Pentax smc DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited


George Lazarette

Link Posted 10/07/2009 - 23:55
Anvh wrote:
The FA43 is also 3 times the price George, so I'm not surprise it's better.

Indeed. Pentax devalued the Limited name when they brought out the DA Limiteds, just as they devalued the Takumar name when they applied it to uncoated K-mount lenses.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

womble

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 00:31
Grade inflation is a sad fact of life. In the later Roman Empire they had to keep creating newer more extravagant titles for the top nobs because the second rankers kept appropriating them.

PS No idea about the DA 40 but the FA43 is lovely. Glad I got it before it doubled in price though!
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

Hyram

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 07:47
Malo1961 wrote:
........Let's start a discussion about the even more useless FA* 600 MM
Martin.

I rather fancy the FA* 600 as a portrait lens
Hyram

Bodies: K20D (2), K10D, Super A, ME Super, Auto 110 SLR, X70, Optio P70
Pentax Glass: DA* 300, DA* 60-250, DA* 50-135, DA* 16-50, DA 70 Ltd, FA 31 Ltd, DA 35 Ltd, DA 18-55 (2), DA 12-24, DA 10-17, M 200, A 35-70, M 40, M 28, Converter-A 2X-S, 1.4X-S, AF 1.7, Pentax-110 50, Pentax-110 24
Other Glass: Sigma 105 macro, Sigma-A APO 75-300
Flash: Metz 58 AF-1 P, Pentax AF160FC ringflash, Pentax AF280T

shim

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 08:20
George Lazarette wrote:
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.

G

Sounds like you just do Passport photos George which is about as big as you can print a head and shoulders taken with anything bigger than 77mm without grossly flattening the perspective.

This link is a local portrait photographer who I've known since he got his Fellowship using a Rolliecord (standard lens) and used nothing else for years, even when he changed over to Hasselblad. Even later he only ever used a camera with the standard lens. Most of the stuff could have been done with a 43mm so stop talking nonsense. I've no idea what make of camera he's actually used on these... don't think they do a Rolliecord digital

shim

George Lazarette

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 13:02
shim wrote:
Most of the stuff could have been done with a 43mm so stop talking nonsense.shim

Sorry, Shim, I will try not to trespass on your turf in future.

Please tell Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Leitz, Contax, Sony-Minolta and all the others that 85mm (on film) is not suitable for portraits. I suspect they will be a little surprised.

I look forward to hearing more of your "interesting" views in the future.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

shim

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 14:23
They are only interested in selling lenses George and were selling 85mm's when no professional portrait photographer of a any standing would have used anything under quarter plate

35mm negative was never used by professional portrait photographers anyway. I'm not even sure if Kodak made a Vericolor version of it, (although they might have done for schools photographers). Magazine photographers using 35mm slide film just about got away with it occasionally, but higher quality magazines preferred 6x6.

shim

johnriley

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 15:10
85mm was the standard "portrait" focal length for all the film years of 35mm film.

Vericolor S in 35mm ans 120 was the staple diet of portrait and wedding photographers for several decades, because of its low contrast and ability to render dark suits and white dresses at the same time.

By the end of the 1960s even high quality magazines were switching to 35mm, and one of the men's magazines actually insisted on 35mm Kodachrome. I wouldn't know which one, of course.

It is of course quite true that wedding photographers were relatively slow to move away from 6x6cm.
Best regards, John

rparmar

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 15:17
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.

That's a joke, right?

Because out of 11,000 people how many have said you're right? How many say anything on any given topic? I guess by this bad use of stats all threads are useless.

Not to mention if popular vote meant anything McDonald's would have the best food in the world. And Canadian Club would be the best whiskey.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.

Tony-O

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 15:29
Portrait for George,taken with the the DA40Ltd.



K7,DA*50-135, 35mmLTD Macro, 21mm Ltd, Voightlaender 58mm 1.4 NOKTON SL,Ricoh GRD,GRX, Zeiss 100mm f2 Makro Planar.Zeiss Ikon ZM,Zeiss f1.5 C Sonnar.

It ain't no sin to take off your skin,and dance around in your bones.Tom Waits.

Clarky

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 15:45
Nice shot, when I first read it, I thought it said portrait of George Sorry George, couldn't resist
Camera:|K-7|
Pentax Lenses:|DA12-24/f4 ED AL|DA35Ltd Macro|FA31Ltd|FA77Ltd|FA50/1.4|F70-210|FA20-35 f4/AL|A*200/f4 Macro ED|A50/1.7|A50 Macro f2.8|1.7xAF adapter|
Voigtlander|125/f2.5SL Macro APO Lanthar|
Sigma Lenses:|EX DG 100-300 f4|2X & 1.4X TC|
Flashes:|AF540FGZx2|RingFlash AF160FC|

Tony-O

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 15:50
Clarky wrote:
Nice shot, when I first read it, I thought it said portrait of George Sorry George, couldn't resist

Well never having seen George i could not possibly comment.
K7,DA*50-135, 35mmLTD Macro, 21mm Ltd, Voightlaender 58mm 1.4 NOKTON SL,Ricoh GRD,GRX, Zeiss 100mm f2 Makro Planar.Zeiss Ikon ZM,Zeiss f1.5 C Sonnar.

It ain't no sin to take off your skin,and dance around in your bones.Tom Waits.

George Lazarette

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 16:21
rparmar 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.

That's a joke, right?

Of course it is! I am quite insulted that you would think otherwise.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

George Lazarette

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 16:22
Clarky wrote:
Nice shot, when I first read it, I thought it said portrait of George Sorry George, couldn't resist

I'm not that good-looking.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

George Lazarette

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 16:29
shim wrote:
They are only interested in selling lenses George and were selling 85mm's when no professional portrait photographer of a any standing would have used anything under quarter plate

35mm negative was never used by professional portrait photographers anyway. I'm not even sure if Kodak made a Vericolor version of it, (although they might have done for schools photographers). Magazine photographers using 35mm slide film just about got away with it occasionally, but higher quality magazines preferred 6x6.
shim

Don't bring all sorts of irrelevant claptrap into this. The type of film or the status of the photographer are not germane to the argument, which is simply that 35mm users, in general, preferred 85mm or thereabouts for portraiture.

Everything else you mentioned is a smokescreen. You should be in politics.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

bretbysteve

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 16:59
Pretty grumpy thread this is...

I knew a guy who shot street 'portraits' on a Canon F-1 with the FD 17mm lens...they were excellent. There are MANY ways to crack an egg.
Last Edited by bretbysteve on 11/07/2009 - 16:59
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.