How good is 40/2.8 limited?

<p>I am deciding between K-2000 with 40 pancake and Olympus E-420 with 25 mm pancake. The latter kit is twice cheaper in Moscow, as I have to buy that K-2000 (k-m) with a useless kit zoom. 40/2.8 is near $500 here. Tell me about 40/2.8. Is it sharper or softer than 50/1.4 from f2.8 to f8? I do not know anything but that lens is fringing-free. Oly is prone to CA. 40mm is rated as 'highly recommended' on photozone.de. Cameralabs say that it is little soft at infinity/f8....</p>

<p>well, I don't have any real world expiernce with any of that stuff... but the KM has stabilization where the e420 doesn't, so that mitigates the effect of the reletively slow pancakes. If you got the e620 which does have IS, the price is probably a bit closer. Just what I heard (read), oly users seem to like the 25mm 2.8 and say the correction of fringing and distortion are, in most cases, easily corrected in post. That being said, I got the km and the 21mm, because I don't like a lot of correction in post.<br>

also, you can't order the km without a kit lens online? I got mine here in the states without the kit.<br>

have fun chosing. </p>

<p>I ended up with the 43/1.9 instead of the 40/2.8 but wouldn't think twice about getting the 40/2.8 especially when the object is tinyness; <a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/showproduct.php?product=143&cat=34">I've heard only good things about it</a> . Furthermore, should you decide to expand your system at all, the DA21/3.2 and DA70/2.4 are great wide and tele companions. I'm sure you're already aware though that 40mm is a little bit longer (60mm eq) vs. the 50mm eq on the Oly.<br>

There's some pictures of this nice little combo <a href="http://club.foto.ru/forum/11/383192#p3707090">here</a> .</p>

<p>andrew, that is pretty tiny. I've never used my 43mm without the hood, that looks pretty tiny also, I might have to try it out.</p>

<p>A photo of the <a href="http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/170/340/pentax1_28.jpg">DA 40 mounted on a K-7</a> . The K2000 is even smaller than the K-7 IIRC.</p>

<p>Does anybody know whether a DA40 dedicated hood can be used on FA43 on APS-C digital?</p>

<p>Andrew, why wouldn't it if the filter threads are the same size? Or are you asking something else?</p>

<p>And while I'm at it, a K2000 with a DA 40 on it:</p>

<p><a href="http://forum.digitalcamerareview.com/showthread.php?t=9136"><img src="http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/assets/22659.jpg" alt="" /> </a></p>

<p>I think because the opening of the hood is much wider on the 43mm's hood than on the 40mm (at least that's the way it looks to me) and might cause vignetting? or perhaps doesn't reduce flare as effectively as it's native hood? but perhaps for digital, the smaller hood of the 40mm would be ok... I know I'd like to be able to use the smaller hood.</p>

<p>I love my 40mm very much and it is on my camera almost all the time. These are the things I like:<br>

- It is small. Very small!<br>

- It is very sharp at its largest aperture. And its performance remains similar for all apertures.<br>

- It has quick shift<br>

- It has a nice hood which is always on. (Some hate it, by the way).<br>

I like my f/1.4 Takumar also but faster lenses can be a little difficult to focus (at their larger apertures) using the the default focusing screen.<br>

I think the 40mm Ltd is sharp enough for most purposes.<br>

For a fixed focal length lens with an instant auto or manual focusing capability, this lens leaves nothing to be desired, really.<br>

Since it performs similarly at all practical apertures; you do not have to think about resolution while composing a shot. For faster lenses, you may find yourself trying to decide whether you need a sharper image or a lower DOF.<br>

I have no idea about the Oly, unfortunately...</p>

 

<p>The Pentax DA 40mm Limited is a short tele. Depending on your shooting habits, the DA 21mm Limited being a moderate wide angle, is generally regarded as more versatile for general shooting. One thing with the Pentax system, if you like high-quality compact prime lenses, there are a number of excellent ones of different focal lengths to build a compact carrying kit.</p>

<p>The thing about the "short tele" is that with the magnification of the VF, what you see through a DA40 looks a little farther away than it does to my eye. Really, a 58mm lens looks perfectly "normal" to me through the K100d.</p>

<p>I find the DA 40 to be great in all situations, except that I wish it could focus just a little closer. I've taken most of my best pictures with this lens, and everytime I put it back on the camera I wonder why I ever take it off. I do not have a higher end lens (the FA limiteds for example) with which to compare, but I find the optical quality of the DA 40 to be as good or better than the A 50/1.4, the CZJ 35/2.4, the FA 50/2.8 macro. I would definitely recommend it!</p>

<p>Sorry Nick, I can not believe that the DA 40mm is as good or even better than the FA 50mm macro.</p>

<p>Hi Markus - I haven't had the FA that long, and have only used it a few times. I can find no fault with it - but so to with the DA 40, which I have used much more. They are both great. Macro vs. faster AF decides what goes on the camera right now.</p>

<p>Mis, I only mentioned the possibility because I believed they had compatible filter threads...the other parts to the question is whether there are mechanical incompatibilities or despite similar focal lengths, the differences in design make the DA40 hood vignette on the FA43. For one thing, despite the DA21 also featuring a 49mm filter thread, its hood connects with a bayonet fitting--meaning this hood would not fit on any other lens.</p>

<p>Anyway, the thought is that the compact DA40 hood would pretty cool on the FA43 as well, assuming that it offers good coverage for use on APS-C-size sensor bodies. I assume what people generally don't like about the DA40 hood is that the tiny lens cap threads on/off and some people find this cumbersome. To me it seems like something I could probably live with.</p>

<p>Another thing that perhaps a DA40 owner can answer--I see <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=366729&is=REG&addedTroughType=search#features">this hood</a> at B&H is listed as plastic. Not that there's anything super wrong with that, but I thought the originally supplied hood was metal; is it different?</p>

<p>The original hood is metal like the lens. I have a love hate relationship with my DA40. It is the lens that I want to use the most. It is buttery smooth. But the 40mm is just, I don't know feels a bit odd. I want it to close focus more, and to give me a little bit more reach. That being said, when I have a choice of the M50/f1.4, FA 50/1.7, M 55/2, I usually end up with the 40mm and am happy that I have it. I don't even keep it in a bag. It is in the center console of my car, always within reach when not on the body.</p>

<p>The DA 40 Ltd is a very nice lens. I have owned an SMC-M 40 since the late 70's and used this on my K20 for a while, which prompted me to purchase the DA version for the auto exposure and focus. It has often been described as a jewel. The only negative point to aquiring one of these little gems is that you will all too soon lust after the 21mm, then the 70, then the 15....... it's a dreadful afliction. I have just received delivery of the 21mm, and I really do hear the 70 calling my name..</p>

<p>Ian, you have a clear case of LBA Limitednitis, a particularly virulent strain of the LBA virus. I would consult with a doctor straight away before it's too late.</p>

<p>As an aside, I've never understood the DA 40. I always felt they just took the M 40 design and put it in a Ltd DA shell for the hell of it. Not that there's anything wrong with this, but if there is any old lens design that needs converting to DA, it's the 28mm, not the 40mm. The 21mm and 70mm make sense, the 40mm doesn't.</p>

<p>Ah... Useless rants...</p>

<p>mis, the 28mm f2? That would be a sweet DA lens, I agree we need that.</p>

<p>Russel, I would take a 28mm f/2.4 Ltd, or a DA* 28mm f/1.4. Maybe even both! :-)</p>

<p>Ian, have you ever compared the M 40 to the DA 40 in terms of IQ? Just curious.</p>

<p>Michael. I have. The DA40 is quite different, perhaps due to improved coatings and modifications to more suit the digital format. The colours are brighter, more saturated, and the contrast is improved, compared to my old SMC 40. I am more than happy with my purchase. All in my uneducated and not so humble opinion, of course!<br>

A 28mm Ltd would be wonderful, f/2.8 will do.<br>

I like the size of the DA40, which is the main reason for it's purchase. The focal length seems a bit odd, but in practice it works well, so far. I have a wedding tomorrow and I will have the 21 and 40 with me. The FA50/1.7. SMC-M 28/2.8 and 50-135 will also be in the bag. It's a very casual affair, and I will be covering the candid side of things. I expect the primes will get a fair workout. I will keep you posted.</p>

 

<p>I know this thread is a little old now, but since I used it when deciding to recently get a K2000, specifically to use with a DA 40 Pancake, I thought I might post what I've found. The combination works great as a "walking around" camera, for those times when I don't want to carry a lot of gear. With a set of lithium batteries and a 4gb card, I can get close to 1,000 shots, using the highest res jpg setting. I've only had it a couple of days now, and plan to spend more time with it soon. For now, though, I am quite happy. It is certainly not as solid feeling as my K20D, but it's nowhere near as heavy or bulky either.</p>

<p>Here are a couple of shots, all with the DA 40. Nothing particularly artistic, just trying to see if the combo will work for a day-to-day camera when no specific photographic goal is in mind.<br>

<img src="http://frankbaiamonte.smugmug.com/photos/634137612_u25QU-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://frankbaiamonte.smugmug.com/photos/634139936_VREtH-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://frankbaiamonte.smugmug.com/photos/634139137_MyWSW-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://frankbaiamonte.smugmug.com/photos/634141820_ANPy4-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>There are a few more shots here:</p>

<p>http://frankbaiamonte.smugmug.com/Photography/K2000Test/9453645_U5ebm/1/634136875_U3e5N</p>

<p> </p>

Now I have it and use it. The lens is gorgeous, one of the best ever.

Now I have it and use it. The lens is gorgeous, one of the best ever.

I agree, a simple, small lens that is up to the talk for sure.

40/2.8 limited. Nothing is to be done, to be improved or edited, it is a petite ultra-quick masterpiece-maker.