They are indeed the same lens but front element is somewhat hidden by plastic barrel which makes the DA a f/2.4 lens. Though, I read a couple comments (was it here or on PentaxForums?) that in practice, (comparing directly the two lenses and noting the exposure recommended by the camera) the f/2.4 seems to gather more light than its f/2.4 aperture would suggest. Something like f/2.2. They seem to offer really the same performance. FA is better built. Neither have QS focus. DA has built-in lens correction profiles, though (as every DA lenses) and FA comes with hood (adapted for full frame) but DA has no hood AFAIK.
I have neither of those lenses so I can't say more. 2011/4/21 Collin Brendemuehl <coll...@brendemuehl.net>: > Has anyone compared the two? > I see the optical formula is the same, > but simple computer graphics tell only > a small and generally meaningless part of the story. > > Sincerely, > > Collin Brendemuehl > http://kerygmainstitute.org > > "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose" > -- Jim Elliott > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille/Thibs ---------------------- Photo: K-7, Sigma 28/1.8 macro, FA50/1.4, DA40Ltd, K30/2.8, DA16-45, DA50-135, DA50-200, 360FGZ KX, MX, SuperA+Motor, Z1, P30 Mamiya C330+80/2.8 Sekonic L-208 FalconEyes TE300D x2 Studio flashes Laptop: Macbook 13" Unibody SnowLeo/Win7 Programing: Delphi 2009 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
