FA primes vs DA primes

This is my first post, so hello to everyone.

I am new to photography (unless you count the SF7 I bought in 1989 with which I shot all of about 20 rolls of film before slinging it in the cupboard).
I trip to New Zealand in Nov 05 prompted me to buy a *istDS with the DA18-55 and DA50-200 zoom lenses. I have posted some of my first efforts on www.flickr.com where I have the same user id "pygmytwittle", so please feel free to view and criticise (constructively, I hope). I'm proud of last weekend's effort(http://static.flickr.com/38/114809468_faa66ab359_o.jpg), but I'm sure there must be some reasons why I shouldn't be!

My feeling so far is that I love the DS (I tried an EOS350 and D50 in the shop also), but sometimes feels that, despite my best efforts, the subject, whilst being the most in-focus part of the picture, seems a little soft, especially with things like people's hair.

From my various perusals of forums, there is a concensus that the DA18-55 is not a sharp lens, that the DA16-46 is better, but that the best quality can only be achieved by dropping zoom and going for primes. Leaving aside the second hand market of old lenses, the new Pentax options are either the FA offerings (31mm, 43mm and 77mm), or the current DA40 and later to be released 21mm (June) and 70mm (Oct).

On the DA series, the lack of aperture ring and the smaller glass due to the smaller image requirements mean that the lens is less expensive to make. Now, the DA40 RRP is £250 (£219 on the web) and the FA43 RRP is £400 (£314 on the web), so that should mean that the DA40 is on a par with the FA43 in terms of quality.

Can anyone tell me whether this is the case? Has anyone compared a DA40 and FA43 back to back? There are a lot of people who swear by their FA limited lens, but not many raving about the DA40. Is it an unsung hero or is it just not up to the FA quallity. If the soon-to-be-released DA21 and 70 are also that much cheaper than the FA equivalents but also of similar quality, then it is a much cheaper option in total, but since I am a bit of a believer in "you get what you pay for", I can't help thinking that the FA is the better option.

Factor in that the lens should last decades and that I would expect a full-frame sensor DSLR from Pentax/Samsung within its lifespan, I guess I've answered my own question. However, please post your thoughts on this issue.

While we're at it, has anyone compared the DA14 and DA12-24 back to back?

PygmyTwittle

Welcome to the board

Just a thought - all results from a CCD are a little soft, even with a super sharp lens. If you shoot RAW, then you can give a little "oomph" with my Sharpen-O-Matic action for Photoshop. Works a treat

From your image, it looks like you have got some very nice results indeed!

The DA40 and FA43 are not the same, AFAIK. The Limited series lenses have 9 aperture blades and ghostless coatings. But, having said that the DA series (like the DA16-45 you mentioned that I have) can be excellent indeed!

There's a whole set of requirements for sharpness - not just the lens itself. Make sure you're stopped down (preferably to the lens sweet spot, or MTF setting, usually f5.6 to f. Use a tripod for best stability etc etc.

If you want a second opinion, feel free to email me a full size JPG (or Adobe DNG RAW) and I'll tell you what I reckon the problem is
Matt

Matt,

Thanks for the speedy reply and offer of help. I will send a RAW image or two after the weekend (I am at work, they are at home and I don't have broadband there).

I suspect the problem may be camera shake; I didn’t have a tripod with me in NZ and the one I have now is rather cheap and flimsy - I use the two second delay since I don’t have a cable release yet, but you can still see the thing shake when the shutter goes off!

I will also take a look through the camera settings in the .pef files – maybe the ones I’m not happy with are the ones with bigger apertures.

PygmyTwittle

The 40mm and 43mm lenses are really different lenses in their design intent. The 43mm is a metal, 35mm format, high quality standard lens that set new high standards in a lens type that had not really been re-visited for many years. It out-performs possibly every other standard lens available.

The 40mm covers the APS-C sized sensors and is I believe more plastic constructed than the 43mm, but this does not mean that it can't be of equally high quality.

My guess is that in normal use there will be no apparent difference.

PygmyTwittle,
If you run the PEF file through Adobe's free stand-alone DNG converter it'll shrink them significantly.
Send them one at a time to my Hotmail address just in case things go wrong
I'll let you know what I find!
Matt

Somebody can correct if I'm wrong but I understand the DA40 shares the same optical formula with the old M40. If that the case and sharpness is what you want to compare you can use Yoshihiko Takinami's website to compare it:
http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test

OTOH, I guess that at the end you won't see that much difference in the field; the question you may want to answer is: Do you need the extra stop of the Limited or the small size of the DA/less money is more important?

Another thing to consider is whether the lens needs to be 40-43mm or whether 50mm would suffice. A FA 50mm F1.7 can be had for a lot cheaper than the other two lenses and is an excellent performer. With digital then the 40-43mm lenses are going to be around 60mm equivalent while the 50mm while be the equivalent of 75mm - for portraits etc. the latter is (IMHO) a more useful focal length. Certainly the FA 50mm F1.7 is a massive step above the 18-55 in performance terms.

Don't forget that the DA40 is badged (and nicely engraved) as a limited lens. It seems to be of metal construction, albeit black rather than silver. Comes with a metal hood, also engraved "Limited" and a metal lens cap. It also comes with a little draw string pouch like other limiteds although not in leather.

However I also support the FA50 1.7 SMC as a viable, lower priced solution. I'm in the happy position to have both.

I defer to the 50 when it looks like the lighting conditions need that extra f stop.

Glyn

I'm a happy owner of a DA40mm Limited. I'd love to show you some of my shots with it but I don't know how

The best way is to go and join up at www.ephotozine.com and upload a picture every day!

Let us know what your name on the site is and we'll go and have a look.

You will also get useful feedback, so that sister-site to this one is highly recommended.

All right, John, I'll do that Thanks!!

I have both the 40 & 43 and I can't agree with this (sorry John)!

The 40 is nicely made all of metal, including the lens hood. It also fully covers a 35mm film frame (I know because myself and many other people have tried it).

In terms of optical character they're very similar, both having the Limited series "3D look". The 40 is sharper at f2.8 and in the the corners, with the 43 being sharper in the centre once stopped down past f4.

I generally use the 43 in preference to the 40 as the 40 is, if anything, too small and the lens cap rather fiddly!

Mike

No need to be sorry!

I can see what you mean about the 40 being too small - the original M series 40mm was too small for many, although it was a terrific performer.

I have the 40mm Limited, it is a great lens, when one wants to be unobtrusive. It takes with a step-down adaptor the same filters as for my video camera using the hood that comes with it and screwing the filters into the front of the hood. It is an all metal lens and is very light, nicely finished. Great as a standard lens. Great for people. Great for grab shots, snapshots.

Thanks to everyone for their replies, particularly to Fernando for the link to the lens tests.

Having taken a more critical look at some of my photos, I think I should concentrate on improving my own skills before I start blaming the equipment. I think I might be showing early signs of LBA.

Still interested in seeing any examples from the DA40 or FA43, please post any links to flickr or ephotozine.

Thanks again,

PygmyTwittle