distortion of the Pentax limiteds ?

bertwert · 11-02-2021, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by luftfluss

Somewhere on this site, there is an article about the FA Limiteds that includes history and insights from one of the designers, but damned if I can find it...

Celui-ci perhaps?

The FA Limited Development Story (also a little DA Limited) - PentaxForums.com

EDIT: @Fogel70 good timing

stevebrot · 11-02-2021, 01:49 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by aslyfox

now we have an oversized " limited "

aren't those distortions of the idea behind the " limited " series

does it matter ?

I don't consider it oversized for its focal length any more than the FA 31/1.8 is oversized for its.

As for whether it matters...at its current price point, it doesn't bother me a bit.

Steve

**Alex645** · 11-02-2021, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by pschlute

I think that is a bit unfair. Certainly as far as the original LTD lenses (31/43/77) are concerned, the designer deliberately left imperfections in the design to give the unique properties of OOF to in-focus transition.

Yes, I agree the Limiteds characteristics were probably intentional. What is unfair?

**StiffLegged** · 11-02-2021, 03:21 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Not a fair comparison. The * series lenses are more appropriately compared to L glass and GM etc. the limited lenses have always had a specific build and rendering that is less about technical excellence than shooting experience.

I'm not trying to compare one range with another, just observing that manufacturers have different ranges and different price bands from the kit zooms and more ordinary stuff. May my SD card crash and knees fall off should I cast aspersions on the Limiteds!

Pass the sackcloth, dry bread and manacles.

**aslyfox** · 11-02-2021, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by StiffLegged

. . . May my SD card crash and knees fall off should I cast aspersions on the Limiteds!

Pass the sackcloth, dry bread and manacles.

darn right

reh321 · 11-02-2021, 03:39 PM

When I first moved back to Pentax back in 2015, the DA 18-135mm was my primary lens, but I have recently moved to the DA 20-40mm Ltd. I view the Limiteds as being ‘honorary Takumars’, limited in diameter {the Takumars I have are all 49mm}, but good rendering within that limitation.

**UncleVanya** · 11-02-2021, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by reh321

I view the Limiteds as being ‘honorary Takumars’, limited in diameter {the Takumars I have are all 49mm}, but god rendering within that limitation.

Lol. God rendering what a great typo!

The 20-40 even has that knurled grip to echo the Takumars.

**Rondec** · 11-03-2021, 03:14 AM

I guess I have always thought that limiteds had a specific build and attempted to be small for what they were. The DFA 21 covers full frame at a relatively wide angle and has an in lens focus motor and weather sealing. With those things in mind, it is small for what it is. It isn't easy to create wide angles and ultra wides for SLRs and the lenses will tend to be larger than those longer than 30 mm. I think too, that Pentax has probably attempted to have a lens that will have decent resolution on modern digital sensors and hopefully have minimal chromatic aberrations. All of those things come with a larger size penalty.

The DA 15 limited is my size comparison, but that lens is more than a stop slower and has pretty weak border performance till you get to f8. From what I've seen the DFA 21 is going to be a better performer than the DA 15 limited.

**acoufap** · 11-03-2021, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

Not a fair comparison. The * series lenses are more appropriately compared to L glass and GM etc. the limited lenses have always had a specific build and rendering that is less about technical excellence than shooting experience.

Aren‘t Limited lenses partly handmade?

**aslyfox** · 11-03-2021, 04:04 AM

good discussion going on

thanks

Originally posted by Rondec

I guess I have always thought that limiteds had a specific build and attempted to be small for what they were. . . ..

moi aussi

Quote:

. . . The DA 15 limited is my size comparison, . . . .

why wouldn't the DA 20 Limited be the comparison ?

not the DA 15mm Limited nor the FA 31mm Limited

I am not saying that the D FA 21mm won't be a good or great lens

I am not saying that the DA 20-40mm isn't a good or great lens

I just wouldn't call either a " Limited "

to me it's more than " potato " vs. " potato " or " tomato " vs. " tomato "

You Tube

house · 11-03-2021, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by aslyfox

why wouldn't the DA 20 Limited be the comparison ?

FOV. The DA21 isn't an ultra wide lens on apsc.

**aslyfox** · 11-03-2021, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by house

FOV. The DA21 isn't an ultra wide lens on apsc.

no not a UWA

but I wouldn't call a 21mm FOV on Full Frame Sensor a UAW either ????

house · 11-03-2021, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by aslyfox

no not a UWA

but I wouldn't call a 21mm FOV on Full Frame Sensor a UAW either ????

It is defined as uwa, thats the convention. Regardless the DA15 has similar fov the da21 doesn't.

Sandy Hancock · 11-03-2021, 04:39 AM - **1 Like**

Look at (or even better, use) any lens in the Limited family. DA, FA or DFA . Prime or zoom.

There's no point trying to convince anyone who can't recognise the pattern.

The new lens will become part of that legacy.

Sandy Hancock · 11-03-2021, 04:42 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by aslyfox

I wouldn't call a 21mm FOV on Full Frame Sensor a UAW either ????

I think you need to look up the definition of an ultra-wide lens.

And 21mm is a focal length, not a field of view....

11-02-2021, 03:39 PM	#36
reh321 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: South Bend, IN, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,180	When I first moved back to Pentax back in 2015, the DA 18-135mm was my primary lens, but I have recently moved to the DA 20-40mm Ltd. I view the Limiteds as being ‘honorary Takumars’, limited in diameter {the Takumars I have are all 49mm}, but good rendering within that limitation. Last edited by reh321; 11-03-2021 at 12:36 PM. Reason: I said “god” when I meant “good”

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Architecture Just trying my new DFA* 70-200 mm f/2.8 for sharpness, contrast and distortion on K3.	RICHARD L.	Post Your Photos!	2	03-13-2021 01:33 PM
Pentax-DA 15mm F4 distortion vs Pentax HD Pentax DA 21mm f/3.2	rptdc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	34	11-23-2017 02:00 PM
Is distortion normal - Pentax HD PENTAX-D FA 15-30mm f/2.8 ED SDM WR Lens ?	frankoz	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	09-04-2017 05:45 PM
DA Limiteds vs. FA Limiteds	GregX999	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	120	08-08-2011 11:09 AM

11-02-2021, 12:04 PM	#31
bertwert Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Golden, BC Posts: 15,173	Originally posted by luftfluss Somewhere on this site, there is an article about the FA Limiteds that includes history and insights from one of the designers, but damned if I can find it... Celui-ci perhaps? The FA Limited Development Story (also a little DA Limited) - PentaxForums.com EDIT: @Fogel70 good timing

11-02-2021, 01:49 PM - 1 Like	#32
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by aslyfox now we have an oversized " limited " aren't those distortions of the idea behind the " limited " series does it matter ? I don't consider it oversized for its focal length any more than the FA 31/1.8 is oversized for its. As for whether it matters...at its current price point, it doesn't bother me a bit. Steve

11-02-2021, 02:52 PM	#33
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,526	Originally posted by pschlute I think that is a bit unfair. Certainly as far as the original LTD lenses (31/43/77) are concerned, the designer deliberately left imperfections in the design to give the unique properties of OOF to in-focus transition. Yes, I agree the Limiteds characteristics were probably intentional. What is unfair?

11-02-2021, 03:21 PM - 1 Like	#34
StiffLegged Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2018 Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,620	Originally posted by UncleVanya Not a fair comparison. The * series lenses are more appropriately compared to L glass and GM etc. the limited lenses have always had a specific build and rendering that is less about technical excellence than shooting experience. I'm not trying to compare one range with another, just observing that manufacturers have different ranges and different price bands from the kit zooms and more ordinary stuff. May my SD card crash and knees fall off should I cast aspersions on the Limiteds! Pass the sackcloth, dry bread and manacles.

11-02-2021, 03:29 PM	#35
aslyfox Seeker of Knowledge Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Topeka, Kansas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 24,581 Original Poster	Originally posted by StiffLegged . . . May my SD card crash and knees fall off should I cast aspersions on the Limiteds! Pass the sackcloth, dry bread and manacles. darn right

11-02-2021, 06:51 PM	#37
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,406	Originally posted by reh321 I view the Limiteds as being ‘honorary Takumars’, limited in diameter {the Takumars I have are all 49mm}, but god rendering within that limitation. Lol. God rendering what a great typo! The 20-40 even has that knurled grip to echo the Takumars.

11-03-2021, 03:14 AM	#38
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I guess I have always thought that limiteds had a specific build and attempted to be small for what they were. The DFA 21 covers full frame at a relatively wide angle and has an in lens focus motor and weather sealing. With those things in mind, it is small for what it is. It isn't easy to create wide angles and ultra wides for SLRs and the lenses will tend to be larger than those longer than 30 mm. I think too, that Pentax has probably attempted to have a lens that will have decent resolution on modern digital sensors and hopefully have minimal chromatic aberrations. All of those things come with a larger size penalty. The DA 15 limited is my size comparison, but that lens is more than a stop slower and has pretty weak border performance till you get to f8. From what I've seen the DFA 21 is going to be a better performer than the DA 15 limited.

11-03-2021, 03:49 AM	#39
acoufap Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Munich, Germany Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,187	Originally posted by UncleVanya Not a fair comparison. The * series lenses are more appropriately compared to L glass and GM etc. the limited lenses have always had a specific build and rendering that is less about technical excellence than shooting experience. Aren‘t Limited lenses partly handmade?

11-03-2021, 04:08 AM	#41
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	Originally posted by aslyfox why wouldn't the DA 20 Limited be the comparison ? FOV. The DA21 isn't an ultra wide lens on apsc.

11-03-2021, 04:18 AM	#42
aslyfox Seeker of Knowledge Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Topeka, Kansas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 24,581 Original Poster	Originally posted by house FOV. The DA21 isn't an ultra wide lens on apsc. no not a UWA but I wouldn't call a 21mm FOV on Full Frame Sensor a UAW either ????

11-03-2021, 04:22 AM	#43
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	Originally posted by aslyfox no not a UWA but I wouldn't call a 21mm FOV on Full Frame Sensor a UAW either ???? It is defined as uwa, thats the convention. Regardless the DA15 has similar fov the da21 doesn't.

11-03-2021, 04:39 AM - 1 Like	#44
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Look at (or even better, use) any lens in the Limited family. DA, FA or DFA . Prime or zoom. There's no point trying to convince anyone who can't recognise the pattern. The new lens will become part of that legacy.

11-03-2021, 04:42 AM - 1 Like	#45
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Originally posted by aslyfox I wouldn't call a 21mm FOV on Full Frame Sensor a UAW either ???? I think you need to look up the definition of an ultra-wide lens. And 21mm is a focal length, not a field of view....