DA 40 Ltd for $339

DA 40 Ltd for $339 · 02:49 PM

BH has a brand new DA 40mm Limited for $339.

Pentax SMCP-DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited Series Autofocus Lens 21550

paperbag846 · 04-23-2011, 05:56 PM

360 is a lot for the 40. It's a good lens, but when you can get lenses like the FA 50 1.7 or 1.4 for at least 100 less, or the 35mm 2.4 for less than 200 dollars, you begin to wonder what you are paying for with the DA 40.

PS I paid 300 for my 40... and I think that is the top appropriate price for that particular lens.

Pentaxor · 04-23-2011, 06:11 PM

you guys complain too much. when the DA40 came out initially, they only cost at around $300 (Canada). when Hoya acquired Pentax 2 years ago, they ballooned up to $500 (Canada). now they cost a mere $40 more than they cost before Pentax/Hoya, and you call it too much? just WOW !

pz1fan · 04-23-2011, 06:42 PM

It's a fine price for the DA40. The lenses with price issues at the moment are the DA300, DA60-250, FA20-35 and FA43.

paperbag846 · 04-23-2011, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

you guys complain too much. when the DA40 came out initially, they only cost at around $300 (Canada). when Hoya acquired Pentax 2 years ago, they ballooned up to $500 (Canada). now they cost a mere $40 more than they cost before Pentax/Hoya, and you call it too much? just WOW !

Costs too much compared to the FA 50 1.4 and DA 35 2.4.

Seriously, spending 500 dollars on that lens is just stupid.

**robbiec** · 04-23-2011, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

Costs too much compared to the FA 50 1.4 and DA 35 2.4.

Seriously, spending 500 dollars on that lens is just stupid.

The DA35 and FA50 are both built to a price and feel like it. The DA40 is in another class altogether and a bargain at the price mentioned.

rrwilliams64 · 04-23-2011, 08:59 PM

the fact that it is presently $359.95 at B&H makes a much more palatable price, regardless. If you feel $500 is just stupid, then $360 may be more sensible.

If you were willing to pony up $500 for the 40 Limited, then you should just be drooling about now, eh?

Marc Sabatella · 04-23-2011, 09:29 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by paperbag846

Costs too much compared to the FA 50 1.4 and DA 35 2.4.

Seriously, spending 500 dollars on that lens is just stupid.

Not sure where you got the idea that the DA40 costs $500. Are you perhaps not heeding the advice to "Add to cart for lower price"? That's been the way it's been for several years now - list/MSRP prices only in initial listing, add to cart to see the real price. As the title of this thread says, that real price is $360. That's not a temporary sale; it's been in the $340-$360 range for a couple of years now, regularly, every day of the week. That's exactly the same as the FA50 not sure where you got the idea that it is $100 less, either. In fact, when the DA40 goes for $340 (as it often does), it comes out less than the FA50. DA35 is indeed cheaper, in both senses of the word.

Pentaxor · 04-23-2011, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

Costs too much compared to the FA 50 1.4 and DA 35 2.4.

Seriously, spending 500 dollars on that lens is just stupid.

that's why we don't buy locally. if you are going to buy a lens here, that's additional +$200 (minimum) right off the bat, due to tax duties or whatever. but the funny thing is, you can buy the K-5 for the same amount that is being sold in the U.S. + taxes, but not with lenses. what I meant is, you are practically charged twice for taxes on the lenses.

paperbag846 · 04-23-2011, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by robbiec

The DA35 and FA50 are both built to a price and feel like it.

They take nice pictures.

Limiteds are nice, no question. I loved my DA 40. But I was able to sell the DA 40, and pick up the 50 for less. This was with the 40 selling at 300!

The 40, at 360, plus tax, is going to be over 400 dollars. I know I'm a cheap SOB, but still, why bother with the option of a 180 dollar DA L 35. Sure it's plastic but it's the pictures that matter!

Plus, metal lenses only feel better, they aren't more durable.

ewig · 04-24-2011, 04:35 AM

now its written 499 not 339 usd... so ... am i miss something here ??

JHD · 04-24-2011, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by robbiec

The DA35 and FA50 are both built to a price and feel like it. The DA40 is in another class altogether and a bargain at the price mentioned.

I concur. The DA35 and FA50 feel like disposable junk in comparison. The DA40 at $339 is a gift... it is in a different league altogether. If Canon Nikon or Zeiss made it, it would retail closer to $1000 - if not more.

The FA50 is useless at f 1.4 - you can't get a sharp image out of it unless it is stopped down to f 2.8 or smaller, so there's no real gain opening it up unless you like soft images.

jwc77 · 04-24-2011, 06:29 AM

This thread is interesting as I am going to be pulling the trigger on either the 40 limited or the cheaper DA 35mm. I am really torn on my decision though. I think the 35 will suit me...but I am afraid I will regret not getting the 40mm down the road.

Any more suggestions would be appreciated...especially from those who have used both lenses. The metal construction of the 40 would be nice...but I am more concerned with performance of the lens. Is the 40mm Limited really worth twice as much as the 35mm? Any thoughts are welcome.

pz1fan · 04-24-2011, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by jwc77

This thread is interesting as I am going to be pulling the trigger on either the 40 limited or the cheaper DA 35mm. I am really torn on my decision though. I think the 35 will suit me...but I am afraid I will regret not getting the 40mm down the road.

Any more suggestions would be appreciated...especially from those who have used both lenses. The metal construction of the 40 would be nice...but I am more concerned with performance of the lens. Is the 40mm Limited really worth twice as much as the 35mm? Any thoughts are welcome.

I have the DA40mm but not the 35mm. I regret not getting the FA43mm instead for the faster speed, full frame. The images I've seen with the FA43mm seem better, more unique. The FA43 is now priced too high.

Between the DA40mm and DA35, I'd go for the DA35 unless you plan to get the FA31 later.

chrism_scotland · 04-24-2011, 08:06 AM

Wish it was £339 over here in the UK, its closer to £460 for a 21mm here!

paperbag846 · 04-24-2011, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by JHD

The FA50 is useless at f 1.4 - you can't get a sharp image out of it unless it is stopped down to f 2.8 or smaller, so there's no real gain opening it up unless you like soft images.

Wrong. The 50 1.4 is very usable at 1.8, reasonable at 1.4, and great at 2.2. The 40 can do none of these things. The important issue is that the DOF is very selective, so you would be wise to use it at 2.8 more often than not. You should know that I use the 50 as a compromise, not because I think it's the best lens in the world. The major thing I miss from the DA 40 is actually the snappy autofocus. That is something worth considering.

But that's not really what I'm discussing. With the 40 getting closer in price to the FA 43, the advantages the pancake offers dissipate. I really like that lens but it should be priced as a an entry-level limited prime.

KxBlaze
	View full profile
	Contact via private message
	Find other posts by KxBlaze
	Find threads started by KxBlaze
	Find threads in which KxBlaze has posted

04-24-2011, 05:08 AM	#26
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by robbiec The DA35 and FA50 are both built to a price and feel like it. The DA40 is in another class altogether and a bargain at the price mentioned. I concur. The DA35 and FA50 feel like disposable junk in comparison. The DA40 at $339 is a gift... it is in a different league altogether. If Canon Nikon or Zeiss made it, it would retail closer to $1000 - if not more. The FA50 is useless at f 1.4 - you can't get a sharp image out of it unless it is stopped down to f 2.8 or smaller, so there's no real gain opening it up unless you like soft images. Last edited by JHD; 04-24-2011 at 08:00 AM.

04-23-2011, 05:56 PM	#16
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	360 is a lot for the 40. It's a good lens, but when you can get lenses like the FA 50 1.7 or 1.4 for at least 100 less, or the 35mm 2.4 for less than 200 dollars, you begin to wonder what you are paying for with the DA 40. PS I paid 300 for my 40... and I think that is the top appropriate price for that particular lens.

04-23-2011, 06:11 PM	#17
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	you guys complain too much. when the DA40 came out initially, they only cost at around $300 (Canada). when Hoya acquired Pentax 2 years ago, they ballooned up to $500 (Canada). now they cost a mere $40 more than they cost before Pentax/Hoya, and you call it too much? just WOW !

04-23-2011, 06:42 PM	#18
pz1fan Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: United States Posts: 183	It's a fine price for the DA40. The lenses with price issues at the moment are the DA300, DA60-250, FA20-35 and FA43.

04-23-2011, 08:18 PM	#19
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by Pentaxor you guys complain too much. when the DA40 came out initially, they only cost at around $300 (Canada). when Hoya acquired Pentax 2 years ago, they ballooned up to $500 (Canada). now they cost a mere $40 more than they cost before Pentax/Hoya, and you call it too much? just WOW ! Costs too much compared to the FA 50 1.4 and DA 35 2.4. Seriously, spending 500 dollars on that lens is just stupid.

04-23-2011, 08:32 PM	#20
robbiec Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Cork Photos: Albums Posts: 1,882	Originally posted by paperbag846 Costs too much compared to the FA 50 1.4 and DA 35 2.4. Seriously, spending 500 dollars on that lens is just stupid. The DA35 and FA50 are both built to a price and feel like it. The DA40 is in another class altogether and a bargain at the price mentioned.

04-23-2011, 08:59 PM	#21
rrwilliams64 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: ohio Posts: 335	the fact that it is presently $359.95 at B&H makes a much more palatable price, regardless. If you feel $500 is just stupid, then $360 may be more sensible. If you were willing to pony up $500 for the 40 Limited, then you should just be drooling about now, eh?

04-23-2011, 09:29 PM - 1 Like	#22
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by paperbag846 Costs too much compared to the FA 50 1.4 and DA 35 2.4. Seriously, spending 500 dollars on that lens is just stupid. Not sure where you got the idea that the DA40 costs $500. Are you perhaps not heeding the advice to "Add to cart for lower price"? That's been the way it's been for several years now - list/MSRP prices only in initial listing, add to cart to see the real price. As the title of this thread says, that real price is $360. That's not a temporary sale; it's been in the $340-$360 range for a couple of years now, regularly, every day of the week. That's exactly the same as the FA50 not sure where you got the idea that it is $100 less, either. In fact, when the DA40 goes for $340 (as it often does), it comes out less than the FA50. DA35 is indeed cheaper, in both senses of the word.

04-23-2011, 10:39 PM	#23
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by paperbag846 Costs too much compared to the FA 50 1.4 and DA 35 2.4. Seriously, spending 500 dollars on that lens is just stupid. that's why we don't buy locally. if you are going to buy a lens here, that's additional +$200 (minimum) right off the bat, due to tax duties or whatever. but the funny thing is, you can buy the K-5 for the same amount that is being sold in the U.S. + taxes, but not with lenses. what I meant is, you are practically charged twice for taxes on the lenses.

04-23-2011, 11:57 PM	#24
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by robbiec The DA35 and FA50 are both built to a price and feel like it. They take nice pictures. Limiteds are nice, no question. I loved my DA 40. But I was able to sell the DA 40, and pick up the 50 for less. This was with the 40 selling at 300! The 40, at 360, plus tax, is going to be over 400 dollars. I know I'm a cheap SOB, but still, why bother with the option of a 180 dollar DA L 35. Sure it's plastic but it's the pictures that matter! Plus, metal lenses only feel better, they aren't more durable.

04-24-2011, 04:35 AM	#25
ewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 312	now its written 499 not 339 usd... so ... am i miss something here ??

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-24-2011, 06:29 AM	#27
jwc77 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Rolla, MO Posts: 269	This thread is interesting as I am going to be pulling the trigger on either the 40 limited or the cheaper DA 35mm. I am really torn on my decision though. I think the 35 will suit me...but I am afraid I will regret not getting the 40mm down the road. Any more suggestions would be appreciated...especially from those who have used both lenses. The metal construction of the 40 would be nice...but I am more concerned with performance of the lens. Is the 40mm Limited really worth twice as much as the 35mm? Any thoughts are welcome.

04-24-2011, 07:57 AM	#28
pz1fan Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: United States Posts: 183	Originally posted by jwc77 This thread is interesting as I am going to be pulling the trigger on either the 40 limited or the cheaper DA 35mm. I am really torn on my decision though. I think the 35 will suit me...but I am afraid I will regret not getting the 40mm down the road. Any more suggestions would be appreciated...especially from those who have used both lenses. The metal construction of the 40 would be nice...but I am more concerned with performance of the lens. Is the 40mm Limited really worth twice as much as the 35mm? Any thoughts are welcome. I have the DA40mm but not the 35mm. I regret not getting the FA43mm instead for the faster speed, full frame. The images I've seen with the FA43mm seem better, more unique. The FA43 is now priced too high. Between the DA40mm and DA35, I'd go for the DA35 unless you plan to get the FA31 later.

04-24-2011, 08:06 AM	#29
chrism_scotland Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 76	Wish it was £339 over here in the UK, its closer to £460 for a 21mm here!

04-24-2011, 09:23 AM	#30
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by JHD The FA50 is useless at f 1.4 - you can't get a sharp image out of it unless it is stopped down to f 2.8 or smaller, so there's no real gain opening it up unless you like soft images. Wrong. The 50 1.4 is very usable at 1.8, reasonable at 1.4, and great at 2.2. The 40 can do none of these things. The important issue is that the DOF is very selective, so you would be wise to use it at 2.8 more often than not. You should know that I use the 50 as a compromise, not because I think it's the best lens in the world. The major thing I miss from the DA 40 is actually the snappy autofocus. That is something worth considering. But that's not really what I'm discussing. With the 40 getting closer in price to the FA 43, the advantages the pancake offers dissipate. I really like that lens but it should be priced as a an entry-level limited prime.