[Blue]

I don't want to start something here so I will respond and leave this conversation be - I've made my point already. I believe that Pentax produces the FA 43 and the DA 40 alongside each other for good reason. I have heard some people state a preference for one, and others a preference for the other. I believe they both have their strengths and weaknesses. I believe that the additional center sharpness of the 43 is worth noting, but is not substantially different from the DA 40 in real world pictures, judging from lines per mm graphs on photozone. I believe that for one reason or another, the DA controls artifacts better than the FA on digital cameras, although I will concede that the difference may not be significant in real world shots. I believe what is significant is the prices of these lenses, and for a digital only shooter who does not care much for an aperture ring, the DA 40 is likely a better value than the DA 43. I also do not think the extra stop of the FA 43 is as important as you make it out to be, considering the lens needs to be closed down to 2.8 ish for it to show it's legendary sharpness.

You can knock the psychology behind consumer behaviour, but the truth is that very few of us here are paid to take pictures. Those who are should pay for the best - their gear will pay for itself eventually. For most of us, image quality and satisfaction is going to be a series of very subjective judgments. Those judgments can be clouded by all sorts of factors, including money spent, and the opinions of "experts". This comparison is between two very competent lenses, and someone who learns to judge with their eyes and treats their hobby as a hobby (instead of habitual acquisition) will be very satisfied with the DA 40. The sky is the limit with all of these things, so it's important to keep it all in perspective. There are many lenses far faster than the FA 43 which can be had for far less... and I truly believe that lens speed is less and less of an issue with improvements in ISO. Seriously, how often to you want to shoot with a depth of field below 2.8 when you aren't shooting floral arrangements or abstracts? Those photographic styles have their place, but fast glass is becoming more and more a specialty purpose thing, as opposed to something required to stop action.


Edit:

Blue, I hope you enjoy your lens collection. Just please bare in mind that many of us cannot afford to own it all, and a wise purchase is often not the most costly one. While you clearly have a lot of experience with nice glass, it is very likely that most of us would be better off buying a great lens, instead of the best lens.

This whole debate came up because you started out saying that the 2 had different coatings and I merely pointed out they both have SMC and Ghostless Coating and the 40 additionally has SP on the front element. All LTD lenses have the Ghostless Coating and the 43 was the 1st Pentax lens to get it.


First off, there is more to using wide apertures than just floral arrangements and use lenses at maximum aperture quite frequently in existing light photography because it is possible to use max aperture AND push the ISO. I'm not sure where you came up with that idea. Secondly, I have 7 af prime lenses and 3 of them I use extensively for work related things (macro and events) as well as the 1 af zoom I currently have. Therefore, the "habitual acquisition" comment doesn't have anything to do with the 43 comparison to the 40. I don't currently have a 43 or 40 and use the FA 50/1.4 in that position. However, I have used them and have considered getting a 43 and selling the 50/1.4 but have been slow to do so because of the A50/1.2. Furthermore, I used a couple of bodies and a handful of lenses for 20 years before I got to the current setup I have. It is very unlikely that I'll have all 8 of the ltd lenses, especially at 1 time.
Lastly, you keep bringing up that there is psychology behind the 43 being better because it costs $220 dollars more than the 40 and I merely countered that you psychologically think the 40 is better because it is 7 years newer design than the 43.

Addendum: Take a look at this image posted by a fellow PF member at f1.2, 1/50 and ISO 6400 under dim street lights.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1253653-post36.html

[paperbag846]

Lastly, you keep bringing up that there is psychology behind the 43 being better because it costs $220 dollars more than the 40 and I merely countered that you psychologically think the 40 is better because it is 7 years newer design than the 43.

Addendum: Take a look at this image posted by a fellow PF member at f1.2, 1/50 and ISO 6400 under dim street lights.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1253653-post36.html

Nice shot, although I believe it could have been taken at 12800 with a 50 dollar f 1.7 / 1.8 lens and not really look that different. The question is... do you really want almost the whole picture to be out of focus? You pay big bucks for that privilege. In most cases, I would think that it would be preferable to have the subjects face in focus (not just the eyes). To each their own! 500 dollar manual focus prime... or 50 dollar manual focus prime? The choice is yous . Don't insinuate that the most expensive option is the best one.

What I am trying to say is that the optical differences between the two lenses does not equal inferior and superior based on the price tag. I simply don't believe that the 43 is better for all digital applications. Center sharpness of the 43 is higher than the 40, corner sharpness is higher for the 40. They each have their strengths and importantly, both will take very nice pictures. The value of 220 dollars is different for different people... that could buy you a whole extra lens... especially considering the DA 40 can be had for 300 bucks!

Furthermore, I believe the coatings (or something) IS different with the DA 40 because:

A) Pentax claims it is.
B) It exhibits less artifacts (fringing, etc.) Therefore you can SEE the difference.

I believe this is completely logical, and not based on a psychological bias. My only bias is that I do not think owning the sharpest lens available is required to take a nice photograph.

[Blue]

. . .
A) Pentax claims it is.
B) It exhibits less artifacts (fringing, etc.) Therefore you can SEE the difference.

I believe this is completely logical, and not based on a psychological bias. My only bias is that I do not think owning the sharpest lens available is required to take a nice photograph.

What Pentax claims is the DA series was designed for digital. No where can you show that the Ghostless Coating and SMC was changed during that 7 years from 1997 to 2004. They have also promoted many of the FA and FA* lenses for use on digital.

[paperbag846]

What Pentax claims is the DA series was designed for digital. No where can you show that the Ghostless Coating and SMC was changed during that 7 years from 1997 to 2004. They have also promoted many of the FA and FA* lenses for use on digital.

Why are you so obsessed with coating formulas? Many changes in coatings have been implemented, and remain undocumented. I have no proof because there are no documents.

Now differences in flare resistance and CA... you can see that with your eyes. They exist between DA 40 and FA 43. You consistently ignore this point, instead asking whether the coatings have changed. The performance is different! That is enough for me.

[Blue]

Why are you so obsessed with coating formulas? Many changes in coatings have been implemented, and remain undocumented. I have no proof because there are no documents.

Now differences in flare resistance and CA... you can see that with your eyes. They exist between DA 40 and FA 43. You consistently ignore this point, instead asking whether the coatings have changed. The performance is different! That is enough for me.

Even if the formula was changed in 2004, Pentax would likely be using the same formulation on both LTD series. Plus, you are incorrect. I have said the performance is different. The FA 43 Ltd is better. The FA 43mm was considered one of the most flare resistant normal lenses ever made by Pentax at one point.

The bottom line here is you like the DA 40mm better and I like the FA 43. That is o.k. However, you seem to have a Psychological need for a 7 year newer design to be better.

"Amateur Photographer made this lens their reference normal lens, and magazines like Outdoor Photography and FotoMagazin agree that it is a very sharp and contrasty lens, practically free of flare, with some barrel distortion. What makes this lens so special is its focal length (most users prefer it over a 50 mm lens) and its bokeh — exceptionally smooth and pleasing at all apertures, rendering light sources at night especially beautiful, and making pictures seem very natural and "3-dimensional.""

FA 43/1.9 Limited

FA 43/1.9 Limited

FA 43/1.9 Limited

[Blue]

A comparison of the MTF charts from the Photozone reviews of the DA 40 and FA 43. Pay particular attention to f2.8.




FA 43mm

Verdict

Similar to its cousins (DA 40mm f/2.8, FA 50mm f/1.4) the Pentax SMC-FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited is a great performer with only few weaknesses. At f/1.9 the contrast and resolution is somewhat soft but beyond the quality is superb and probably as good as it gets on the K10D. Vignetting and distortions are well controlled whereas CAs could be a little lower for a fix-focal. I guess many Pentax users will raise an eyebrow or two regarding the following statement but the bokeh (out-of-focus blur) can look a little harsh in certain situations - see the first and fourth sample image above. The build quality of the lens is superb and surely one of the reasons for its rather steep price tag.

Pentax SMC-FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited - Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict


Edit: It is interesting that the black version of the FA 43 ltd is only 4 years older than the DA 40.

[TOUGEFC]

The bottom line is that you cannot say a valid statement on which on is better until you have owned both or at least tried them both first hand.

Until then one can only make a decision on a lens based upon reviews(by professionals or owners), specs on paper, and images viewed taken with both lenses.

Ive never tried the da40 but given on everything ive read and seen, i recently choose to buy the fa 43. And am very happy with it.

Edit- And yeah, the mtf charts of the FA43 speaks for itself.

[Pentaxor]

Nice shot, although I believe it could have been taken at 12800 with a 50 dollar f 1.7 / 1.8 lens and not really look that different. The question is... do you really want almost the whole picture to be out of focus? You pay big bucks for that privilege. In most cases, I would think that it would be preferable to have the subjects face in focus (not just the eyes). To each their own! 500 dollar manual focus prime... or 50 dollar manual focus prime? The choice is yous . Don't insinuate that the most expensive option is the best one.

What I am trying to say is that the optical differences between the two lenses does not equal inferior and superior based on the price tag. I simply don't believe that the 43 is better for all digital applications. Center sharpness of the 43 is higher than the 40, corner sharpness is higher for the 40. They each have their strengths and importantly, both will take very nice pictures. The value of 220 dollars is different for different people... that could buy you a whole extra lens... especially considering the DA 40 can be had for 300 bucks!

Furthermore, I believe the coatings (or something) IS different with the DA 40 because:

A) Pentax claims it is.
B) It exhibits less artifacts (fringing, etc.) Therefore you can SEE the difference.

I believe this is completely logical, and not based on a psychological bias. My only bias is that I do not think owning the sharpest lens available is required to take a nice photograph.

you forget that there are certain factors to be considered why such lenses are expensive over the others. it can range from light transmission, bokeh difference (it does exist), optical difference, resolution difference, AF capability, built, aperture ring, manufacturing cost, supply and demand, economics, marketing and so forth and so on.

this cannot simply be dismissed just because a $50 lens can do what a $500 lens could do, but the question is, by what category or parameter? there are optical differences and there are preferences as well. but having one lens preference over the other doesn't mean that IQ difference don't exist. they do whether you like it or not. there are certain measurement values like lpmm which would illustrate a lens' resolving power.

as far as shooting wide open is concerned, there is some misconception to why a lens is called aspecialty lens or has a specialty trait. it is not because it is plainly limited to out of focus subjects (abstracts) and flowers but because it takes special MF skills to nail focus at wide open. it is not true that having fast lenses at f1.2 or f1.4 would be deemed unusable or much better to stop down inorder to nail perfect focus for portraits. portraits are not defined to be sharp or in-focus at all times. for someone who gets something in focus at wide open is a challenge which old-timers had practiced. sharpness is one characteristic of a lens but does not define portraits as you might perceive it. yes, there are a lot of photographers that shoot at wide open inorder to get that certain isolation that they are looking for. most of them are done on FF cameras which are more challenging due to a much shallower DOF than APS-C cameras.

the fact of the matter is, if one lens would cater one's preference and IQ and dismiss any IQ advantage over the other, everyone would be contented only having the kitlens.

[Jewelltrail]

Originally posted by Jewelltrail
.


Paperbag846: I like your 2 cents. The Psychology of buying is a fascinating subject, almost never touched upon in a forum like this for obvious reasons. Social Psychologists dedicate lifetimes to unearthing the patterns & motivations which govern human spending. Human beings, on the whole, are easily lead, which is why marketing and sales has long-term job security. Being conscious of our vulnerabilities though, goes a long way to preventing silly mistakes in our purchases. What you discuss is well documented in the voluminous research data gleaned from thousands of empirical studies. Just being conscious of the phenomenon, “Cognitive Dissonance,” for example, can enable us to lead much wiser lives. Thank you for your analysis.

Blue: Likewise you must be one of those folks who fall for the psychology that something designed 5 minutes ago is better than technology that has been around for a while.

That said, psychology doesn't have a tinkerers damn to do with the FA 43 ltd kicking the shit out of the DA 40mm ltd at f1.9 and having a more user friendly aperture ring. And regardless your and Paperbag's psychological hangups, they both have Ghostless Coating.

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.

[Pentaxor]

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

coupled with sarcastic humor.

[deathdream]

:] comparing 2 similar lens IQwise doesnt give u anything. my 2 cents, u are not making money out photography, u want the optimized results out of camera, u dont want to spend 200-300 dollars more, u dont want manuel focusing, u dont want slower focus(especially in low light), u dont want somehow bigger lens, u also dont want something optimized for film cameras(does pretty well on film cameras too). ur answer is clear, u gonna get a 40 ltd for 300 or abit more
main concern would be the feeling of lens on body, when u hold it. if u are happy, u ll get great shots. i still love using 18-55 even after 50mm with pretty bad resolution, blur.. so using 40 ltd with soft corners, or with abit vignetting wont make its IQ lower than 43 ltd in your terms.
another story is the chance of getting a bad copy of old fa ltds, i suffered alot from a 77 ltd copy. it was tend to produce pf even at f4 and had to sell it after a while cuz i realized im generally shooting reflective objects or ppl with magenta coloured clothes xD it was such a pain to remove pf if theres purple, magenta in the frame. so if u care about weaknesses of a lens, u will only get to learn how it will make u sad after u start using it xD buy the lens use the lens, if u dont like it u will probably lose 30 dollars or so while selling it on marketplace.

[axl]

I don't want to start something here so I will respond and leave this conversation be - I've made my point already. I believe that Pentax produces the FA 43 and the DA 40 alongside each other for good reason. I have heard some people state a preference for one, and others a preference for the other. I believe they both have their strengths and weaknesses. I believe that the additional center sharpness of the 43 is worth noting, but is not substantially different from the DA 40 in real world pictures, judging from lines per mm graphs on photozone. I believe that for one reason or another, the DA controls artifacts better than the FA on digital cameras, although I will concede that the difference may not be significant in real world shots. I believe what is significant is the prices of these lenses, and for a digital only shooter who does not care much for an aperture ring, the DA 40 is likely a better value than the DA 43. I also do not think the extra stop of the FA 43 is as important as you make it out to be, considering the lens needs to be closed down to 2.8 ish for it to show it's legendary sharpness.

Have you ever shot FA43? I don't think so, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to write the highlighted.
The extra stop IS very important, not just for thinner DOF but for ISO too. Yes, the new cameras have good ISO but every sensible photog would prefer one stop lower ISO if he/she could. FA43 does not have to be stopped down to gain anything. At f1.9 it's the sharpest wide open lens I own!
If you don't like narrow DOF than be happy with f2.8. For those of us who do, 1 stop is very valid difference...

You can knock the psychology behind consumer behaviour, but the truth is that very few of us here are paid to take pictures. Those who are should pay for the best - their gear will pay for itself eventually. For most of us, image quality and satisfaction is going to be a series of very subjective judgments. Those judgments can be clouded by all sorts of factors, including money spent, and the opinions of "experts". This comparison is between two very competent lenses, and someone who learns to judge with their eyes and treats their hobby as a hobby (instead of habitual acquisition) will be very satisfied with the DA 40.

those of us who judge by eyes will easily see difference between those two lenses. They are competent. But also different in rendering and again we come to the same. 1 stop of difference in DOF can be easily shown and used to big advantage. Many people will be satisfied with DA40. I was too. I bought 43 because it is stop faster and my satisfaction rose accordingly..

The sky is the limit with all of these things, so it's important to keep it all in perspective. There are many lenses far faster than the FA 43 which can be had for far less... and I truly believe that lens speed is less and less of an issue with improvements in ISO. Seriously, how often to you want to shoot with a depth of field below 2.8 when you aren't shooting floral arrangements or abstracts? Those photographic styles have their place, but fast glass is becoming more and more a specialty purpose thing, as opposed to something required to stop action.

I see what you are trying to say but:
are there many lenses (to be had new) in Pentax land faster than 43 for cheaper money? Please take into account that I will not consider lenses of fundamentally different use. For me FA43 is tight normal lens. The only cheaper and faster are: FA50/1.4, DA*55/1.4 (and here we are pushing the limits of tight normal) and.....
ehm, OK, Sigma 50/1.4 and Sigma 30/1.4. So that's 4! I'm sorry but in my world 4 hardly classifies as many, and with the Sigmas out, it's only 2! So there we go for many faster cheaper lenses...
How often do I shoot below 2.8? Indoors always! I bought fast glass with intention to use as such, and I'm doing so! And I don't do florals, and not many abstracts, even outdoors for streets, I often use faster f stop than f2.8. Why because on longer distances f2.8 on 40-50 mm lens on APSC produces big DOF which does nothing for subject isolation.

Blue, I hope you enjoy your lens collection. Just please bare in mind that many of us cannot afford to own it all, and a wise purchase is often not the most costly one. While you clearly have a lot of experience with nice glass, it is very likely that most of us would be better off buying a great lens, instead of the best lens.

It's not about most costly or not. It's about satisfaction and reason. As I said, I was happy with 40 but I bought 43 simply because 40 couldn't give me what I liked doing. 43 answered all calls!
Would most people be better off buying A lens instead of B lens? You can't answer that. For one I wouldn't be better off, that's for sure... and there are many like me...

seriously this debate has been raging on since D40 was introduced. Both lenses are good. I know it because I owned/own them. Both have their strengths. I never noticed that I have to be more careful with 43 than I ever had to be with 40. If anything, I can MF 43 much easier, and I do so often to achieve effect I want. There are people who are happy with one, and those happy with the other.
If you don't like 43, that's fine. Save money and keep your 40, be happy with it and we will be happy for you, but please bear in mind there are people with different opinion on the matter for whom the f2.8 is just not enough....

Regards,

Peter

[GeneV]

This reminds me a bit of the many threads discussing the DA70 and the FA77. Until I owned them both, I saw no need for both of them. Now, I'd be hard-pressed to give either of them up. I'm afraid that if an FA43 found its way into my bag, it would be similarly cemented.

[paperbag846]

If you don't like 43, that's fine. Save money and keep your 40, be happy with it and we will be happy for you, but please bear in mind there are people with different opinion on the matter for whom the f2.8 is just not enough....

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!"

[axl]

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.

I don't think DA40 cannot hold a candle to the FA43. DA40 is very capable performer. And I don't think anybody on these forums would disagree with that statement. The only people who always start these heated arguments are insecure DA40 owners who just for the sake of it want to prove that their lens is just as good as FA43 which has the reputation of one of THE lenses. Sure, from f2.8 DA hold it's ground, but below f2.8 it's a different story, and that's what matters to many, and that's where the extre £s or $s show....
DA40 is terrific lens, it just can't do couple of things FA43 can, shallow dof and better MF IMO being THE couple for me....

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 ).

It's not necessary for all lenses to be fast, fair enough, but why carry two lenses and why having to swap them, when you can have one lens that can do it. Yes FA50 is practically stop faster, but as well tad bigger (not much, but as much as 43 is bigger than 40). Yes, you can have good optical properties for under $100 but you can't have AF and many times not even AE for that money. Also, with new lenses you get warranty, and you know what you're getting. Old lenses are fine and backwards compatibility is stunning thing but... I'll give you example: I had my K50/1.2 since May 2010. Haven't treated it any differently than my other lenses and in September it fell apart on me (basically filter thread came out with the front cap). Repair and CLA is £70. Do you think if I could by modern days alternative (optically) that would be as fast and good, that I wouldn't? Oh hell yes I would....

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 don't need to look at K-5s test shots to make my conclusions, I've shot all my glass wide open, and I can assure you I would do so on ANY camera! I buy fast (mostly expensive) glass because of it's optical performance. I'm happy to have thin DOF and definitely don't feel this as any relegation. Is there a reason why Pentax is releasing slower lenses? Yes, they are cheaper to make, have lower RRP and more people will buy them, the word you are looking for is profit....

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!"

Who needs/wants/is happy with what is very subjective.... your attempt to save the man some money can be seen as need to justify your purchase over "overrated" FA43 when in fact DA40 is just as good. If the man needs/wants narrow DOF for whatever reason, your attempt is ill fated because 40/2.8 will just not cut it. If he's happy with 2.8 than you are giving him very good advice indeed because there is very little difference between DA40 and FA43 above f2.8, other than typical DA vs typical FA rendering, and MF feel. And again these are very subjective things to judge. Did he ask? yes, we gave him opinions from both sides... no point going on about, this is better than that because... whatever....