[Digitalis]

There is the assumption that RoHS required a thorough redesign of all lenses due to heavy metal content. Of course that assumption is based on a deeper assumption that most (all) lenses were out of compliance or that lead is a common component of traditional optical glass.

Just about all optical glass has lead in it at varying concentrations. Lead makes glass easier to work with when it is molten and makes it less inclined to chip or shatter when it is formed into blanks and ground and shaped into the elements that make up our lenses. RoHs was mostly designed to reduce the ridiculous amounts of lead being used in consumer electronics* - glass makers weren't the principal industry targeted by RoHs. But there are well known cases of glass being made with all kinds of horridly toxic metals in them: radioactive thorium, radioactive lanthanum, cadmium. RoHs sought to encourage wider spread of compliance and stricter limits on the use of those metals.


*electronics for scientific, military and medical use can use as much heavy metal in them as they please, as they are typically low volume devices that require high tolerances that only the use of compounds with heavy metals in their construction can achieve.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 03-29-2016 at 03:01 AM.

[Rondec]

I would just say that these lenses work quite well for landscape photography...

FA 77







FA 31





I don't own the FA 43. These lenses have really good contrast and excellent colors which stands them in good shape when using them for landscapes.

[BarryE]

Well, there's a few comments that have raised a smile ...

I wanted to draw out any comments about theses lenses and how they behave for/in landscapes. I've a range of DA limiteds and DA*s and they do vary how they respond - it's an ongoing learning process ...

Real life experience of a lens' behavior is nearly impossible (I find) to determine from charts and most (all?) reviews. I often take shots into the sun, not sunsets/sunrises, but low sun through mist, reflecting off foliage, water etc. This can be a challenge at times. I like the new HD coatings and the simple lens constructions of the primes often cope better, I find. The new FF perhaps opens up some new opportunities, but at a cost of a little weight gain and new FF lenses. The FAs are an obvious choice for me, but whether the current ones, or newer ones with HD coatings (???) - I'll need to keep thinking.

The 'portrait' V landscapes have been addressed in this thread. Thanks for taking the time to respond ...

Ah, yes one last thought ... tilt and shift was mentioned ... that would be very nice. I have often found that I just can't achieve the focal plane I want when working up close(ish). A quality tilt and shift, would be a very nice addition to the Pentax range ...

[slip]

don't forget about the da 15 limited goes well with landscapes

[mikeSF]

I would just say that these lenses work quite well for landscape photography...

FA 77







FA 31





I don't own the FA 43. These lenses have really good contrast and excellent colors which stands them in good shape when using them for landscapes.

schweet Rondec!

[DeadJohn]

I have the FA 43. It's sharp enough across the frame to use for landscapes and architecture. My only complaints about the lens are 1) it has a pretty long minimum focus distance, 2) purple fringing in backlit situations (correctable in Lightroom).

My 43 doesn't get used much because the focal length feels too tight on a crop APS-C sensor. I generally like to shoot wider or longer. *If* I get the K-1 my 43 will see more usage due to the wider view.

Here's a sample architecture shot:

[Jacquot]

I have the 31 and 43 and have never used them for 'portraits'...

[PenTex]

The FA31 is outstanding at stitched panoramas. Low distortion, edge-to-edge sharpness, and minimal vignetting really help here. It's my go-to landscape lens! Here's an example that I recently edited with the free Nik software

[dadipentak]

The reason I rave about the FA limited portraits is that portraits are the most important photos I take so their special qualities are especially appreciated. Granted, I'm mostly talking about the 77 in that regard (but that's me).

[Nicolas06]

Well it is difficult to find a lens that can do descent landscapes at f/8 honestly, including the kit lens. But for sure better lenses still manage to add a little bit more to it.

Saying the FA ltds couldn't do it is a bit silly. They are used heavily for shallow deph of field shoots because they excel at it, and that is not the case of all lenses.

Here a few FA77 landscapes:









Now the difference is because theses lens have large apperture and render oof area beautifully you can also do:






You have choice and it depend of the mood, what you want to get... And that's a matter of choice.

[totsmuyco]

All lenses are capable of being used for landscape photography. It all depends upon the skill of the photographer.

If the current FA lenses can produce such good pictures using APS-C cameras, I'm sure it would produce much better pictures using the K-1.

However, I do agree that they should be reintroduced with new coatings and better motors to match the K-1's focusing speed.

[Nicolas06]

All lenses are capable of being used for landscape photography. It all depends upon the skill of the photographer.

If the current FA lenses can produce such good pictures using APS-C cameras, I'm sure it would produce much better pictures using the K-1.

However, I do agree that they should be reintroduced with new coatings and better motors to match the K-1's focusing speed.

Switching to different coating would change the color rendering...