[Optigrab]

I own the DA21, FA35, and an old Pentax M50/2.0 from many years ago. I'm seriously considering the FA77 and the also th FA50 to replace the M50.

I'm thinking that the FA35 is a bit wide for many of my shots. I thought it would be perfect for the small rooms in New York apartments (like mine), and perhaps I just need more time with the lens to see that this is the case. But based on some initial work both indoors and outdoors I'm finding that I must sometimes get closer to my subject than I'd prefer. Hence I'm thinking of picking up the FA50 along with the FA77.

But does it make sense to own both the FA35 and FA50? Given a choice, would you rather have the FA35 and FA50 or just the FA43? I suppose I could sell the FA35 (worth the hassle?) and put the money toward the FA43. It would work out to be slightly cheaper than simply buying the FA50. On the other hand, maybe the FA35 and FA50 are different enough to coexist and would make for a more versatile and useful kit.

P.S. I also own the Tamron 18-250. It's pretty nice and covers every focal length. It's certainly not fast but it is convenient. I bought it as my 1st new lens since I was heading on a trip to South Africa, but I'm no sure if I will reach for it over my growing collection of primes. Perhaps I'll sell it.

---

Last edited by Optigrab; 09-24-2007 at 07:42 AM. Reason: edited for clarity

[kjao]

Depends on how you use the lenses.

FA35 is nice for indoor, low-light shots, sharp wide-open. FA50 is a little long indoor, not as sharp as FA35 wide open. FA43 *might* be a little long for indoor shots I think, and remember FA43 doesn't start to get sharp until about f2.8.

cheers
Kenny

[Kguru]

Let's see if I can rescue this thread

If I were you I'd sell FA35 for FA43. The combo DA21+FA43+FA77 is an offer not many can refuse. You might find it too fiddly to cover the range with 4 lenses if going with 35+50.

Me personally, I don't have DA21 as I prefer to cover that end with my 17-22/2.8, then I have (sheepishly) all 4 primes in question 35+43+50+77. There sure is redundancy there but I like the 43 & 77 too much to part company, the 50 is good value for money worth keeping just on that reason alone; leaving my 35 as a potential orphan hence I take pity and keep it as well

That's my take hopefully you can draw some ideas toward your decision .... cheers.

PS: Just thought of this -- if you're not particularly after the 43 then the combo 21+35+77 can be quite effective.

[Optigrab]

FA35 is nice for indoor, low-light shots, sharp wide-open. FA50 is a little long indoor, not as sharp as FA35 wide open. FA43 *might* be a little long for indoor shots I think, and remember FA43 doesn't start to get sharp until about f2.8.

Thanks Kenny. Please see my response below. I'm no longer certain that the 35 is giving me the frame of view I expected, and the 43 or 50 might be just fine. On the other hand, as you point out the 35 trumps them both in low light performance (quite important to me as I'm not skilled with a flash), so I must consider if I should keep the 35 on that basis alone.

If I were you I'd sell FA35 for FA43. The combo DA21+FA43+FA77 is an offer not many can refuse. You might find it too fiddly to cover the range with 4 lenses if going with 35+50.

Thanks for the reply Kguru. That's what I was thinking...

I have (sheepishly) all 4 primes in question 35+43+50+77.

Do as I say, not as I do, eh?

...the 50 is good value for money worth keeping just on that reason alone; leaving my 35 as a potential orphan...

There are good reasons to own both, aside from focal length and great IQ; the 50 isn't terribly expensive at half the price of the next cheapest lens, and according to many the 35 is the low light champ (sharpest at f/2.).

...if you're not particularly after the 43 then the combo 21+35+77 can be quite effective.

This tells me that I should grab the 77 even if I haven't yet made up my mind about keeping the 35.

[Optigrab]

I've had a breakthrough. I've figured out why the FA35 seems wide to me. It IS wide, that is, it renders a lot wider than I anticipated and it is not equivalent to a 50mm lens on my old 35mm ME-Super. I placed my K10d with FA35 next to my dusty, ME-Super with M50mm. I aimed them both at my camera bag and checked the viewfinders. The FA35 captured a slightly tighter frame, but the camera bag appeared significantly farther away and smaller. You might think I'm catching on a little late, since there have been many discussions about "crop factors", FOV, foreshortening, etc. But I never realized how significant these effects are until I experienced them.

I will need a different "normal" lens.

Whether I will get the FA43 or FA50 I do not know. If I go with the FA43, the FA35 will go up for sale. Otherwise I will get the FA50 and keep the FA35. I'm leaning towards the first option, but selling the FA35 will be a bit of a chore and I hate giving up the low light capabilities. Is the FA35 clearly faster and sharper wide open compared to the FA43?

What should I do?

[Kguru]

This tells me that I should grab the 77 even if I haven't yet made up my mind about keeping the 35.

Get either FA77 or DA70, the 77 seems to have more "prestige" while the 70 is more cost effective. This choice is independent of your 35/43 decision.

Regarding diff object sizes in viewfinders, it could be due to the viewfinders themselves. Some give not exactly 100% of the frame and at small magnification like 0.8x which makes object look smaller than in 1x viewfinders.

Search DPR for 35/43 comparisons and sample pics, don't give too much emphasis to sharpness. If sharpness is the deciding factor then 35 wins but you'll find many people prefer the 43; it's something intangible that can't be expressed in measurements.

[Optigrab]

Regarding diff object sizes in viewfinders, it could be due to the viewfinders themselves. Some give not exactly 100% of the frame and at small magnification like 0.8x which makes object look smaller than in 1x viewfinders.

Understood, but the framing corresponded as expected (slightly tighter for the 35mm) and the different apparent sizes were too dramatic to be solely the result of viewfinder variations. Besides, I've seen the results of my recent K10D shots - there is far less "foreshortening" on the FA35 shots than I would expect from a 50mm on a film camera. I took a nice photo of my son, semi-reclined with his feet nearest to the lens and his shoulders/arms/hands furthest away. The apparent difference in the depth of the shot was dramatic to my eyes - his upper body seemed much further away than his lower body.

Regarding the DA70 vs the FA77, I've been down that road already in another thread, and it is not an easy decision! I would love to have the compactness, fast-focusing, and less PF of the 70, but the fast f/1.8 of the 77, plus all its supporters and all those photos suggests that it is special.

Regarding the FA43, it just comes down to whether it will be simple and easy to sell my nearly new FA35 and not lose much money, and if I can pick up the FA43 and count on that rebate. If it's a chore to sell, and I lose too much money, I'll keep it and ask for the FA50 for my birthday. I must be crazy to collect all these primes when I could have gotten two DA* zooms and have been done with it!!

So how do I unload my FA35?

[pdmlmember]

Post it FS here on this forum

[Andrew Faires]

I had the same choice to make a few years ago and opted for the 43mm. I haven't looked back since and have come to rely on the 43mm almost as much as my right index finger for photography. It's an amazing walk-around lens if I'm just using one lens and it, paired with the 77mm lens makes for an excellent two-lens kit for general photography for me no matter where or what I'm shooting (excluding birds and animals of course).

In short, I've had no second thoughts about getting the 43mm and would do it again if I had to make the choice now.

[maj0rglitch]

Currently I have 21mm, m50/1.7 and 70mm but I rarely use the 50mm.
I would get the 43mm over the 35mm and 50mm. IMO less is better.

[Finn]

Or you could sell them all for the FA 31...