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.
