[clackers]

Only have 2 at the moment. FA31 and just received my new FA77.

What fine lenses ... you may not need any others!

[Kerrowdown]

Are here also any frequent vintage glass users?

That'll be me then... just myself and the "Harem" listed in the signature below.

[BruceBanner]

Let me chime in:

Walkaround:

DFA 28-105 : my main zoom, WR, seems reliable so far (replaces my beloved but APS-C 16-85)

FA 43mm Limited : wonderfully versatile, compact, superb IQ. My most used prime

Wide:

FA 20-35mm F4 : beautiful starbursts, convenient short zoom, small package, somewhat soft corners, not as punchy as the DA21 it replaced but more versatile

Tele primes:

FA 77mm Limited : my favourite lens, I create reasons to use it. If only it was WR.

DFA 100mm macro WR : my macro lens. Doesn't see a lot of use, but super lens in its own right. Close to the 77, but focuses much more slowly.

Tele Zooms:

DA* 60-250mm F4, modified for full frame: an amazing zoom, well-regarded but even better than its reputation. My favourite zoom, mostly lives on my camera in summer

Vivitar 120-600mm F5.6-F8 : a ludicrous range on this old manual lens. Mine has problems focusing at infinity, the throw isn't lone enough. It could cost me 150$ CAD to get it adjusted, not sure I want to spend that kind of money on this lens. It's sad because it can perform pretty well

Odds and ends: FA50, will be sold soon, M50, not worth selling so I'll keep it as a manual teaching tool for my kids when they grow older, Takumar bayonet 70-210 zoom: never used, gathers dust

Some interesting choices there. I don't really do zooms but if I would I would be after the 28-105, just for the WR reasons and IQ alone. And I too am starting to feel like the FA43 is a wonderfully versatile lens. Have you ever owned the FA31?

Since my earlier post I have had a bit of an epiphany. A couple of huge zooms (15-30 and *70-200) will go in preference to significantly smaller but still superb crop cousins (*11-18, *50-135).

The DFA150-450 will stay (despite its size) because it's awesome. I'll probably use it on crop more than FF though.

The DFA24-70 is (IHMO) a significantly better lens than the DA*16-50 so it too is safe for now. Anyway, the size difference is not that great.

The DFA28-105 is definitely a keeper for outdoor use.

My FF primes (20/2.8, 24/2.0, 31/1.8, 35/1.4, 43/1.9, 50/1.2, 50/1.4, 64/2.9, 77/1.8, 85/1.4, 100/2.8 macro, 135/2.8) are not negotiable. I would struggle to find equivalents for a crop system.

What's the 64/2.9 Sandy?

[Sandy Hancock]

What's the 64/2.9 Sandy?

This bad boy.

[BruceBanner]

This bad boy.

Had a look at a few shots of it on your flickr, kinda looks like it renders a little like my Velvet 56

[Ben-G]

I've only two: 77&31 lmtd

(...and i'm in doubt between an old fa 50/1.4 and a 43 lmtd)

[BruceBanner]

I've only two: 77&31 lmtd

(...and i'm in doubt between an old fa 50/1.4 and a 43 lmtd)

As someone who has owned the FA50 and now has a 43 I would suggest the 43. The 50 is nice, but really very soft till around f2, so the 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8 apertures are really not that great compared to say using the FA43@1.9.

Consider the following shot (taken with the FA43 wide open at 1.9);



Things worth mentioning about this shot. It's sharp enough at 1.9 to pass off as being acceptable. Because it is being shot wide open the bokeh is round and not hexagonal like you would get if you shot the 50 at f2 (which you might need to stop down to to get acceptable sharpness on par).
What the FA50 cannot achieve is the kind of bokeh quality of rendering that the FA43 achieves, if you look at those wine glasses they are resolving just gloriously and really add to the shot.
The additional 7mm of frame is welcome over the 50mm (imo), you can get more context for solo portraits and/or is much better suited to doing shots of couples than I ever could achieve with 50mm.

IMO 50mm is overrated, I think of the 77 as being perfect for solo shots, 43 for solo shots+context or couples shots and the 31 for an extension of solo + context or larger groups (but that is subjective as I do not own a 31 yet).
The 43 is also metal, significantly smaller than the FA50 (especially when you compare them both with necessary hoods).

My only question is whether you really feel you need the FA43 if you already have the 31. It's arguable that you can pull off similar shots with the 31 to the 43. If you only have the 77 and 31 maybe you should seek a FA135 which is apparently excellent for those times 77 is struggling for reach?

[bdery]

Some interesting choices there. I don't really do zooms but if I would I would be after the 28-105, just for the WR reasons and IQ alone. And I too am starting to feel like the FA43 is a wonderfully versatile lens. Have you ever owned the FA31?

I wrote the Pentaxforums review of the 31, as well as this commentary:

Comparing the 3 Pentax FA Limited Primes - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com

It pretty much sums up my opinion. The 31 is a superb lens that's not for me.

The FA 20-35 is a very fine lens, but so far I haven't been able to use it to best of its capabilities, and thus I haven't warmed up to it the same way I did with the DA21 it replaced. Hopefully it will come

Had a look at a few shots of it on your flickr, kinda looks like it renders a little like my Velvet 56

I also wrote the Daguerreotype review, it's a unique and interesting lens for sure!

[Ben-G]

As someone who has owned the FA50 and now has a 43 I would suggest the 43. The 50 is nice, but really very soft till around f2, so the 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8 apertures are really not that great compared to say using the FA43@1.9.

Consider the following shot (taken with the FA43 wide open at 1.9);



Things worth mentioning about this shot. It's sharp enough at 1.9 to pass off as being acceptable. Because it is being shot wide open the bokeh is round and not hexagonal like you would get if you shot the 50 at f2 (which you might need to stop down to to get acceptable sharpness on par).
What the FA50 cannot achieve is the kind of bokeh quality of rendering that the FA43 achieves, if you look at those wine glasses they are resolving just gloriously and really add to the shot.
The additional 7mm of frame is welcome over the 50mm (imo), you can get more context for solo portraits and/or is much better suited to doing shots of couples than I ever could achieve with 50mm.

IMO 50mm is overrated, I think of the 77 as being perfect for solo shots, 43 for solo shots+context or couples shots and the 31 for an extension of solo + context or larger groups (but that is subjective as I do not own a 31 yet).
The 43 is also metal, significantly smaller than the FA50 (especially when you compare them both with necessary hoods).

My only question is whether you really feel you need the FA43 if you already have the 31. It's arguable that you can pull off similar shots with the 31 to the 43. If you only have the 77 and 31 maybe you should seek a FA135 which is apparently excellent for those times 77 is struggling for reach?

Thanks very much for your precious comment/suggest!
Effectively the smc fa43mm, as focal lenght is "a bit near" to the smc fa 31mm, and is also true that it permits a singular focalization within the context in respect of 77mm ltd...yes you're right i should consider also a Fa 135...
perhaps a "complete kit" is:
smc fa 20/31/43/77/135...

Thanks again Bruce Banner and compliments for yours very beatiful shots that just now i've seen on f.l.i.c.k.r

best regards,

Ben-G

[Wozasam]

DFA 28-105mm (nice walk around)
DFA 100mm --good all round results, macro is good with expected shallower depth of field compared to my K5
DFA 150-450mm my tripod mount is currently broken, however-- (excellent results with and without tripod)

[DagT]

I just came back from a trip to Venice during the Carnival. Pictures here: Venice 2019 | Dag Thrane

I brought FA24, FA31, FA43, D-FA*50, FA77 and FA135. FA31 and FA77 was the most used lenses and a friend of mind borrowed the FA43 so I didn´t use it.

I´ve also got D-FA28-105 for short walks, and D-FA100 macro and DA*200mm for special purposes, but don´t use them that much.

[BruceBanner]

Thanks very much for your precious comment/suggest!
Effectively the smc fa43mm, as focal lenght is "a bit near" to the smc fa 31mm, and is also true that it permits a singular focalization within the context in respect of 77mm ltd...yes you're right i should consider also a Fa 135...
perhaps a "complete kit" is:
smc fa 20/31/43/77/135...

Thanks again Bruce Banner and compliments for yours very beatiful shots that just now i've seen on f.l.i.c.k.r

best regards,

Ben-G

Yes that sounds like an excellent kit line up, there is a F135 as well as a FA135.

[Ben-G]

I just came back from a trip to Venice during the Carnival. Pictures here: Venice 2019 | Dag Thrane

I brought FA24, FA31, FA43, D-FA*50, FA77 and FA135. FA31 and FA77 was the most used lenses and a friend of mind borrowed the FA43 so I didn´t use it.

I´ve also got D-FA28-105 for short walks, and D-FA100 macro and DA*200mm for special purposes, but don´t use them that much.

I'm asking which is the rule of that HD FA*50mm f1.4 "between" 43&77mm ltds...

I've just seen yours lovely Venice Carnival pictures and others yours works: i've found
a subtle and delicate line across yours shot;
it's an extraordinary liminal ground between words and images, from free words ( that calls me back to Apollinaire "il pleut" such as some of Alighiero Boetti works) to the magician atmosphere of that little toy boat in the concentric water rings... : chapeau!

At the last but not least that your
"On photographic equipment" : is a 'little & great'
lectio vitae.

Holding you in high esteeme,

Ben-G

---------- Post added 03-15-19 at 04:00 AM ----------

Yes that sounds like an excellent kit line up, there is a F135 as well as a FA135.

Thanks! I'm also seeing now this F135...seems, such as FA, rare to find...

best regards

Ben-G

[BruceBanner]

...
Thanks! I'm also seeing now this F135...seems, such as FA, rare to find...

best regards

Ben-G

There's a FA135 for sale in the Marketplace, local to my area as well. I'd love to have it but alas my funds are too poor to acquire it.

Pentax FA 135 2.8 - PentaxForums.com

[stevebrot]

So I'm keen to understand if anyone think's that the K1 sensor will outperform the lenses, which would then render it a pointless exercise to go full frame from crop. My opinion: the current crop sensors are outstanding. However, the full frame sensor is not so much better, it's just larger. So, in theory, same quality from the glass, just the ability to print bigger, with narrower DOF.

I think you've got it. If your lenses are up to the challenge of 24 Mpixel on APS-C, they are more than up to whatever 36 Mpixel might present on 24x36mm FF and will be at least as competent as on the best of film emulsions available at the time they were made (i.e. good for 16x20" prints at minimum).


Steve