We have the 43 and 77 - my wife actually owns them but I use them more. I have the FA50/1.4 and prefer the 43 most of the time to the point where it now lives on the bellows. The slightly wider field of view just seems to be right more often and the pictures have a different, preferable to me, feel.
I've never tried the 85/1.4, but I've seen it and it's huge! The 77 is compact well made and again has a wonderful feel to the images it produces. It also has a narrow enough depth of field and is sharp enough wide open for portraits. I like it when I get the chance to use it. The 31/35 mm lens is one I've never used much, I tend to go wider. Even the switch to digital hasn't made me want a prime in this range - the 16-45 does get used across the entire range however. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon Bruce Dayton wrote: > At one time, I owned the 43mm Limited. While it was mechanically very > nice, I can't say that it was obviously an optically better lens than > the FA 50/1.4. But it costs twice as much. > > The 31 limited costs about 2-3 times as much as the FA 35/2. Again, > how much - if any - better is it optically? > > The 77 limited seems to be the one exception for now. The closest > thing to it was the FA *85/1.4. The 77 was cheaper and seemed to be a > better all around lens. > > So, my question is - are the limited lenses truly worth it? Beyond > the cachet of owning one - will there be a marked improvement in my > images? > > Now what complicates things a bit is the new DA limiteds. They are > priced more competitively. It almost seems like for the digital > sensor, the new 21, 40 and 70 might be a better triplet than the old > 31, 43, 77. > > I'd like to hear what others think. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
