Pentax smc DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited


George Lazarette

Link Posted 09/07/2009 - 01:09
Anvh wrote:

That just is very blunt and your only argument backing this up is because there aren't many 60mm lenses on 35mm camera... yeah so what is the point?

The point is surely very obvious. If lots of people thought 60mm was a useful focal length, manufacturers would make and sell lots of 60mm lenses.

But they don't (or didn't).

The simple fact is that not many people find a 60mm lens to be useful on film, and not many people find a 40mm lens useful on digital.

There, not too hard, was it?

In saying that, I am in no way denigrating those who find 40mm a good focal length for them. I am simply talking about what the majority feel, and my opinion has been supported by lens sales for the past fifty years.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

George Lazarette

Link Posted 09/07/2009 - 01:12
rparmar wrote:
You don't use the FA43? That's maybe the best portrait lens ever made. Even if you dislike the focal length, no one can argue with the rendering.

I have the 43mm and the 77mm, and I know what I consider to be the better portrait lens.

I have nothing adverse to say about the quality of the 43mm. It's a lovely lens. But it's not a suitable lens for portraiture. Or, indeed, much else.

G
(In my humble opinion, of course!)
Robin, I think your idea of portraiture is rather different from mine. But each to his own.
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Last Edited by George Lazarette on 09/07/2009 - 01:19

johnriley

Link Posted 09/07/2009 - 08:52
It's something we often forget - we all have different requirements and see the world in different ways.

As a consequence, it makes "Which lens should I buy?" questions a bit difficult.

I found the 43mm not particularly useful, despite at one time thinking that the Nikon 60mm lens seemed like a good idea.
Best regards, John

rparmar

Link Posted 10/07/2009 - 15:25
George Lazarette wrote:
I have nothing adverse to say about the quality of the 43mm. It's a lovely lens. But it's not a suitable lens for portraiture. Or, indeed, much else.

Indeed! Portraiture is not just about focal length. The FA43 renders images in a 3D way even the FA77 cannot. The whole "3D" thing is a matter of contention I know. I am also aware that the FA77 is "sharper". Certainly I use the FA77 more on a daily basis.

But if I know someone's face is going to be in the shot and I can get a little closer, I grab the FA43.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.

shim

Link Posted 10/07/2009 - 17:36
Either of these lenses could be successfully used for portraiture.
The 43mm would probably allow more scope.

shim

gartmore

Link Posted 10/07/2009 - 19:33
George Lazarette wrote:
I am sure some people will use them and love them, and that's fine.

But most people don't. That's all I am saying.

G

ME! ME! ME! I really like 40mm, it suits me very well and this is why:

I use it, mainly, for street photography and this tiny lens is incredibly discrete, I like the slightly tighter 'standard' lens view and it goes without saying that it is beautifully made and pin sharp. I enjoy the slight eccentricity of the hood and cap design; why is 'Pentax' on the inside of the cap? Did you know it takes 30.5 filters as well as 49mm ones? I bet GL has drawers full of them!

It is funny that the original M series 40 pancake was wider than 'standard' and just as curious in the focal length stakes but as I said, it suits me very well.

Ken
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -

womble

Link Posted 10/07/2009 - 21:28
I don't regret buying the 43mm Ltd and enjoy using on both media.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.

My website

George Lazarette

Link Posted 10/07/2009 - 22:28
Well, I think you chaps have proved my point. Out of approx 11,000 registered subscribers to this forum, only six claim to like a 40mm focal length.

Next.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

George Lazarette

Link Posted 10/07/2009 - 22:38
shim wrote:
Either of these lenses could be successfully used for portraiture.
The 43mm would probably allow more scope.
shim

Well, ANY lens could be used for portraiture, in extremis. But since a portrait is normally a picture of a person's head and perhaps shoulders, you will risk distortion if you fill the frame using a 43mm lens.

Whilst the 77mm is my favourite portrait lens, I would much rather use 100mm, 120mm and even 135mm than 43mm.

And Robin, I don't dispute that optically the 43mm is a stunner. It's the focal length that I find to be a drawback; in every other way it is a delight. It's also smaller than the other proper Limiteds, and that can be an advantage, as Ken said, even if his spelling of discreet was as eccentric as the lens.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

Malo1961

Link Posted 10/07/2009 - 22:50
George Lazarette wrote:
Well, I think you chaps have proved my point. Out of approx 11,000 registered subscribers to this forum, only six claim to like a 40mm focal length.

Next.

G

Or........the other 10.994 fear you more than the 40 mm FL.

Martin.
Best regards,

Martin.


Curious about my photography?? Just Follow the Light.

Anvh

Link Posted 10/07/2009 - 23:06
Malo1961 wrote:
George Lazarette wrote:
Well, I think you chaps have proved my point. Out of approx 11,000 registered subscribers to this forum, only six claim to like a 40mm focal length.

Or........the other 10.994 fear you more than the 40 mm FL.

Yes something like that and also only 30% or so are active members so that cuts it down to 6 out of 3300

BTW aren't we going off topic now George be proving you're right, the OP only asked if the DA40 was any good not if 40mm is a popular focal length
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

Malo1961

Link Posted 10/07/2009 - 23:17
While OT already. Let's start a discussion about the even more useless FA* 600 MM. Because I know for sure even less than 6 out of 11.000 subscribers here would say they love the use that Focal Length .

Any way....The DA 40 is a very fine lens and imo very usable.

Martin.
Best regards,

Martin.


Curious about my photography?? Just Follow the Light.

George Lazarette

Link Posted 10/07/2009 - 23:18
Anvh wrote:
BTW aren't we going off topic now George be proving you're right, the OP only asked if the DA40 was any good not if 40mm is a popular focal length

Well, nobody knows, because nobody has one. People don't buy 40mm lenses, you see....

G
PS: It's a Limited lens, and not bad by all accounts. However, the 43mm is not much bigger (without it's hood), and it's almost certainly rather better.
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

Anvh

Link Posted 10/07/2009 - 23:36
The FA43 is also 3 times the price George, so I'm not surprise it's better.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

Malo1961

Link Posted 10/07/2009 - 23:44
DA 40 and FA 43. Indeed very useless, specially on digital.

Martin.
Best regards,

Martin.


Curious about my photography?? Just Follow the Light.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.