I've owned the 31,35,40,43 and 50. I currently only own the FA50 f1.4. Fast and excellent IQ. Yes a little soft at 1.4 but it is still usable there and that's a nice aperture for special applications.
The 40 just didn't make any sense to me. Nice lens and very good IQ but I also own a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and the 40 isn't fast enough to bother keeping.
The 43mm is a stunningly nice lens even when wide open. I only sold mine for cost cutting reasons and hope/will to someday replace it.
The 31mm is in a league of it's own in many ways. I needed the funds for my business and replaced it with a very good Sigma 28mm f1.8.
The 35mm f2 is a fine lens and probably a little better in IQ than the FA50. So between the 2, the question is speed and focal range. Does the extra 1.4 matter to you (one full stop) and do you want something wider? Again I only sold my FA35mm because I need different equipment for my photo work. I might have replaced this lens down the road but I like my Sigma 28mm and the 2 are close enough that the Sigma does just fine.
But for an all around mid length but slightly longer than normal prime the 50 is the best for cost and quality. Sure it has some limits in build and MF focus but as long as you don't use it as a hammer, it should last a lifetime and give great results. Photozone rate the 50 very highly and I read somewhere that Klaus felt it was the best fast fifty available from any company.
i guess any of those three is a good choice. which mm do you shoot more/would like to shoot at? that would be the one that i'll be getting if i were u.
I'm still waiting on my FA50 1.4..! I haven't recieved it yet but I know it will be good for me, as the vast majority of shots I take are outdoors in available light. Plus, it will be far and away the fastest lens I have (the next two being a couple of old M42 f1.8 50mm lenses, and the fastest zooms I have are f3.5-5.6.) This factor is really what I'm getting it for.
I'm going to use it on my K10D, and also on an MZ-5n with Fuji Neopan 1600 for super-fast film performance. Also, I'm hoping that 1600 film may negate some of the reported softness of the lens wide open. (A double bonus?)
I only recently discovered that the DA40 is full-frame compatible due to it being a re-working of an old design, so that's one to get in the future. It may be a similar focal length, but I think it's sufficiently different in other ways (compactness, focus speed, quick shift, quite reasonably priced) that it's worth getting as well.
It frustrates me that the compatibility info on Pentax DA lenses is so minimal, that to find out if a DA lens is actually decent on a film body you have to rely on a random third party testing one and posting info on it - but kudos to those who do, Keep doing it.
Location: central Sierra Nevada mountains, California, USA, planet Terra
Gallery Photos:
0
Posts: 44
I hate 'normal' lenses (which might mark me as a deviant). But that's just me. Since I don't make my living at this, I'm free to indulge my prejudices. 'Normal' makes me feel like I'm wearing blinders. Wider lenses IMHO are more flexible, and if I don't like what's happening at the margins, I just step closer, or crop. I use Vivitars 24/2 and 28/2.8. A couple of Takumar 28/2.8s (auto PK and manual M42) should arrive today, so maybe I'll get a new favorite. And the FA 50/1.4 is a real gem.
__________________ Pentax: DA 10-17,18-55,18-250; FA 100-300,50/1.4; ST 40-80M,70-200,135,55,35,28 Other PK: Sig 35-80; Viv 24/2, 90M; Toyo 28; Focal 135; Sakar 500/8 mirror; more Screwmounts: Vemar 12; Sig 24; Viv 28; Isco 35; Mir-1; Helios-44; Jupiter-9,11;
Meyer 35,50,100,180; Enna 35,100,135,240; Alpa 300; Rubinar 1000/10 mirror; more
I find 50mm too long, so I've voted 35mm f2. Don't forget that 35mm x 1.5 = 52mm anyway. (50mm x1.5 = 75mm). Then again, I have nothing faster than f1.7 at present.
(Currently saving for a 30mm f1.4 or 24mm f1.8 )
__________________ Pentax K100D Super + 18-55 lens |Sigma 24/2.8 |Vivitar MC 28/2.8 |Pentax M 50/1.7 |Meritar 50/2.9 |Industar 50-2 50/3.5 |Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5