[mmphilip]

I disagree what just over 1 stop difference is minor, it's anything but. This is coming from a DA40 owner, there are times when I'd like faster than f2.8. As you say though, the price difference is huge where I am, the FA43 is twice the price.

I agree with your disagreement. One stop can mean the difference between a keeper and a drag-and-drop to the trash can. So can half stop, a third stop, a quarter stop, etc. For any hand-held shot or moving subject, there's an exposure that freezes the motion and one that doesn't, a the distance between them can be razor thin. Yes, you can rescue a stop of high ISO noise with NR software, but you can do that with either lens, so in the end you're still a stop ahead with the 43mm. Additionally, the wider max aperture gives you more control over depth of field, with the option of a very shallow DOF indeed. That said, if you're going to get the Sigma 30/1.4, these issues may not be that important. I'd say it comes down to the 40/2.8's size/price versus the 43/1.9's intangible qualities.

- Mike

[Mike Cash]

I was tempted to buy the 43 specifically for the purpose of shooting dance performances, which I typically do with a 35 and a 55. If I could convince myself it would do a better job than my S-M-C Takumar 35/2 for the purpose I wouldn't hesitate at all to buy it. There are very few K-mount lenses I can say would even tempt me to lay out the dough. The 43 is one of them; the 40 is not.

[TOUGEFC]

It seems like every week this debate comes up!

Its simple both are excellenet lenses, and both have different pro's and con's.

If you have the money, get the FA43, if its too expensive for you ,get the DA40. Problem solved

[Rondec]

I would decide purely on whether you want a lens faster than f2.8 (and are willing to pay for the FA 43). There is a certain coolness factor as well with the DA 40. The idea that something so small can be so good.

I am not particularly drawn to the FA 43. I bought the DA *55 which is a stop faster and a longer focal length -- to me a better portrait lens, while the DA 40 is a tiny lens for walk around, small form factor situations.

Just thought I'd throw in a photo of my daughter with a 100 percent crop of the same, taken with the DA 40 at f2.8.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 02-01-2011 at 03:01 AM.

[DogLover]

I would decide purely on whether you want a lens faster than f2.8 (and are willing to pay for the FA 43). There is a certain coolness factor as well with the DA 40. The idea that something so small can be so good.

I don't think it's a question of wanting a lens faster than 2.8 (why wouldn't you?), it's only if you're willing to pay for it. Also, I would go the other way on the coolness of the 40, or any pancake for that matter. I tend to agree more with SpecialK in that I think they look goofy. Even the 43 looks a little goofy. That may be heresy as a Pentaxian but that's the way I've always felt. The 40 is certainly a respectable lens, but the 43 is a hall-of-fame, world-class, awesome lens and represents your cheapest entry into the wonderfulness of the FA Limiteds. That, to me, makes it a no-brainer.

I think the closer DA-FA battle is between the 70 and 77. I picked the 77 and don't regret it, but I have seen enough from the 70 that I wouldn't try to talk anybody out of it.

Also, to paperbag's point about the 40 + 70 only being slightly more expensive than the 43 alone, B&H's in-cart price of the 43 is only $20 more than the 70 alone. That would make the pair cost an additional $320. Since the OP is in the states, that would be his price. They may be cheaper somewhere else, I didn't check.

[Rondec]

I don't think it's a question of wanting a lens faster than 2.8 (why wouldn't you?), it's only if you're willing to pay for it. Also, I would go the other way on the coolness of the 40, or any pancake for that matter. I tend to agree more with SpecialK in that I think they look goofy. Even the 43 looks a little goofy. That may be heresy as a Pentaxian but that's the way I've always felt. The 40 is certainly a respectable lens, but the 43 is a hall-of-fame, world-class, awesome lens and represents your cheapest entry into the wonderfulness of the FA Limiteds. That, to me, makes it a no-brainer.

If you read what I wrote, I said that the DA *55 has more appeal for me since (1) it is faster than the FA 43 and (2) it is longer than the FA 43. For a walk around lens, f2.8 is more than adequate for the majority of situations. In point of fact, while the FA 43 is plenty sharp at f2, it sharpens up more by f2.8 and probably most people shoot at f2.8, except in lower light settings.

As to coolness, that is very subjective, so I can't argue with you one way or the other. To me, FA 43 looks like a standard lens that any company could make, the DA 40 doesn't and I like that.

I'm not sure what my point is, other than that if I was going to spend FA 43 type money on a lens, I would rather put it toward a different lens than the FA 43.

[DogLover]

If you read what I wrote, I said that the DA *55 has more appeal for me since (1) it is faster than the FA 43 and (2) it is longer than the FA 43. For a walk around lens, f2.8 is more than adequate for the majority of situations. In point of fact, while the FA 43 is plenty sharp at f2, it sharpens up more by f2.8 and probably most people shoot at f2.8, except in lower light settings.

As to coolness, that is very subjective, so I can't argue with you one way or the other. To me, FA 43 looks like a standard lens that any company could make, the DA 40 doesn't and I like that.

I'm not sure what my point is, other than that if I was going to spend FA 43 type money on a lens, I would rather put it toward a different lens than the FA 43.

I also have the DA*55, absolutely love it, and also prefer it over the 43 for portraits. The 43, however, is my most used lens. It is only marginally larger than the 40 so that's probably a moot issue. Do you really have so much disdain for such a highly regarded lens as the 43 that you would not even consider it, even at a relatively bargain price of $570? I assure you it is not a lens that just anybody could make, otherwise everybody would have and Leica would not have asked Pentax to make them a version.

[Rondec]

I also have the DA*55, absolutely love it, and also prefer it over the 43 for portraits. The 43, however, is my most used lens. It is only marginally larger than the 40 so that's probably a moot issue. Do you really have so much disdain for such a highly regarded lens as the 43 that you would not even consider it, even at a relatively bargain price of $570? I assure you it is not a lens that just anybody could make, otherwise everybody would have and Leica would not have asked Pentax to make them a version.

I probably wouldn't have gotten the DA 40 except that I picked it up for 230 dollars from Prodigital 2000 back in "the day." It's not really a focal length I like much on APS-C. If Pentax ever came out with a full frame camera, I might reconsider. I guess you could say I got the DA 40 primarily because it was cheap (and for the novelty factor).

[Ash]

None of the FA ltds are like what any other photo company can make, and that's why they are unrivalled, expensive (not just out of novelty) and classic.

[Rondec]

None of the FA ltds are like what any other photo company can make, and that's why they are unrivalled, expensive (not just out of novelty) and classic.

Maybe so. I haven't shot with any of the faster (more expensive) Nikon lenses, like the 24 f1.4, etc, so it is hard for me to truly compare. Most of what I see when I look at postings on a particular lens has more to do with the skill of the photographer and not the quality of the lens. I think Nikon has some decent quality lenses, but be that as it may.

Anyway, I didn't mean that Nikon would make an FA limited, but more that in size and appearance, they look more like prime lenses produced by other companies than do the DA limiteds.

Sorry to be argumentative. I think there are great photos from the FA limiteds and I would love to own the FA 77. I am just not drawn to the FA 43.

[jjdgti]

Have you consider the FA 35mm F/2. The price is right between the DA 40 and the FA 43. It is as fast as the FA 43 and delivers a wonderful results. Just try and you will be sold.
I do not have a DA 40 nor the Fa 43, I am very happy with the 35mm f/2 and it is just a little bigger than the DA 40.
My 0.02 cents.

[paperbag846]

Id rather the 40 over the 35...

[kaipa]

I have both. DA 40 was my first Pentax prime ever, and it worked fine. The primary reason for getting FA 43 was that I wanted extra speed for indoors and better bokeh. DA 40 bokeh is nothing special, just ok. The size difference is not significant, DSLR with DA 40 is not pocketable anyway (SLR -- maybe). Overall, FA 43 is more versatile, and sometimes it produces WOW pictures. It is just an outstanding lens. DA 40 is great, but nothing outstanding.

[DeadJohn]

Thank you for the replies. I've decided on the FA 43. My existing lenses have so-so bokeh. The 43 definitely expands my capability in that area.

I also had the Sigma 30/1.4 on my eventual buy list, more for the speed than for the focal length. The 43/1.9 might be fast enough to fill my low-light needs. If that proves true then 43 ends up costing me less than the DA40+Sig30 combo.

Not seeing any 43s on the Marketplace, and when they are price+paypal+shipping sometimes doesn't offset the risk of buying used. Stopping at Adorama after work! Don't tell my wife

[rparmar]

None of the FA ltds are like what any other photo company can make, and that's why they are unrivalled, expensive (not just out of novelty) and classic.

I am saddened it is priced so high since that becomes the main reason people do not own this gem.

I was tempted to buy the 43 specifically for the purpose of shooting dance performances, which I typically do with a 35 and a 55.

I shoot dance with the FA43 and FA77. I have little need for other lenses though I'd buy the FA31 if I stumbled upon the cash.