Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-05-2011, 05:04 PM   #1
Pentaxian
v5planet's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,904
Would you sell a 35mmLtd to help finance a 43?

I am planning out my future kit a bit. In the AF lens department I currently own a 15/4 and 35/2.8macro. In the near future I am planning to add a 77/1.8. I find myself looking at the 35 and wondering if I should sell it and put the money towards a 43 as a replacement.

I like the 35 and it was the sole lens I carried 2200 miles on foot through the Appalachian mountains last year. It was a very versatile lens but now that I have the luxury of carrying more than one lens I find myself less enthralled by its features and am looking for something with more character. I have no complaints about the quality of the anytime, anywhere macro capabilities of this lens, but I plan on eventually getting a D-FA 100 WR for the more comfortable working distance as far as these functions are concerned. For everything else I felt the 35 was "okay" but not great; someone in here described the images it produces of scenes as 'sterile', and I think that's a fair description in some ways. Its focus throw is also long enough that when it hunts, it takes forever to find a target.

For these reasons I feel it is not the most apt walk-around lens in this focal range, and I was wondering if anyone who has owned both it and the 43 Limited can comment on whether the latter can assume with some grace general (non macro) use? Some reviews I have read suggest the 43 is a specialized lens that is awkward to use on APS-C; other reviews suggest just the opposite, that it is often the most practical of the FA Limiteds. Perhaps these statements are not even mutually exclusive!

(As an aside, I'm not considering the 31 as it is completely out of my price range and would add more bulk to my kit than I am interested in).

03-05-2011, 05:22 PM   #2
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,485
Having both (but never having compared them side by side) I would tell you they are completely different lenses. I don't think one is any better or worse than the other, just different. If you're not enjoying the 35 anymore, sell it. You'll gain a little more than a stop in the transaction and have a film capable lens if you ever decide to go that way.

03-05-2011, 08:26 PM   #3
Veteran Member
mickey's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,073
QuoteOriginally posted by v5planet Quote

I find myself less enthralled by its features and am looking for something with more character. I have no complaints about the quality anytime, anywhere macro capabilities of this lens, but I plan on eventually getting a D-FA 100 WR for the more comfortable working distance as far as these functions are concerned.
I think you've pretty much answered you own question here.
It's served you well, but seems like it's time to move on.

I'm actually planning to buy either the 35 ltd or the 40 ltd as my first AF prime.

Last edited by mickey; 03-05-2011 at 08:44 PM.
03-05-2011, 08:36 PM   #4
Veteran Member
gnaztee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 752
QuoteOriginally posted by v5planet Quote
I am planning out my future kit a bit. In the AF lens department I currently own a 15/4 and 35/2.8macro. In the near future I am planning to add a 77/1.8. I find myself looking at the 35 and wondering if I should sell it and put the money towards a 43 as a replacement.

I like the 35 and it was the sole lens I carried 2200 miles on foot through the Appalachian mountains last year. It was a very versatile lens but now that I have the luxury of carrying more than one lens I find myself less enthralled by its features and am looking for something with more character. I have no complaints about the quality of the anytime, anywhere macro capabilities of this lens, but I plan on eventually getting a D-FA 100 WR for the more comfortable working distance as far as these functions are concerned. For everything else I felt the 35 was "okay" but not great; someone in here described the images it produces of scenes as 'sterile', and I think that's a fair description in some ways. Its focus throw is also long enough that when it hunts, it takes forever to find a target.

For these reasons I feel it is not the most apt walk-around lens in this focal range, and I was wondering if anyone who has owned both it and the 43 Limited can comment on whether the latter can assume with some grace general (non macro) use? Some reviews I have read suggest the 43 is a specialized lens that is awkward to use on APS-C; other reviews suggest just the opposite, that it is often the most practical of the FA Limiteds. Perhaps these statements are not even mutually exclusive!

(As an aside, I'm not considering the 31 as it is completely out of my price range and would add more bulk to my kit than I am interested in).
I actually just did this. So recently, in fact, that I haven't had the 43 long enough to comment on the differences. I simply didn't have a fast limited, and the 43 was the most affordable. I had no complaints about the 35, AWESOME lens. I just didn't have speed anywhere. RE focusing speed, the 43 isn't fast either (the 21 and 70 both easily best it here), but it's a little faster than the 35.

03-05-2011, 08:44 PM   #5
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,780
I don't have the 35ltd, but the FA35/2.

I've found the 35 is better for a general walk around lens. The 43 seems to be a better for isolating subjects or for shallow DOF shots during a walk about. The 43 can be rather tight in some situations.
03-05-2011, 10:01 PM   #6
MSM
Veteran Member
MSM's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alabama
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 994
I agree with jeff. They are two very different lenses. Your lens kit looks like mine. I will say that I own both. If I had to choose one it probably be the 43. I don't know why exactly but that is what my gut tells me. One thing to consider is the mfd. If your habits is to get close on a subject , you may be disappointed with the 43. Believe me the 35 mm spoils you. I am not talking any where near macro. I am just talking about getting close to a subject to pick up say a detail. With the 43, I find myself backing up. Of course it may just be me, but that is what I find after going from the 35 to the 43. That being said, I love them both for what they are. Good luck with your decision.
03-05-2011, 10:27 PM   #7
Pentaxian
jeffshaddix's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,371
Not to throw a wrench in here, but I owned a 43 Limited for about a week before returning it. It definitely had character, and was capable of producing gorgeous images, but it just didn't click with me.

There were a couple things that kept frustrating me:

1) The white balance was all over the map. Sometimes it would render way too warm, and other times (although less frequent) way too cool. I was using AWB for all the shots and hadn't had this problem before on other lenses. Of course this can be fixed in post, but it was aggravating nonetheless. Perhaps my copy had funky coatings...it was the leaded version with an early serial number.

2) I generally enjoy using manual focus on primes, but with the 43 I found the manual-focus ring way too small for comfortable use. This seems to be better on the 77 and 31.

All that to say you may have completely different impressions when you get your copy. Everyone has different opinions on what makes a lens great. The FA Limited series likely has more variation in opinions than other lenses due to their strong character, but if you like it then rock on and enjoy it!
03-05-2011, 11:10 PM   #8
Veteran Member
sterretje's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Roodepoort, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,534
I don't easily sell lenses as long as I can afford to keep them. But if you need funding and you're no longer happy with a lens, it makes sense.

Big question is in favour of which lens?

From your experience with 35mm you should be able to judge which focal length you like. Slightly narrower (40/43), slightly wider (28/30/31) or 35.

If you (still) have the kitlens, set it for a week on one of those focal length and see if you can live with the field of view.

I'm not going to talk you into the FA31Ltd, but after my experience with that lens from a FOV perspective I can barely imagine having anything longer as my main lens.

03-05-2011, 11:19 PM   #9
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
The only good reason to go from the 35 to the 43 would be for DOF control.

The 43 is damn sharp, but so is the macro.

The 43 is tighter, but not THAT much tighter.

The 43 renders a nice 3d scene, but so does the macro.

In short - The 43 is good, but so is the DA 35.

So what's the difference?

1 stop.

Ask yourself how important indoor lighting (no flash) is to you, or if you will be leaning more towards portrait work.
03-06-2011, 01:15 AM   #10
Senior Member
samski_1's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tasmania
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 271
I went through the same agonizing decision recently and sold my DA 35mm limited. I find that focal length a bit far and the 55mm I have a bit close for general purpose so decided to give the 43mm a go. I also needed something reasonably fast. For macro I will one day find a 100mm. My 43 hasn't arrived yet so I can't give you a comparison but going by the majority of posts it is an exceptional piece of machinery.
03-06-2011, 06:02 AM   #11
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fly-over, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,173
I shoot the 35 and 43 paired to a K-5 (previously they were paired to a K20D, then K-7). I've not had the K-5 long enough to give them both a good work out (Yes, the K-5 has a learning curve), but so far, I'm very pleased with no surprises. Anyway, my general impression is the 35 is under-rated and the 43 over-rated.

Like you, I enjoy a nice hike (day-trip). My style is to shoot, then crop to compose using a square format. When I go out, you will always find the 15 in my left pocket and a DFA 100 Macro WR on my camera. If I feel a another FL is needed, the 35 will be in another pocket, and/or DA*300 in my day-pack. As to usage, it's 100 WR (say, 90%) and other (10 %).

If your primary subject is the great outdoors, my 2 cents is to recommend that you keep the 35, skip the 43, and get a 100 WR. I find a 15/100 WR kit to be the perfect outdoor kit for me.

Cheers...

Last edited by Michaelina2; 03-06-2011 at 09:59 AM. Reason: typo
03-06-2011, 08:32 AM   #12
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
I got my FA 43mm but after getting my DA 35 Macro, it is my most often used lens simply because it is probably the most versatile prime out there.
03-06-2011, 09:06 AM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
I really think that it comes down to preferred focal length. As an all purpose walking around lens, the 35 may be more suitable. But if you like tighter framing of your subjects, then the 43 may be better. Personally, the 31 Limited is my most used prime lens by far. (I don't own a 35 or 43.) Every time that I use it, I am reminded just how splendid it is. That said, I prefer the convenience of the DA*16-50 most of the time.

Rob
03-06-2011, 12:20 PM   #14
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Quebec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 210
I personally sold the 35 Ltd to finance my 31 Ltd and never regreted it. However, the 43 Ltd is a different beast.
03-06-2011, 01:58 PM   #15
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 828
I love my 35 (it's one of two AFs I own - 15 and 35, same as you) and I wouldn't sell it. I do want something in the 40 range but the thing I think I'd struggle with in the 43 (or the 31 for that matter) is lack of quick-shift focus. I'm a largely MF guy and I really like having the ability to do a fine adjustment override easily. (Maybe this would be less of an issue if I had the better AF capabilities of a K-5.) That's probably why the 40 I'm looking at right now is the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm 2.0.

My $0.02.
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!
future, k-mount, kit, lens, macro, pentax lens, range, reviews, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
50mm 1.2...to sell or not to sell? That is the question. RT1 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 38 06-03-2013 04:13 PM
Vivitar extension tubes: To sell or not to sell? LowVoltage Photographic Technique 8 01-04-2011 12:26 PM
People Eye on Finance.. Lainey Photo Critique 6 02-04-2010 02:22 PM
Film camera bodies - CLA then sell, or sell as is? SOldBear Pentax Film SLR Discussion 15 10-27-2009 04:18 PM
Global Crisis in Finance & Climate. Mallee Boy General Talk 36 12-22-2008 02:35 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:16 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