Hey Godfrey. Somehow I knew you would reply. > Well, I disagree with that. But by all means, the FA Limited lenses > are excellent performers. Take pictures and enjoy them if you're > happy with them.
Please apply the same argument to you ;-). You like other lenses and you obtain truly excellent pictures with them. That I would call diversity and that's of course a great thing. Imagine one had to choose only from one option for every photographing situation. That would be rather poor world, right? > Personally, though, nice though the optics of the FA31 are, that > fixed lens hood is crap and is inadequate to the needs of the DSLR > format, makes it difficult to fit an efficient lens hood. And 31mm is > not wide enough for what I need. None of the FA Limiteds have > Quickshift focusing mounts, which is a very useful feature to my use. > The slide-out lens hood on the FA77 is again too short to be useful > (even for 24x36 format!) and liable to getting loose of time as well > Based on the performance testing I've seen comparing the DA70 and > FA77, I would choose a DA70 over the FA77 now for Quickshift ... and > BTW I really like the FA77 which I already have. I like the size and > control ergonomics of the FA43 more than the DA40 so I would choose > the FA43 first given that pair, but what I'm waiting for is a DA > series replacement of the FA35/2 AL which I find a better focal > length for the DSLRs, and it will have all the features I want. I agree about convenience of quick shift mount. I tried it on 18-55 and 50-200 this year in Norway, thanks to Jostein and Mike Wilson. It is a matter of one's character and getting used to. I am very satisfied with that little switch I have to flick on the left side of the mount. Also, someone on the list or was it Russian Penta Club reported that in severe cold quick shift mechanism is not all that joyous to use. But then again neither you or me are going to be shooting lots in sub zero temperatures. It is just to illustrate my point of diversity. Now, I can argue that you already admitted you prefer 77 and 43 to 70 and 40 respectively, but that would be plain silly. > Beyond that, I don't share your belief that the 16x24 format is > "temporary". Nor do I see any particular need for 24x36 format, > either film or digital. That format choice is arbitrary, based on > historical accident. There are certainly gains to be had in some > cases, but based on what I've seen so far they're not particularly > significant to my photography. Well, the belief's main purpose is either to be shared or not, right? Thus it is only natural that you and I believe in different things ;-). > This has all been debated and debated ad nauseam on this list and > several others. I hope it is not so provoking as to be considered > incitement for a flame war, but I've cleaned my flame retardant suit > and have it at the ready ... > ];-) I totally agree with you here. However, I humbly suggest that you and I agree that we disagree on this very matter of DA vs FA limited lenses or more generally reduced circle vs full circle. I think it would be advantageous for other people if we have your opinion and my opinion available to the list. This way we can always present two alternatives which in turn (see diversity above) I trust to be a very good thing. Cheers and of course Happy New Year! -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
