it is not a waste. That's why some people buy expensive watches, when a cheap one (or a mobile phone) would tell the time just as well. On top of that, the Limiteds hold their value very well. Waste, for me, is when one buys something one does not need, and regrets buying it. I haven't seen too many posts from people who thought their limited lenses were a waste of money. One should not apply one's own values to others.

10-10-2013, 11:29 PM	#728
airbass New Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 16	Something in the "waste of money": Review: Zeiss 135mm f2 (Canon EF) Is the Zeiss is as unique as they think? I think the only good, better image quality I get with my K-5 and FA77. So when you look at the test photos taken with new K-3, which are on the Ricoh's www immediately becomes clear that the Limiteds are great lenses. Thus, with the K-3 and DA70 we get jaw breaker for one tenth of the price Canon 5D and Zeiss 135 combo. The only thing that was unique in this test is a model This is so my little contribution to the discussion about the FF, the lack of professional lenses etc. This whole lamentations about the FF is only a sign of frustration incompetent "photomasstakers" who think that a greater sensor will cover their lack of talent and skills. In my country we used to say that even the hem of her skirt bothered bad ballerina.

10-11-2013, 03:41 AM	#729
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Photographers end up paying a premium for small improvements in image quality once you get to a certain level. This is always the conundrum. Assuming that the kit lens is your cheapest option, along with a telephoto zoom, is it really worth it to "upgrade." Well, ask the question on the forum and the answer always comes back yes. How much money to spend on the upgrade depends both on how much money you have and how much you value image quality, build of lens, small size, etc. If you are looking at 30-ishmm lens, you could choose a DA 35 f2.4 (cheap), a DA 35 limited (less cheap), a HD DA 35 limited (even less cheap), a Sigma 35 f1.4, or a FA 31 limited (quite expensive). Each one of these lenses will have reasons that make it worth owning and the differences in rendering between the cheapest option and the most expensive options will be small, but there will be plenty of people who end up buying a FA 31 (even though it is about a thousand dollars new), because they need or want that difference. That isn't wasting money, it is just a personal choice made by a discerning individual. Buying glass, even expensive glass, gives more satisfaction than buying camera bodies, because you can shoot with it for years, while camera bodies are updated all of the time. There is where the money is wasted if you ask me...

10-11-2013, 03:54 AM	#730
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by Rondec Buying glass, even expensive glass, gives more satisfaction than buying camera bodies, because you can shoot with it for years, while camera bodies are updated all of the time. There is where the money is wasted if you ask me... +1 Moreover, buying lenses is much more satisfying because they keep their money much better. The resale value of good glass is very nice. Whilst the value that is sunk into a camera is mostly a 100% loss. You can never go wrong on a lens purchase, unless the mount becomes discontinued.

10-11-2013, 04:27 AM	#732
konraDarnok Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Photos: Albums Posts: 969	HD flare control looks good

10-11-2013, 09:22 AM	#733
Caat Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 927	Originally posted by konraDarnok HD flare control looks good That's a more visible improvement than I would have expected

10-11-2013, 09:26 AM	#734
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by mattb123 Isn't wasting money why we got into photography in the first place? I thought that was boats and old cars.

10-11-2013, 09:29 AM - 2 Likes	#735
Cynog Ap Brychan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Gloucester Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,199	I've spent a lot of money on cameras, lenses, women and drink. The rest I wasted.