[Pentaxor]

now this is exactly what I was talking about!
But I have to say that this colour tones seem to be available on other FA glass, not just FA ltds.
I had FA100macro, which had excellent colours (to my eye) very similar to the FA ltds and now I have FA*24 which pretty much the same too....it seems that the coatings used for FA generation were pretty much the same, and in one word terrific

it is possible. although I kinda surprised that you sold the FA100. I know there is an new DFA 100 WR macro which is great in it's own way, but there is something about the FA100 that I can't replace it with the new one, even if the latter is lighter and smaller.

[Ash]

now this is exactly what I was talking about!
But I have to say that this colour tones seem to be available on other FA glass, not just FA ltds.
I had FA100macro, which had excellent colours (to my eye) very similar to the FA ltds and now I have FA*24 which pretty much the same too....it seems that the coatings used for FA generation were pretty much the same, and in one word terrific

it is possible. although I kinda surprised that you sold the FA100. I know there is an new DFA 100 WR macro which is great in it's own way, but there is something about the FA100 that I can't replace it with the new one, even if the latter is lighter and smaller.

Interesting you should both mention this. I realised there was something unique about the FA 100 macro from the moment I acquired my copy. Definitely warmer colours - perhaps even too warm on the AWB setting on the K10D/K20D, but a 3D rendition and sharpness I could hardly find a rival to in its class.

[axl]

it is possible. although I kinda surprised that you sold the FA100. I know there is an new DFA 100 WR macro which is great in it's own way, but there is something about the FA100 that I can't replace it with the new one, even if the latter is lighter and smaller.

I only sold it because I got fed up with 50-100 category and decided to get 77ltd. FA100M is terrific lens but it's too big for my liking. One day I might try to track it down and re-buy it because it was really excellent lens, but since I tend to shoot wide to normal much more, it wasn't practical to lug 600g lens around for occasional use. 77 on the other side is small and light so it's no problem, and it's faster....
maybe one day.... The DFA WR doesn't impress me all that much, why? no focus limiter! FA was super fast in AF when limiter was on...

[Pentaxor]

I only sold it because I got fed up with 50-100 category and decided to get 77ltd. FA100M is terrific lens but it's too big for my liking. One day I might try to track it down and re-buy it because it was really excellent lens, but since I tend to shoot wide to normal much more, it wasn't practical to lug 600g lens around for occasional use. 77 on the other side is small and light so it's no problem, and it's faster....
maybe one day.... The DFA WR doesn't impress me all that much, why? no focus limiter! FA was super fast in AF when limiter was on...

I see. with regards to weight, it would be much of a love-hate relationship for me. most often times that I prefer lighter, although there are times that I want it a bit big and with more weight. it also depends on what I wanted to achieve with the lens which is only unique for that kind of lens and no other.

the weigh preferences comes in where I prefer:

the FA135 over the FA100, though I like both their unique rendering. the Pentacon 135 is more of a specialty/novelty for me and could a a future use for other mounts with FF.

the M85 over the Rokinon 85. too weighty for my taste and bigger and I struggled with the MF. the J-9 is again a specialty and novelty for FF use. though my preference for the lighter M85, I would definitely go bigger and heavier again with the Sigma 85 of which mount is still undecided whether I'll get it for Pentax mount or either Canon 5D MK II and Nikon D700.

[creampuff]

As much as I liked my FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro I replaced it with the DFA 100mm f/2.8 Macro WR for a few reasons. Firstly the weight difference is significant, especially when you're out on an extended macro outing. The lens is easy to get user marks, the focus limiter can't match the much quicker to use Quick Shift that you find in DA/DFA lenses. The DFA also has better contrast and better bokeh. The only thing I miss about the FA is the punchy color rendition.

[Pentaxor]

The only thing I miss about the FA is the punchy color rendition.

I believe this is the main reason that the FA100 stayed on my line-up.

[axl]

I see Pentaxor.
To tell you the truth though, I much prefer FA100 to FA135. Even though 135 is much lighter, 100 is just nicer lens IMO and I preferred it's output by mile...

[Pentaxor]

I see Pentaxor.
To tell you the truth though, I much prefer FA100 to FA135. Even though 135 is much lighter, 100 is just nicer lens IMO and I preferred it's output by mile...

in a way, there is a truth to that. the thing with the FA135 is it is longer and gives me a lil bit more shallow DOF. I do notice the difference in bokeh rendering between the two. colors are somewhat close to call as I noticed both to be punchy in their own ways. both lenses are very sharp, although I give the FA100 an obvious edge for being macro sharp. AF use would be for FA135 while FA100 for MF and some very good AF speed.

the 100 is flexible to use with nearer or midrange subjects, the FA135 for longer ones used mainly for candid. honestly, I can't give which one is over the other since both are used in different settings and with different strengths.

[Ash]

Resurrecting this thread just to share another example of the 43 limited's sharpness, here is a recent portrait I took using the K-x:



and now the 100% crop with no sharpening in PP (only curves and levels tweaks):

[yusuf]

Personally I'm never fond of 43mm, it's not wide like DA31/35, not long like 77 and not fast like 50/1.4

[Ash]

Have you owned one to know how fond of it you'd be, yusuf?

Tell you what, I wasn't a believer for a while, convincing myself that the 43 would never justify the extra investment over the 50/1.4 - with all the ordinary reviews of the lens, maligning its bokeh and wide open softness, and being almost an entire stop slower than the 50/1.4, it was all pointing towards a 'don't bother' attitude that just kept me from going for the little gem.

WHen the opportunity came up for me to give it a go, I just said 'what the heck' - I went from sceptic to whooped in just a couple of shots. With some heavy PP, results from the 50/1.4 could possibly come close to those with the 43 straight out of the camera, but not sharpness where it matters (to me) at f/2.8-f/5.6; those MTF bar graphs just don't tell enough of the picture to be a good enough judge of the quality of the 43.

If there's going to be a more contentious comparison, it would be between the 43 and the 50/1.2 - only one is AF and the other is more than a stop faster (and yet sharper than the 50/1.4)...

[yusuf]

I am sure it must be a great lens Ash. The key issue is focal length that never attracted me to this lens. About sharpness, I felt FA50@f2 is as sharp as FA43mm@f1.9 but then there are other things so why don't you share some pictures if you still own both. Would be really helpful.

Have you owned one to know how fond of it you'd be, yusuf?

Tell you what, I wasn't a believer for a while, convincing myself that the 43 would never justify the extra investment over the 50/1.4 - with all the ordinary reviews of the lens, maligning its bokeh and wide open softness, and being almost an entire stop slower than the 50/1.4, it was all pointing towards a 'don't bother' attitude that just kept me from going for the little gem.

WHen the opportunity came up for me to give it a go, I just said 'what the heck' - I went from sceptic to whooped in just a couple of shots. With some heavy PP, results from the 50/1.4 could possibly come close to those with the 43 straight out of the camera, but not sharpness where it matters (to me) at f/2.8-f/5.6; those MTF bar graphs just don't tell enough of the picture to be a good enough judge of the quality of the 43.

If there's going to be a more contentious comparison, it would be between the 43 and the 50/1.2 - only one is AF and the other is more than a stop faster (and yet sharper than the 50/1.4)...

[Ash]

I don't own both anymore since there was no need I had for the FA 50/1.4, so I can't personally provide comparative images to show differences in results, but I do have numerous examples of each lens both here and on my PPG collection if you're interested. Those won't help to see the advantage of one over the other, but from my experience with these lenses, results from the 50/1.4 needed PP to look good, whereas 43 images come out great straight out of the box.

In your own case yusuf, you could compare results from your 77 ltd to those of your 28-75 at 75mm and get the gist of the difference in vibrancy and 3D effect you get with the limited lenses. Not all that different between the 50/1.4 and 43...

[NeverSatisfied]

I'd have to agree with you Ash about the FA 43 vs FA 50. I did own the FA 50 as well but also got rid of it. (As a matter of fact, I've owned both the FA 50/1.4, and the F 50/1.7.) I just really like the output from the FA 43 a lot better. Your analogy of FA 77 vs Tamron 28-75 is spot-on!

[nulla]

The FA 43 is my most loved lens... I actually have an addiction to it now.

At first I was going to return it after purchase... I thought it was not for me... not wide enough nor long enough... then I started to see what others were producing and now realize it is one of a kind lens and the sharpest I have seen or used.


Neil