40mm limited versus 43mm limited

*bwield* · 07-19-2008, 03:07 PM

Starting to move towards a total prime Kit.
Currently I have the DA 21mm limited, FA 50mm macro and just sold my 16-45mm with the hopes of getting either the 40mm or 43mm limiteds..
My question is:
It seems that the consensus is that the 43mm limited is a little better overall, however is it worth the extra $200?
I'm sure that many answers will be "thats up to you" however I was hoping someone would humour me...
Please?

lol thanks for any and all input

*Nesster* · 07-19-2008, 04:03 PM

For me it was. The 43 physically just has that extra something I was yearning for at the time.

Interestingly the equation worked the other way between the 70 and 77- I got the 70 and love it too!

It is a beautiful world where you just can't go wrong

deudeu · 07-19-2008, 04:32 PM

But to fill your gap between 21mm and 50mm, wouldn't the DA 35mm limited or the 31 limited be more appropriate?

*bwield* · 07-19-2008, 04:39 PM

Well the 31 would of course be ideal, however now we are talking about 4X the amount of a da 40.
The 35 has peeked my interest, however I would not be interested in it as a macro lens, but rather a portrait / walk around, and I am not sure that this is its strenght.. (maybe I am wrong?)

deudeu · 07-19-2008, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by bwield

Well the 31 would of course be ideal, however now we are talking about 4X the amount of a da 40.
The 35 has peeked my interest, however I would not be interested in it as a macro lens, but rather a portrait / walk around, and I am not sure that this is its strenght.. (maybe I am wrong?)

It looks like it is just a great lens for everything:
Flickr: "smcpentaxda35mmf28macrolimited"

But the FA limiteds are just special...

*benjikan* · 07-19-2008, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by bwield

Starting to move towards a total prime Kit.
Currently I have the DA 21mm limited, FA 50mm macro and just sold my 16-45mm with the hopes of getting either the 40mm or 43mm limiteds..
My question is:
It seems that the consensus is that the 43mm limited is a little better overall, however is it worth the extra $200?
I'm sure that many answers will be "thats up to you" however I was hoping someone would humour me...
Please?

lol thanks for any and all input

I own both. I do not think the 43 is a better lens, just different. The 40 is sharper from edge to edge and the 43 is sharper in the center, rendering it perhaps more interesting for wide open portrait work. I.e. f 2.0 to f 2.8. the 40 is a brutally sharp lens across the entire spectrum.

Ben

*bwield* · 07-19-2008, 06:31 PM

Well maybe one day I can justify getting both then! lol...
I think at this time the 40's price tag will be a better fit

*Michaelina2* · 07-19-2008, 07:44 PM

DA 40 Limited.

Go for it!

*Fl_Gulfer* · 07-19-2008, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Michaelina2

DA 40 Limited.

Go for it!

+1 .........................

ajuett · 07-19-2008, 08:45 PM

DA40 or FA43, both are excellent. I went for the DA40 for 2 reasons; sharpness across all stops and very compact (my friends tele-converter is bigger, lol). The price difference locally is about $170 ...not enough to argue about if you need a faster f-stop.

*jsherman999* · 07-19-2008, 10:03 PM

DA 40 is a great little lens - super sharp, and it focuses very fast, so you can catch bobbin' & weavin' little babies:

Click on the image to view it in a larger size

Shashinki · 07-20-2008, 04:46 AM

the 43 has a little slower AF speed too.

*Nesster* · 07-20-2008, 04:53 AM

I think there's a missing punctuation in Ben's sentence - the 2-2.8 would apply to wide open portrait work with the 43.

Back when I bought mine, the rebates were $100 for the FAs and $50 for the DAs, which in my mind made the 43 a great deal. Without rebate equalization, I might easily go for the DA now.

But I'd miss the 43, it truly has some special qualities apart from the usual sharpness. Very flare and haze resistant, for one. I do find it harder to learn to work with on digital, wheras my DA 70 is a piece of cake (and I'd expect the 40 to be similar) on digital. On film the 43 shines. It really has some magic, I feel it is my best lens, and it rewards a long relationship.

Like I say though, this sort of problem I wish we all had: there's really no bad choice.

*rparmar* · 07-20-2008, 09:13 AM

The 43mm indeed has something special and is faster than the 40mm. I think that's the main draw. Plus it works on full frame.

Note the lovely way the background texture, the wine glass stem and the bubbles have rendered.

This shot needed the extra speed. Photographing dancers in the dark is not easy!

*k100d* · 07-20-2008, 09:51 AM

the FA43 does have some "je ne sais quoi" factor to it. i can't really pin it down and i'm not alone in this statement, if you dig a bit you'll find a lot of people prefer the FA43 the best out of all the limiteds.