Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-07-2010, 10:08 AM   #46
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
we gave him opinions from both sides... no point going on about, this is better than that because... whatever....
You are the one talking about better. I am discussing value. There is no question that one gets more with the FA 43. Does one get twice as much? PS I'm not an insecure owner of the DA 40, I get results I am very happy with, with lenses far less expensive than either choice . If you want fast glass for the special effect, go right ahead, but we are entering a new age where you don't need to compromise your DOF to get a well exposed shot indoors.

If you want to shoot a group of people at f 2, you better be prepared to line them up just right. In an unreliable environment, a deeper DOF with higher ISO is always preferable to misfocused / too shallow DOF shots. Seriously, look at what the K-5 can do in low light. It's absurd. This will only get better with time. f2 is NOT a special effect if you are focused to infinity, but now we are just splitting hairs. The times that would be useful are so few it makes me dizzy . If you shoot film BY ALL MEANS buy the FA 43. You will see that extra stop a lot more than with a good digital SLR... unless you have a hankering to shoot pictures with almost nothing in focus. If you are just looking to take a nice photograph and don't mind the difference between ISO 1600 and 3200 (in 10 years from now, people will LAUGH at the thought of worrying about ISO 1600/3200) then I think that the DA 40 is a better value. Save your cash for something else .


Last edited by paperbag846; 11-07-2010 at 10:31 AM.
11-07-2010, 10:20 AM   #47
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
You made some very good points and I will not respond to all of them because we have both been heard by now . A few things though:

I have no problem with the FA 43, what I have a problem with is people who sit on a forum and tell other people to spent their brains out on products they do not really need. I think Blue posting the MTF charts of the DA 40 and FA 43 shows how SIMILAR they are... sure there is an appreciable difference in center sharpness, but who really cares? Are you shooting for a fashion magazine? Both of them are in the very good - excellent range from 2.8 and up. People tend to plant seeds of doubt here... one would run out to the store and buy the only limited he/she could afford, only to come here and be constantly reminded that he/she owns an inferior lens and that it cannot possibly hold a candle to the FA 43. I simply do not see that, and I'm trying to do someone a favour who is clearly taking finances into consideration.

Shallow DOF has it's place, absolutely, but it's simply not necessary for every lens one owns to be fast anymore. You clouded your argument by asking what fast lenses could be bought NEW. One of Pentax's great strengths is the backwards compatibility. Many faster lenses with very good optical properties can be had for under 100 dollars. The FA 50 1.4 could be purchased alongside the DA 40 (if one shops smart) for the same price as the FA 43... and then you get an extra stop ).

Take a look at the K-5's highest ISO test shots and tell me that you would prefer to shoot wide-open rather than bump the ISO to 1600. Fast-glass is becoming a more and more antiquated method of producing a good photograph in low light, and will become more and more relegated to the shallow depth of field " special effect". There must be a reason that Pentax is comfortable releasing most lenses over f2.8!

I'm just trying to save the man some money he clearly does not need to spend. I think that would go for a lot of us here, but these forums tend to spread the "buy this buy that" attitude over a reasonable discussion of each lens' qualities. Terry Richardson does all of his photoshoots with a film point and shoot, and makes huge money. I don't think anyone has looked at his pictures and went "wow, what a terrible photograph! The detail in the model's arms is clearly not what it could be!"
I understand your sentiment towards the OP and trying to save him some money. but trying to justify a lens by saying it is as good as the other lens is in a way misguiding the OP as well and giving the wrong impression and information. that doesn't give or earn him any favors. there are just compromises that people need to accept. if we are going to defer this discussion to a DA35/2.4 versus DA40, I'm sure this would have a similar trend outcome. the point is, when the OP asks for something that are set with certain parameters, those should be taken into consideration rather than implement one's personal feelings. this would had been different if the OP would had simply asked what lens is the most cost-effective lens with a nice IQ. if that was the question, I would believe even the DA35/2.4 would also be an option. is it better than the DA40? it depends on what parameter that had been set.
11-07-2010, 10:32 AM   #48
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
You are the one talking about better. I am discussing value. There is no question that one gets more with the FA 43. Does one get twice as much? PS I'm not an insecure owner of the DA 40, I get results I am very happy with, with lenses far less expensive than either choice . If you want fast glass for the special effect, go right ahead, but we are entering a new age where you don't need to compromise your DOF to get a well exposed shot indoors.

If you want to shoot a group of people at f 2, you better be prepared to line them up just right. In an unreliable environment, a deeper DOF with higher ISO is always preferable to misfocused / too shallow DOF shots. Seriously, look at what the K-5 can do in low light. It's absurd. This will only get better with time. f2 is NOT a special effect if you are focused to infinity, but now we are just splitting hairs. If you shoot film BY ALL MEANS buy the FA 43. You will see that extra stop a lot more than with a good digital SLR... unless you have a hankering to shoot pictures with almost nothing in focus.
I believe you missed what Axl was trying to say with a lens faster than f2.8.
11-07-2010, 10:45 AM   #49
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
You are the one talking about better. I am discussing value. There is no question that one gets more with the FA 43. Does one get twice as much?
YES, one does get twice as much light at f1.9 as at f2.8 and with some 0.0xxxs to spare
Seriously, to look at it in the way that lens which is 2x the price needs to be 2x as good is just plain silly. You have to see deeper than that. The price comes with the amount of glass and manufactoring costs... There is a reason why f1.4/1.8/1.9 lenses cost the money they cost. They use lot of glass... In case you want to point out DA*55 being cheaper than 43, it's plastic vs metal in terms of cost prices...
Am I saying one is better than other? No, I just stated that for MY personal use the 43 is better lens to have...I don't deny DA40 being great lens...

QuoteQuote:
PS I'm not an insecure owner of the DA 40, I get results I am very happy with, with lenses far less expensive than either choice . If you want fast glass for the special effect, go right ahead, but we are entering a new age where you don't need to compromise your DOF to get a well exposed shot indoors.
I don't understand why you see narrow DOF as compromise. I have seen many "compromised" shots that look way better with shallow DOF than they would have with deep(er) DOF.

QuoteQuote:
If you want to shoot a group of people at f 2, you better be prepared to line them up just right. In an unreliable environment, a deeper DOF with higher ISO is always preferable to misfocused / too shallow DOF shots.
Why would I want to shoot groups at f2? You know that FA43 can be stopped down. And all the way to f22 that is, right? I do appreciate deeper DOF when needed and FA43 can deliver that. But it also can deliver shallower DOF that DA40 simply can't. And if you look at the MTF from photozone by f2.8 the 43 is just as sharp as 40....
Misfocused and too shallow DOF are two VERY different things! If one can't get the focusing right then by all means he/she shouldn't use fast lenses. I don't tend to have problem like that though.... and assumption that deeper DOF + higher ISO is always preferable.... well, we could talk about it but....nah, not this time....

QuoteQuote:
Seriously, look at what the K-5 can do in low light. It's absurd. This will only get better with time. f2 is NOT a special effect if you are focused to infinity, but now we are just splitting hairs. If you shoot film BY ALL MEANS buy the FA 43. You will see that extra stop a lot more than with a good digital SLR... unless you have a hankering to shoot pictures with almost nothing in focus.
I don't deny high ISO capabilities of K-5. But do you think folk that wants to save on FA43 will be getting K-5?!? Hardly IMO.... Anyway, lenses are much more of an investment than bodies, they tend to hold value much more and much longer. And FA ltds are right up there. Just wait until Hoya decides to axe them... you'll see how much they'll go for then.....
I don't shoot film (and by the way you do know that DA40 works perfectly on film/FF, all you need is camera that can control aperture as you don't have aperture ring), and I very rarely shoot fx on infinity...
And as for pictures with almost nothing in focus? Oh well... not even worth wasting words....

11-07-2010, 10:58 AM   #50
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
to simply put what Peter is trying to say,

11-07-2010, 11:02 AM   #51
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
I don't deny high ISO capabilities of K-5. But do you think folk that wants to save on FA43 will be getting K-5?!? Hardly IMO.... Anyway, lenses are much more of an investment than bodies.
Exactly. In 3 years time, most cameras will preform similarly to the K-5, at a fraction of the cost. Shallow DOF will become more and more a specialty application.

And while it is a personal preference thing, I do believe that a fast-aperture photos with very little in focus is generally not preferable to something where the whole subject is in focus. Personal preference. I tend to find fast-aperture photos to be quite dreamy and while that CAN be nice, it can also be the visual equivalent of an over-produced record.

I feel the same way about people who pay for race-car engines to drive them on speed-limited highways. Truth is, most of the time, you are going to be shooting images that require a larger DOF. 2.8 is not exactly forgiving, and f2 is certainly a specialty DOF.

A nice picture from the FA 43:

http://kgoodphotoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/4292956965_740a49fa43_o.jpg

Major advantage over the DA 40 here?..
11-07-2010, 11:08 AM   #52
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
I would believe even the DA35/2.4 would also be an option
Now you are talking . I got so sidetracked talking about the FA 43 that I forgot to mention that the DA 40 may not be exactly what he needs, anyways. The DA 35 2.4 looks like a stellar performer for the price and that is exactly what I am trying to get at here.

It is not silly to talk about cost vs. performance when you are talking about gear, especially HOBBY gear. I'm not attacking Pentax's reasons for charging more for the FA 43, but I simply want OP to ask himself whether these gains are WORTH it. I don't believe that most photographers need these gains. If you are paid to take photos or have a whole lot of extra money lying around, why not buy the pricier lens? I doubt he is in that position or he would not be asking a bunch of strangers if it is worth the price.
11-07-2010, 11:11 AM   #53
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
I believe you missed what Axl was trying to say with a lens faster than f2.8.
How about you show me a good photograph that was shot at a fast aperture that would look worse if it was shot at 2.8? I clearly don't know what I am talking about . Please no abstract or pictures of flowers.

Edit:

I think this comparison will be more helpful to the OP than our little disagreement. One thing I would like to point out is that the red car is fully in focus with the DA 40 2.8, while the FA 43 at 1.9 only has about 1/2 the car in focus.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/777126-post59.html

Furthermore, some flowers .

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/756675-post52.html


Last edited by paperbag846; 11-07-2010 at 11:18 AM.
11-07-2010, 11:18 AM   #54
axl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,181
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
Exactly. In 3 years time, most cameras will preform similarly to the K-5, at a fraction of the cost. Shallow DOF will become more and more a specialty application.

And while it is a personal preference thing, I do believe that a fast-aperture photos with very little in focus is generally not preferable to something where the whole subject is in focus. Personal preference. I tend to find fast-aperture photos to be quite dreamy and while that CAN be nice, it can also be the visual equivalent of an over-produced record.

I feel the same way about people who pay for race-car engines to drive them on speed-limited highways. Truth is, most of the time, you are going to be shooting images that require a larger DOF. 2.8 is not exactly forgiving, and f2 is certainly a specialty DOF.

A nice picture from the FA 43:

http://kgoodphotoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/4292956965_740a49fa43_o.jpg

Major advantage over the DA 40 here?..
Yes, but in three years time your kid will have grown, or married or ... whatever. That's just an example. But what will you do until then? Take out your pencil and sheet of paper?!?
I don't see shallow DOF as specialty. It's a photography. The subject (which is in focus) isolation gives much more pleasing effect then photo where everything form front to back is sharp (this is of course subject to type of picture you are trying to take).
Just because you don't like or can't take shallow DOF shots, doesn't mean everybody should be happy with f2.8 or slower lenses...
11-07-2010, 11:19 AM   #55
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
If you read my discussion, you would see I never mention the Da 40 or the Fa 43--they are of no concern to this post of mine. My discussion, directed exclusively to Paperbag846, was about the Psychology of buying and some of the excellent observations he made.

You clearly suffer from paranoid delusions, which stem from your obstinate and assiduous nature to obsess with always being right--about everything.

I didn't say you were specifically referring to one or the other. I just simply brought up another aspect of psychology. Apparently it parted your hair. :tossed:

As far as paranoia and delusions, you must have made a mistake in thinking I actually give a hairy rat's arse about what you think. :Hysterical:
11-07-2010, 11:24 AM   #56
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
I didn't say you were specifically referring to one or the other. I just simply brought up another aspect of psychology. Apparently it parted your hair. :tossed:

As far as paranoia and delusions, you must have made a mistake in thinking I actually give a hairy rat's arse about what you think. :Hysterical:
Alright you two. Clearly Blue is not paranoid. At the same time, Blue has no basis for suggesting that I think the DA 40 is a better value because it is a newer lens. I never said that. If you guys are going to chat psychology I suggest you actually read about it first. I did say that I think that it was designed specifically for digital, which has nothing to do with age, but rather application. Lets try to help the OP, not finger-point and name-call.
11-07-2010, 11:29 AM   #57
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by axl Quote
Yes, but in three years time your kid will have grown, or married or ... whatever. That's just an example. But what will you do until then? Take out your pencil and sheet of paper?!?=
Until then, I think a lot of people would be happy to save some money, shoot at 1600 instead of 800, and de-noise on the computer for their mother-in-law's 65th birthday . Unless you want to take a picture of your relatives with only one eyes in focus...

Once again, is OP being paid to do this stuff? If he doing photo-shoots or pursuing a hobby? If the answer is what I think it is, he would likely be better off buying the very good vs. the "best' lens.

You know, if Pentax was actually available to try in the stores, these poor people trying to make a purchasing decision would not have to read through pages and pages of people defending their expensive toys.
11-07-2010, 11:35 AM   #58
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
Exactly. In 3 years time, most cameras will preform similarly to the K-5, at a fraction of the cost. Shallow DOF will become more and more a specialty application.

And while it is a personal preference thing, I do believe that a fast-aperture photos with very little in focus is generally not preferable to something where the whole subject is in focus. Personal preference. I tend to find fast-aperture photos to be quite dreamy and while that CAN be nice, it can also be the visual equivalent of an over-produced record.

I feel the same way about people who pay for race-car engines to drive them on speed-limited highways. Truth is, most of the time, you are going to be shooting images that require a larger DOF. 2.8 is not exactly forgiving, and f2 is certainly a specialty DOF.

A nice picture from the FA 43:

http://kgoodphotoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/4292956965_740a49fa43_o.jpg

Major advantage over the DA 40 here?..
that is just your personal feeling but not a general sentiment as you might think. people get paid for those shallow DOF applications, people look for those shallow DOF applications and people like those shallow DOF applications. your personal preference doesn't reflect what the general populace would want. it would be a misconception to think that it is an unnecessary luxury. it will always have it's use. personal preference should be separated from lens capability. and branding it as a specialty is more of an attempt to say that it's an unnecessary feature, which is a fallacy. again, let's not confuse ourselves and the OP about this of justifying cost versus IQ performance. just set the parameters of budget as it is rather than justifying IQ for the cost or trying to warrant want to something as good as the other one because it ain't happening. there will always be compromises and difference, even with the help of a much better camera. it is simple as that.
11-07-2010, 11:55 AM   #59
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
How about you show me a good photograph that was shot at a fast aperture that would look worse if it was shot at 2.8? I clearly don't know what I am talking about . Please no abstract or pictures of flowers.

Edit:

I think this comparison will be more helpful to the OP than our little disagreement. One thing I would like to point out is that the red car is fully in focus with the DA 40 2.8, while the FA 43 at 1.9 only has about 1/2 the car in focus.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/777126-post59.html

Furthermore, some flowers .

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/756675-post52.html
thank you for the samples. as you might not have noticed, try to see the difference in subject isolation between the lenses (front and back). the one taken with the DA40 is much defined can be distracting. there are better samples or photos than these to better illustrate the difference in DOF isolation. it would show the shortcoming of f2.8 lenses in DOF isolation.

I have currently have 3 50mm and 1 55mm to see comparisons and 3 85's (soon to be 4) and 2 90mm. of course those lenses have different aperture speed and bokeh, and each were bought at certain prices. in short, they were bought due to their differences in image quality and rendering.

Last edited by Pentaxor; 11-07-2010 at 12:12 PM.
11-07-2010, 12:15 PM   #60
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
. . .

Once again, is OP being paid to do this stuff? If he doing photo-shoots or pursuing a hobby? If the answer is what I think it is, he would likely be better off buying the very good vs. the "best' lens.
This doesn't have anything to do with the OP question. This argument could be used to require everyone not selling services to use a Lumix LX3.

QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
You know, if Pentax was actually available to try in the stores, these poor people trying to make a purchasing decision would not have to read through pages and pages of people defending their expensive toys.
This is true. I don't know of a store in the entire state of Florida or Georgia that has any Pentax prime lenses on display.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
40mm, 43mm, k-mount, ltd, pentax, pentax lens, report, review, slr lens, test
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Has anyone compared Voigtländer 40mm and 43mm ltd? Ketsuppi11 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 05-20-2010 11:45 PM
40mm DA vs 43mm FA andi Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 73 01-17-2010 10:53 AM
Anyone own the 40mm and 43mm loganross Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 05-27-2007 10:50 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:44 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top