[Uluru]

You got it completely wrong, would you re read your post on which I commented before writing nonsense ?
You argued that FA Limited are not tiny. They ARE for what they are. Compare with size/weight from the other brands.
That was my point. FA Limited ARE compact.

God bless you child; only FA43 might be considered compact. FA31 and FA77 are pure extravaganza, made to knock people's socks and shoulders off, not to be portable.

[Fogel70]

You got it completely wrong, would you re read your post on which I commented before writing nonsense ?
You argued that FA Limited are not tiny. They ARE for what they are. Compare with size/weight from the other brands.
That was my point. FA Limited ARE compact.

If comparing with closest equivalent lens of competition, it's not a major difference in size between Pentax FA31, FA43 and FA77 compared to Nikon 35/2, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. Pentax FA Ltd has some unique qualities, but size is probably one of the least unique features, at least if compared to Nikon screw drive lenses.

Pentax FA 31/1.8 - 69 x 65 mm, 345 g
Nikon AF 35/2 - 65 x 45 mm, 205 g

Pentax FA 43/1.9 - 64 x 27 mm, 155 g
Nikon AF 50/1.8 - 63 x 38 mm, 155 g

Pentax FA 77/1.8 - 64 x 48 mm, 270 g
Nikon AF 85/1.8 - 72 x 59 mm, 380 g

Pentax FA 31 vs Nikon 35: Pentax has size disadvantage as using shorter focal length.
Pentax FA 77 vs Nikon 85: Pentax has size advantage as using shorter focal length.

The latest version of Nikon lenses with built in AF motors make lenses increase in size (but they still have the old version with screw drive is still available). Users that got FA Ltd on Pentax, might go nfor lenses with AF motor or f/1.4 lenses if jumping to Nikon, so in that case the lenses get much larger.

[thibs]

If comparing with closest equivalent lens of competition, it's not a major difference in size between Pentax FA31, FA43 and FA77 compared to Nikon 35/2, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. Pentax FA Ltd has some unique qualities, but size is probably one of the least unique features, at least if compared to Nikon screw drive lenses.

Pentax FA 31/1.8 - 69 x 65 mm, 345 g
Nikon AF 35/2 - 65 x 45 mm, 205 g

Pentax FA 43/1.9 - 64 x 27 mm, 155 g
Nikon AF 50/1.8 - 63 x 38 mm, 155 g

Pentax FA 77/1.8 - 64 x 48 mm, 270 g
Nikon AF 85/1.8 - 72 x 59 mm, 380 g

Pentax FA 31 vs Nikon 35: Pentax has size disadvantage as using shorter focal length.
Pentax FA 77 vs Nikon 85: Pentax has size advantage as using shorter focal length.

The latest version of Nikon lenses with built in AF motors make lenses increase in size (but they still have the old version with screw drive is still available). Users that got FA Ltd on Pentax, might go nfor lenses with AF motor or f/1.4 lenses if jumping to Nikon, so in that case the lenses get much larger.

Compared what can be compared, the limited are not simple lens, but premium lens, all metal. If you chose Nikon 35/2, compare it with FA35/2 for sanity's sake.
And remember the FA Limited (DA Limited less unfortunately) aren't quite built like a Nikon 35/2.
Same with the 50mm vs 43mm apple vs orange comparison.

In fact a direct comparison isn't relevant since there's nothing in other brands following similar guidelines.

What I said: for what they are, they're quite compact. I didn't say they were pancake either.

[Fogel70]

Compared what can be compared, the limited are not simple lens, but premium lens, all metal. If you chose Nikon 35/2, compare it with FA35/2 for sanity's sake.

You asked for a comparison of FA Ltd, why should I then use FA 35/2?

And remember the FA Limited (DA Limited less unfortunately) aren't quite built like a Nikon 35/2.
Same with the 50mm vs 43mm apple vs orange comparison.

Yes, just as I said, FA Ltd has some unique qualities compared to other similar specified lenses.

In fact a direct comparison isn't relevant since there's nothing in other brands following similar guidelines.

What I said: for what they are, they're quite compact. I didn't say they were pancake either.

So you asked for a comparison just because there are no lenses to compare them with?

[Aristophanes]

My points were:

- you cannot get faster DA Ltd's without giving up compactness

- the DA Ltd's are either pancake designs (35 Macro the exception) that are unique to Pentax (40 has been cloned by Canikon)

- the FA Ltd's are not small (43 is closest but heavy) compared to the DA Ltd's

- as a set no other brand in DSLR has product line like the DA Ltd's

- to make "faster" glass would wreck the design and market imperative...they are low weight, pancake primes

[Uluru]

that are unique to Pentax (40 has been cloned by Canikon)

These 40mm or so lenses are interesting.
Pentax SMC M 40mm/2.8 was introduced in 1976, and a very similar Nikkor 45mm / 2.8 P a year later. Nikon discntinued its 45mm / 2.8 in 2006 never to reintroduce it or modernise, yet Pentax introduced all new DA40/2.8 in 2006.
Go figure ...

Leica's 40mm Summicron f2 was on the market since 1973, and surprisingly, it is not one of the popular lenses for the M mount, despite that it weighs just 125 g (compared to Summicron 35 / f2, that is 100 g heavier). One reason for that may be that not all M cameras had 40mm frame lines. However, it shouldn't be too difficult to frame 40mm using standard 50mm frame lines and 35mm frame lines. Production ended in 1977, when Nikon started its 45mm/2.8, and today 40mm Summicron is one of the cheapest lenses for the M mount camera one can buy.

It is pity Pentax has never addressed the huge gap between the 30mm–50mm equivalents for the APS-C. There is no 23mm lens for the APS-C (35mm FF), no 26.5mm (40mm) nor 28.5mm (43mm FF) — or, everything Pentax did have for the FF. And that is really frustrating. Previous cameras never had enough pixels for the good crop, forcing users to go either too wide, or too narrow, thus destroying the framing and visualisation experience.


Leica Summicron 40mm f2


Nikkor 45mm f/2.8 P

[Aristophanes]

I also own the Minolta 45/2 pancake.

[D1N0]

There is also a auto-revuenon for k-mount:

[lytrytyr]

Leica's 40mm Summicron f2 was on the market since 1973, and surprisingly, it is not one of the popular lenses for the M mount

"The lenses specially designed for the Leica CL can physically mount on a Leica M body, but Leica recommended not doing so because it would not give the best focusing precision"

from
Leica CL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, comparisons with short-register rangefinder lenses,
or mirrorless lenses like the Samsung "Carry" lenses,
don't seem that relevant to a discussion of DSLR lenses.

[Wired]

The FA Limited are not tiny. They are smallish, but the 31 is quite large and the FA 77 is considerably larger than the true pancake DA 70, especially in weight:

FA77

64 x 48 mm (2.5 x 1.9 in.) 270 g (9.5 oz)

DA 70

63 x 26 mm (2.5 x 1 in.) 130 g (4.6 oz)

To get pancake small you give up some aperture. In the days of exceptional high ISO performance, that wide an iris is not really necessary. Super-shallow DOF is not used in most shooting situations (and starting to become a boring aesthetic in itself).

who said pancake? I said Limited. the FA's are still tiny lenses compared to others in the same FL/fstop....and are not much bigger than the DA's.

[Aristophanes]

who said pancake? I said Limited. the FA's are still tiny lenses compared to others in the same FL/fstop....and are not much bigger than the DA's.

Huh?

As Fogel points out they are about average with the FA 43 being = to the Nikon. The 77 a tad smaller than the 85, and the 31 larger than anything its equivalent.

Ergo they have no distinction in the market when it comes to form factor. They are about what one might expect from a premium, fast glass from the late film era.

The DA Ltd's are, OTOH, quite different.

Save the 40mm which has traditionally been a pancake (in the 45mm FL as well) the 15, 21, and 70 are all designs unique to Pentax. They create a small system no other brand in DSLR's has. I pull my 15, 21, 40 or 70 out and people think I am shooting a mirrorless or bridge camera, especially on the diminutive K-x. You won't get that with the 31 or 77.

With the FA Ltd's we start talking about 'pixie dust' and other subjective criteria. With the DA Ltd's we measure and weigh objectively. No, they aren't fast as in sub-f/2 apertures, which was what was complained about. You cannot have a wide aperture and a line of 22-105mm pancake primes (135 eq.). ISOless sensors up to 3200 have made a lot of the need for bigger, faster glass moot, especially if you want a small form factor. The FA Ltd's don't even fit into that class, where the DA Ltd's actually can go H2H with some m43 or Fuji X glass.

[D1N0]

Better compare the 31mm F1.8 to the Nikkor 28mm F2 It's closer to 31mm than 35 a bit slower a bit heavier but no af.

[Pål Jensen]

I'm a bit disappointed by the 'downgrading' of the zoom to a straight DA lens. I was hoping to be able to replace my 16-50 with it. Nice to see the limited zoom is still there - I assume this will be HD.

If the Limited zoom is HD why not the 16~85? Both are green on the roadmap. The Limited zoom will be a HD lens like newly updated Limiteds; thats pretty obvious. Note that the DA 560 is not a "*" lens maybe because the "*" designation is about to be faded out. Hence, the 16-85 could be a HD lens and not "downgraded" at all.

[filoxophy]

If the Limited zoom is HD why not the 16~85? Both are green on the roadmap. The Limited zoom will be a HD lens like newly updated Limiteds; thats pretty obvious. Note that the DA 560 is not a "*" lens maybe because the "*" designation is about to be faded out. Hence, the 16-85 could be a HD lens and not "downgraded" at all.

Interesting supposition. The * designation has been around since the M series, AFAIK, but as long as we are ditching old acronyms, why not?

The counterargument, of course, is that in the digital era * has meant fast premium weather-sealed optics, including zooms. So far HD has only applied to a specific coating, and on primes only.

[twitch]

So far HD has only applied to a specific coating, and on primes only.

Pentax hasn't released a new K-mount zoom since 2010 when the 18-135 was released, so I don't think we can say "HD" is necessarily a prime only thing.