I understand, which is why I brought up that very issue myself and already addressed your response. To repeat: if this was an issue of the total system it would also show up in your other lens tests. But it does not.

Sorry, I don't follow. What update?

My analysis has nothing to do with any "love" I may have for a particular lens. I have bought and used lots of gear that I would not rank with the FA43 Limited. I take your implication, however, that I am somehow more biased than you on this issue. That's hardly a basis for a reasonable discussion.

John, I agree with your summary of the characteristic lens rendering. Certainly I have never used a lens with as much "flair" (not "flare"!) as the FA43, though the FA77 comes close. Unfortunately none of the test photos included with the article demonstrate this.

I agree that arguing about small differences in test figures is pointless. There are far more important things. However, like others, I am a bit stunned by the low MTF50 measures since these are even lower than those I have seen before. For example, the very dependable Photozone found 1100 wide open, double the figure here. Already by f/2.8 the lens had tightened up nicely to around 2000, a score never even attained in your test.

I have done a lot of shooting with this lens, as it was the first lens I bought for my camera (after the kit). The Photozone results accord with my experience. I can use this lens for brick wall shots and get great results corner to corner at f/4. I do this not for testing purposes, but because I like finding cool street art.

There is no way in heaven the FA43 should consistently have half the border score of the FA31 and DA70. (Only wide open would I expect this number to be so poor.) My only conclusion is that there is in fact some issue with the test you did. This might be down to a bad sample since I am sure you followed procedure and took due care.

The other difference is the camera used. You use a K-5, I use a K20D and Photozone tested with a K10D. I cannot imagine this would matter so much, and if it did would not all three Limited lenses have skewed scores?

Always bid the maximum amount you actually want to spend. And then forget about it if you don't get it. Another lens will be along soon enough and there's never a point in spending more than you want to.

Let me clarify. The sentence does not say why it is evident the lens is full-frame. That is one claim. The second claim has to do with the aperture ring. Eliding the two in one sentence is indeed confusing, even to me -- and I know what you mean!

And no, I did in fact mean the MTF curves, not the CA graph. Look again and it is clear the corners have higher bars than the centre, for all the wider apertures, anyway.

Hundreds of threads on dozens of forums have asked the same question.

It always comes down to the same thing. The DA70 is a very good lens. Those who have it are happy with it. A small minority prefer it to the FA77.

Everyone else, whether they can afford it or not, consider the FA77 to be the superior lens in terms of sharpness, wide aperture, handling (aperture ring) and rendering. More important, photographs demonstrate this superiority time and again. Viewing the The FA Limited Club thread is enough to make one weep.

If you want magic in your shots you need the FA Limited lenses. I do not think any company has ever made better auto-focus lenses.

Add to that the price of the lens hood (essential).

I have a small criticism. You write: "There is no aperture ring, which in one way is a pity as it is evident that this lens is actually a full frame design and could be used with Pentax film cameras." Firstly, this is a confusing sentence and secondly, it implies something incorrect, that the lack of the dial demonstrates the lens covers the full frame. I am sure you mean something different!

As for the lens itself, surely this must be the first time MTF scores are higher at the borders than in the centre of an image? What an odd result!

Unless he's shooting in the dark, the subject is presumably lit by both.

Or increase the exposure time? Am I missing something?

Another solution is a second off-camera flash controlled by radio trigger. Not an expert but it's worked for me.

The DA55-300 is so much better than the off-brand zooms I have tried (still own a Sigma) that I would have to say it's well worth saving for. Very noticeable over 200mm.