[Jewelltrail]

Pentaxor: thanks. although the other posts are somewhat contradictory and gives that other impression or simply giving mixed signals. anyway, if you said that if that was his point, then that's fine. I may had read it wrong so I would apologize for that if I did misinterpret it.

If I am wrong he surely can say correct me. It would not be the 1st time that happened.

[paperbag846]

If I am wrong he surely can say correct me. It would not be the 1st time that happened.

First, Jewel, I have to thank you for writing the most humorous post I've read in a long while (Saturday Night At the Fights), which I believe sums up this discussion most eloquently. Your help also, I think, cleared up my argument, which has won me a number of enemies. You have me completely correct. Any contradiction in my discussion might be the result of poor writing and no proof-reading, so thank you for clearing this up!

I think this sums it all up, although it seems so dead and useless making a table like this:

DA 40:

1) Great lens.
2) Superior sharpness across the frame.
3) Inferior center sharpness, but still strong.
4) Quick shift / faster autofocus
5) Less CA / fringing.
6) No aperture ring.
7) Very small (maybe too small?)
8) Fairly inexpensive for a Limited.
9) One stop slower (2.8), but good wide open.

FA 43:

1) Great lens.
2) Superior center sharpness.
3) Inferior corner sharpness.
4) No quick shift, slower autofocus.
5) More CA / fringing.
6) Aperture ring.
7) Small, but not a pancake.
8) Considerably more expensive.
9) One stop faster, but not notably sharp until 2.8.

If anyone thinks this is an unfair representation, please feel free to comment! I am not trying to mislead the OP at all.. I'm actually trying to warn the OP that the opinions of a lens-owner might not be well-tempered, and that measures of sharpness etc. on websites might not have as much real-world application as one might think.

NB: This discussion really gone from corner to corner. It began when someone wanted me to prove that the DA has different coatings than the FA, which I clearly could not do. I felt my comment was justified because these lenses tend to preform as if the DA was, in fact, optimized for digital.

Then it became an issue of aperture, which I suggested was not as important as one would think. For most pictures, I believe f2.8 is a bare minimum, unless you are going for a special effect. This drew a lot of negativity. I don't think low DOF is totally useless, but I did want the OP to not think he had to buy the fastest possible lens, or that his purchase would be a waste of money! The discussion of bokeh was very silly, because it is an accepted fact that measures of bokeh quality is one of the most subjective measures of lens performance, period.

Finally, it became an issue of sharpness, which does not require much of a recap. Sharp is sharp, sharper than sharp is still sharp.

In the end, the advantages of the FA *might* warrant the extra money for the OP, or might not. That is for him to decide. I simply wanted to be one voice amongst many that would suggest, "Hey, they are both good lenses. If you are trying to get the most value for your dollar, consider the DA 40." A few others have mentioned in this thread has mentioned that they agree with me, but I have been the most incendiary, so they have remained mostly ignored .

I hope this clears my name and we can all agree that when it comes down to it, it's all about the dollar .

[axl]

Well... I still don't agree on some points here:
2) corner sharpness - the only point where FA43 is softer is wide open. At f2.8 it's actually as sharp (my copy) or shaper (according to photozone) than DA40. So saying "inferior corner sharpness" .... sorry man
5) CA/fringing... my own experience is 50-50 here. My DA had more PF but less CAs than my 43 has
9) this is a big lie.... I own, all FA ltds, *24 and K50, have tried two different incarnations of 50/1.7, K55/1.8, DA*55, DA40, kits, Tokinas etc... the only, and I stress ONLY lens sharper wide open than 43 was DA*55. At f1.9 43 is perfectly usable and delivers more sharpness than you can ask for....

Other than those three points I agree with you....
(with exception of the wider than f2.8 apertures usage but that is personal so doesn't matter)

[paperbag846]

At f1.9 43 is perfectly usable and delivers more sharpness than you can ask for....

If we are going to quote photozone, then we should be able to agree that the sharpness of the FA 43 is nothing SPECIAL until f2.8, at which point it is off of the charts. I don't think you need an FA 43 to get the kind of center sharpness one sees at f1.9.

[axl]

If we are going to quote photozone, then we should be able to agree that the sharpness of the FA 43 is nothing SPECIAL until f2.8, at which point it is off of the charts. I don't think you need an FA 43 to get the kind of center sharpness one sees at f1.9.

Unfortunately I can't agree here. Even at f1.9 the 43 is sharp and you don't need to stop it down to 2.8 to get good sharpness. I'll post some examples later on so you can tell me your opinion...

[Rondec]

Unfortunately I can't agree here. Even at f1.9 the 43 is sharp and you don't need to stop it down to 2.8 to get good sharpness. I'll post some examples later on so you can tell me your opinion...

Just reading Photozone's mtf numbers, which have been repeated numerous times in this thread, the FA 43 at f1.9 scores 1774 in the center and 1119 at the corners, it sharpens up nicely at f2.8 to 2311 in the center and 1993 at the borders. This is versus the DA 40 that f2.8 is 1995 in the center and 1979 at the borders. So, based on mtf scores (not meaningful in real shooting), the DA 40 is quite a bit sharper in lab measurements at f2.8 than the FA is at f1.9.

I would certainly prefer to have all of the FA limiteds, but I can't afford them, so I have had to make do with the DA limiteds (35, 40 and 70) and am pretty satisfied.

[axl]

Yes but 2.8 vs 2.8 43 wins, no contest. And at f1.9 it's very usable. I'm just in train home. Upon arrival I'll post some shots to show what I mean...

[Jewelltrail]

axl:axl Yes but 2.8 vs 2.8 43 wins, no contest. And at f1.9 it's very usable. I'm just in train home. Upon arrival I'll post some shots to show what I mean...

I do not think anyone here actually believes the fa 43 is unusable wide open. And comparing the Fa stopped down to 2.8 to the Da wide open is not fair. However, even with that comparison, I would disagree that Fa wins "no contest." It might win for center sharpness, but the Da is much more balanced, retaining most of its sharpness to the borders even. In fact, the Da 40 is one of the most amazingly balanced lenses for sharpness, corner to borders, even to extreme borders, you will see.

[Rondec]

Yes but 2.8 vs 2.8 43 wins, no contest. And at f1.9 it's very usable. I'm just in train home. Upon arrival I'll post some shots to show what I mean...

I think I agree with you. It is just that comments from others make it sound like the DA 40 isn't useable wide open and the FA 43 is. Both in my opinion are useable wide open without any issues. it happens that wide open for the FA is one stop faster.

[Blue]

Just reading Photozone's mtf numbers, which have been repeated numerous times in this thread, the FA 43 at f1.9 scores 1774 in the center and 1119 at the corners, it sharpens up nicely at f2.8 to 2311 in the center and 1993 at the borders. This is versus the DA 40 that f2.8 is 1995 in the center and 1979 at the borders. So, based on mtf scores (not meaningful in real shooting), the DA 40 is quite a bit sharper in lab measurements at f2.8 than the FA is at f1.9.

I would certainly prefer to have all of the FA limiteds, but I can't afford them, so I have had to make do with the DA limiteds (35, 40 and 70) and am pretty satisfied.

Why are you comparing the DA 40 at 2.8 to the FA 43 at f1.9? It is a fact that the FA 43mm is better at f1.9 than the DA 40 is because it can't do it. Furthermore, the FA 43 score isn't bad at f1.9.

Plus, Paperbag also stated that the FA 43 has flare problems in one of his early posts in this thread, and that is a misleading statement in that the FA 43mm was the best 'normal' lens for controlling flare that Pentax had made to date which was cited in 3 magazines.

We have been discussing the 43 and 40 in this thread and NOT FA ltd vs. the DA ltd series. That is a whole different can of worms and I have more DA ltd than FA ltd for a reason.

[Blue]

I do not think anyone here actually believes the fa 43 is unusable wide open. And comparing the Fa stopped down to 2.8 to the Da wide open is not fair. However, even with that comparison, I would disagree that Fa wins "no contest." It might win for center sharpness, but the Da is much more balanced, retaining most of its sharpness to the borders even. In fact, the Da 40 is one of the most amazingly balanced lenses for sharpness, corner to borders, even to extreme borders, you will see.

The DA 40 is definitely one of the most consistent lenses if not the most consistent lens in the Pentax lineup. The argument that Axl and I have been making is that the FA 43mm has potential to go well beyond expectations while at times falling below expectations. In this regards, the 43 can hang with the 31. But this in a large part if very subjective territory.

As far as the cost ratio, when compared to the Canon 50mm/1.2 L USM, it is a bargain. Granted the L is way faster, but it is also a huge lens. It is also very capable at 3x the cost of the 43.

[paperbag846]

Plus, Paperbag also stated that the FA 43 has flare problems in one of his early posts in this thread, and that is a misleading statement in that the FA 43mm was the best 'normal' lens for controlling flare that Pentax had made to date which was cited in 3 magazines.

No, I stated that the FA 43 shows more problems with CA and fringing, which is documented. Maybe not important to the OP - but we were talking about the differences in coatings (real or hypothetical) at the time, not specifically flares.

I had read from others that they found the DA 40 rather artifact free no matter how they tortured the poor thing. You can find the same sort of evidence with the FA 77 vs. the DA 70. The FA 77 shows more purple fringing than the DA 70 in contrasty environments. Why that is, I am not sure. It could be the coatings, or possibly that the optical design is more optimized for digital.

[Blue]

No, I stated that the FA 43 shows more problems with CA and fringing, which is documented. Maybe not important to the OP - but we were talking about the differences in coatings (real or hypothetical) at the time, not specifically flares.

I had read from others that they found the DA 40 rather artifact free no matter how they tortured the poor thing. You can find the same sort of evidence with the FA 77 vs. the DA 70. The FA 77 shows more purple fringing than the DA 70 in contrasty environments. Why that is, I am not sure. It could be the coatings, or possibly that the optical design is more optimized for digital.

No, in post #20, you clearly brought up flaring. We aren't talking about the 70 and 77 here. That is a very different discussion, plus photozone screwed up the direct comparison of the 2 because they DID NOT torture test the 70.

I'm not being argumentative, just want to get my facts straight.

What I have heard specifically is that the FA series of lenses were optimized for film, and amongst other things, have different coatings. Therefore, measures of CA and flaring can be higher on the FA limiteds than the DA limiteds. This does not mean that it is a poor lens... quite the opposite. They are stunningly unique and beautiful, they take wonderful pictures. I would eventually like to own at least 1 FA ltd. However, money is a serious consideration for most people, and depending on your needs, a slightly slower lens with less CA / PF for less money might just fit the bill.

Thats why I stated that it can be harder to get optimal results with the FA's than the DA's, but I should have noted that this only applies to digital photography.

Do I just have it wrong?

[paperbag846]

I apologize for the flaring comment - I think I meant to write fringing. Thank you for correcting me.

[axl]

OK, here are few pictures:
#1

EXIF: K10D, ISO160, 43ltd @f1.9. Flash bounced off the right (our right) wall

and 100% crop:



and another one:

EXIF: K10D, ISO100, 43ltd @f1.9

and two crops:
center:



and corner:


shutin' up now....
but please don't tell me anymore about corner softness please...