FA35mm/2 or FA43mm/1.9 limited

pinholecam · 04-22-2011, 01:21 AM

I have the FA35/2 and the FA43ltd.
The fa35 does work quite well as a all round lens. To me its focal length works better than the 43ltd. However, the 43ltd does come up more often with a better '3D look' more often. I suspect its just a combination (by design or accident) of FL, razor sharpness and rendering.

I'd suggest you get a 31ltd if possible and skip the FA35 (I do like the FA35 a lot).
The 31 will have a slightly wider FOV and less of a pain using it together with a 43ltd. For me its always a one or the other between 35mm and 43mm (too near).
Not to mention that the 31ltd has its own 'magic' as well.

**manishved** · 04-22-2011, 08:17 AM

Some pics from the 43mm

ddsg · 04-22-2011, 08:34 AM

The FA35 is a fine lens, but I wouldn't pay the B&H price for it.

selar · 04-23-2011, 12:54 PM

The FA35/2 feels just right for indoor candid shots of small groups of people. The 43mm would be too restrictive for that purpose.

Frogfish · 04-23-2011, 01:50 PM

Funnily enough I was shooting an event today, a dinner and dance ball; 17-50/2.8 and 50-150/2.8 were on most of the night and used with hand-held off camera wireless flash, but then when all the group & couple portraits and candids etc. were done ...... out came the 43/1.9.

Set at f2.0 / 1/125 and TAv (mostly around ISO 2,500) it was used for creative effects of the Ball's theme, glasses, bottles, ballons, shoot-throughs etc., groups of up to 4 people (from just 2-3 yards away), shots of the band & etc.
Not once did I feel I needed the 17-50. Even in extremely dim lighting there was rarely much hesitancy, finding focus lock, on behalf of the K5+43 combo. I also use it for street shooting and have even used it for landscapes at a pinch. An extremely versatile lense.

43 Ltd = Classic Fantastic.

aleonx3 · 04-23-2011, 01:51 PM

I have all 3 FA limited and I like them all. I would not doubt that FA 35/2 is another stella performer as well. I thought about it this way before I bought the 43mm (the third FA limited I acquired), I would never be satisfied with FA 35/2 until I try the 43mm. After I tried the 43mm, it is an easy decision (and since it was before the price hike); and I never look back and also sold me FA 50/1.4. The 43mm in APS-C crop sensor just replaces the 50mm in film. Again, just my 2-cents... hope it helps.

tumbleguts · 04-25-2011, 05:31 AM

I recommend the 43mm. I use this as my "normal" lens. I made a decision a few years ago to get back to basics and generally only shoot with a normal focal length prime. My thinking was that if all the old masters could get by with only a 50mm prime, then so should I. Plus I get a little exercise by zooming with my feet.

I did actually get the 31mm to be used as my normal (being the closest to the 50mm focal length used in FF), but have found myself using the 43mm more. I guess it's personal preference. I always preferred a slightly tighter shot.

The only problem with getting one of the amigos, is that eventually you must have all three!

scathontiphat · 04-25-2011, 06:44 AM - **1 Like**

Yuriy, funny enough I was in a somewhat similar situation, only I started off with the 31ltd and the 77ltd. Despite its obvious quality, i never loved the 31mm. It was a funny focal length to me, i always felt that I wanted a slightly wider perspective, or a more compressed one. Also for casual walks, I want a small camera, and the 31 was bulky and heavy. I ended up selling it and with the funds purchased a used tamron 17-50 and a used 43mm and kept the 77mm.

VERY happy with this. I love the 43mm. I'd have to say the 31mm had slightly better bokeh, but the 43 is just oh so sharp and oh so SMALL. I absolutely love this lens. So yeah, i've not used the 35/2 but I'd still give a whole hearted recommendation for the 43mm.

The only thing is I've found that the original lens hood on the 43mm is next to useless on our crop-frame cameras (for all of the FA ltds for that matter). Lately I've become a huge fan of using lens hoods. So I picked up an old clip-on pentax hood from an 85mm f2 that works great with no vignetting that I've noticed.

When i want wider, i turn to the tamron as i've found between around 24-30mm this lens is just superb.

selar · 04-25-2011, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by scathontiphat

So I picked up an old clip-on pentax hood from an 85mm f2

I meant to bid on that lens hood, but the UK end times don't really suit. You got it for a song!

scathontiphat · 04-25-2011, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by selar

I meant to bid on that lens hood, but the UK end times don't really suit. You got it for a song!

hah, sorry to nab it from you!

A little off-topic, but since the OP mentioned he uses the 77mm as well. I found the Takumar 135/3.5 screw-on hood works pretty well on the 77mm (again with no vignetting that I've noticed). Would love to find a 49mm clip-on style one, but haven't come across one yet.

yurko_yr · 04-25-2011, 01:40 PM

Thanks a lot to everyone for your thoughts and suggestion.
Sorry that have not posted here for a longer time. So I decided to go with FA43. It will probably be a really good lens for my needs as I understand from what I read here. FA35 seems to be fine – but I decided that it is worth to pay a bit more for limited and afraid that 35 will be a bit too wild for general everyday lens. I have few other limited lenses and really like them. So, just placed the order for FA43.
Scathontiphat - thanks a lot for suggestion about hood. I have few clip on hoods for old manual lenses, including one for 135/3.5 takumar. Will try them on FA43.
Thanks a lot again.
You are really great and very helpful community.
Best regards,
Yuriy

selar · 04-25-2011, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by yurko_yr

afraid that 35 will be a bit too wild for general everyday lens.

The FA 35 is hardly a "wild" lens. its a steady performer with uniform optical characteristics.

yurko_yr · 04-25-2011, 03:10 PM

Thanks Selar for your comment. I just said that it will be too wild for my needs. Otherwise - it is a great lens without doubts.

robgo2 · 04-25-2011, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by scathontiphat

Yuriy, funny enough I was in a somewhat similar situation, only I started off with the 31ltd and the 77ltd. Despite its obvious quality, i never loved the 31mm. It was a funny focal length to me, i always felt that I wanted a slightly wider perspective, or a more compressed one. Also for casual walks, I want a small camera, and the 31 was bulky and heavy. I ended up selling it and with the funds purchased a used tamron 17-50 and a used 43mm and kept the 77mm.

VERY happy with this. I love the 43mm. I'd have to say the 31mm had slightly better bokeh, but the 43 is just oh so sharp and oh so SMALL. I absolutely love this lens. So yeah, i've not used the 35/2 but I'd still give a whole hearted recommendation for the 43mm.

The only thing is I've found that the original lens hood on the 43mm is next to useless on our crop-frame cameras (for all of the FA ltds for that matter). Lately I've become a huge fan of using lens hoods. So I picked up an old clip-on pentax hood from an 85mm f2 that works great with no vignetting that I've noticed.

I disagree on the FA43 lens hood. It shades the tiny front glass element quite adequately and provides ample protection against bumps and dings. The fact that it is small and made of metal is a bonus. I see no reason whatsoever to seek out a substitute hood. To the OP, once you get your hands on this lens, you will see that I am right.

In contrast, the built-in lens hood on the otherwise superb FA31 is virtually useless.

Rob

Frogfish · 04-26-2011, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by robgo2

I disagree on the FA43 lens hood. It shades the tiny front glass element quite adequately and provides ample protection against bumps and dings. The fact that is small and made of metal is a bonus. I see no reason whatsoever to seek out a substitue hood. To the OP, once you get your hands on this lens, you will see that I am right.

In contrast, the built-in lens hood on the otherwise superb FA31 is virtually useless.

Rob

I agree with Rob. I've never had a problem with flare with the 43 and the little hood looks fantastic on the lense.

04-25-2011, 11:01 PM	#29
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by scathontiphat Yuriy, funny enough I was in a somewhat similar situation, only I started off with the 31ltd and the 77ltd. Despite its obvious quality, i never loved the 31mm. It was a funny focal length to me, i always felt that I wanted a slightly wider perspective, or a more compressed one. Also for casual walks, I want a small camera, and the 31 was bulky and heavy. I ended up selling it and with the funds purchased a used tamron 17-50 and a used 43mm and kept the 77mm. VERY happy with this. I love the 43mm. I'd have to say the 31mm had slightly better bokeh, but the 43 is just oh so sharp and oh so SMALL. I absolutely love this lens. So yeah, i've not used the 35/2 but I'd still give a whole hearted recommendation for the 43mm. The only thing is I've found that the original lens hood on the 43mm is next to useless on our crop-frame cameras (for all of the FA ltds for that matter). Lately I've become a huge fan of using lens hoods. So I picked up an old clip-on pentax hood from an 85mm f2 that works great with no vignetting that I've noticed. I disagree on the FA43 lens hood. It shades the tiny front glass element quite adequately and provides ample protection against bumps and dings. The fact that it is small and made of metal is a bonus. I see no reason whatsoever to seek out a substitute hood. To the OP, once you get your hands on this lens, you will see that I am right. In contrast, the built-in lens hood on the otherwise superb FA31 is virtually useless. Rob Last edited by robgo2; 04-27-2011 at 08:40 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: FA43mm/1.9 Limited (Worldwide)	LuzArt	Sold Items	3	09-27-2010 11:49 PM
DA40mm limited or FA43mm limited on K7	kuau	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	05-01-2010 10:11 AM
Landscape LBA cured, FA43mm f1.9 Limited 1st pix	elpolodiablo	Post Your Photos!	10	04-14-2010 06:16 PM
For Sale - Sold: FA43mm limited	vitalman83	Sold Items	3	02-06-2009 06:21 PM
For Sale - Sold: FA43mm f/1.9 Limited	coqui	Sold Items	6	05-20-2008 05:07 AM

04-22-2011, 01:21 AM	#16
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	I have the FA35/2 and the FA43ltd. The fa35 does work quite well as a all round lens. To me its focal length works better than the 43ltd. However, the 43ltd does come up more often with a better '3D look' more often. I suspect its just a combination (by design or accident) of FL, razor sharpness and rendering. I'd suggest you get a 31ltd if possible and skip the FA35 (I do like the FA35 a lot). The 31 will have a slightly wider FOV and less of a pain using it together with a 43ltd. For me its always a one or the other between 35mm and 43mm (too near). Not to mention that the 31ltd has its own 'magic' as well.

04-22-2011, 08:17 AM	#17
manishved Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: N. Calif Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,651	Some pics from the 43mm

04-22-2011, 08:34 AM	#18
ddsg Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Montreal Posts: 44	The FA35 is a fine lens, but I wouldn't pay the B&H price for it.

04-23-2011, 12:54 PM	#19
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	The FA35/2 feels just right for indoor candid shots of small groups of people. The 43mm would be too restrictive for that purpose.

04-23-2011, 01:50 PM	#20
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Funnily enough I was shooting an event today, a dinner and dance ball; 17-50/2.8 and 50-150/2.8 were on most of the night and used with hand-held off camera wireless flash, but then when all the group & couple portraits and candids etc. were done ...... out came the 43/1.9. Set at f2.0 / 1/125 and TAv (mostly around ISO 2,500) it was used for creative effects of the Ball's theme, glasses, bottles, ballons, shoot-throughs etc., groups of up to 4 people (from just 2-3 yards away), shots of the band & etc. Not once did I feel I needed the 17-50. Even in extremely dim lighting there was rarely much hesitancy, finding focus lock, on behalf of the K5+43 combo. I also use it for street shooting and have even used it for landscapes at a pinch. An extremely versatile lense. 43 Ltd = Classic Fantastic.

04-23-2011, 01:51 PM	#21
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	I have all 3 FA limited and I like them all. I would not doubt that FA 35/2 is another stella performer as well. I thought about it this way before I bought the 43mm (the third FA limited I acquired), I would never be satisfied with FA 35/2 until I try the 43mm. After I tried the 43mm, it is an easy decision (and since it was before the price hike); and I never look back and also sold me FA 50/1.4. The 43mm in APS-C crop sensor just replaces the 50mm in film. Again, just my 2-cents... hope it helps.

04-25-2011, 05:31 AM	#22
tumbleguts New Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Australia Posts: 20	I recommend the 43mm. I use this as my "normal" lens. I made a decision a few years ago to get back to basics and generally only shoot with a normal focal length prime. My thinking was that if all the old masters could get by with only a 50mm prime, then so should I. Plus I get a little exercise by zooming with my feet. I did actually get the 31mm to be used as my normal (being the closest to the 50mm focal length used in FF), but have found myself using the 43mm more. I guess it's personal preference. I always preferred a slightly tighter shot. The only problem with getting one of the amigos, is that eventually you must have all three!

04-25-2011, 06:44 AM - 1 Like	#23
scathontiphat Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: UK Photos: Albums Posts: 42	Yuriy, funny enough I was in a somewhat similar situation, only I started off with the 31ltd and the 77ltd. Despite its obvious quality, i never loved the 31mm. It was a funny focal length to me, i always felt that I wanted a slightly wider perspective, or a more compressed one. Also for casual walks, I want a small camera, and the 31 was bulky and heavy. I ended up selling it and with the funds purchased a used tamron 17-50 and a used 43mm and kept the 77mm. VERY happy with this. I love the 43mm. I'd have to say the 31mm had slightly better bokeh, but the 43 is just oh so sharp and oh so SMALL. I absolutely love this lens. So yeah, i've not used the 35/2 but I'd still give a whole hearted recommendation for the 43mm. The only thing is I've found that the original lens hood on the 43mm is next to useless on our crop-frame cameras (for all of the FA ltds for that matter). Lately I've become a huge fan of using lens hoods. So I picked up an old clip-on pentax hood from an 85mm f2 that works great with no vignetting that I've noticed. When i want wider, i turn to the tamron as i've found between around 24-30mm this lens is just superb.

04-25-2011, 06:55 AM	#24
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Originally posted by scathontiphat So I picked up an old clip-on pentax hood from an 85mm f2 I meant to bid on that lens hood, but the UK end times don't really suit. You got it for a song!

04-25-2011, 01:28 PM	#25
scathontiphat Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: UK Photos: Albums Posts: 42	Originally posted by selar I meant to bid on that lens hood, but the UK end times don't really suit. You got it for a song! hah, sorry to nab it from you! A little off-topic, but since the OP mentioned he uses the 77mm as well. I found the Takumar 135/3.5 screw-on hood works pretty well on the 77mm (again with no vignetting that I've noticed). Would love to find a 49mm clip-on style one, but haven't come across one yet.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-25-2011, 01:40 PM	#26
yurko_yr Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Saarbrucken Photos: Gallery Posts: 332 Original Poster	Thanks a lot to everyone for your thoughts and suggestion. Sorry that have not posted here for a longer time. So I decided to go with FA43. It will probably be a really good lens for my needs as I understand from what I read here. FA35 seems to be fine – but I decided that it is worth to pay a bit more for limited and afraid that 35 will be a bit too wild for general everyday lens. I have few other limited lenses and really like them. So, just placed the order for FA43. Scathontiphat - thanks a lot for suggestion about hood. I have few clip on hoods for old manual lenses, including one for 135/3.5 takumar. Will try them on FA43. Thanks a lot again. You are really great and very helpful community. Best regards, Yuriy

04-25-2011, 02:44 PM	#27
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Originally posted by yurko_yr afraid that 35 will be a bit too wild for general everyday lens. The FA 35 is hardly a "wild" lens. its a steady performer with uniform optical characteristics.

04-25-2011, 03:10 PM	#28
yurko_yr Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Saarbrucken Photos: Gallery Posts: 332 Original Poster	Thanks Selar for your comment. I just said that it will be too wild for my needs. Otherwise - it is a great lens without doubts.

04-26-2011, 06:04 AM	#30
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by robgo2 I disagree on the FA43 lens hood. It shades the tiny front glass element quite adequately and provides ample protection against bumps and dings. The fact that is small and made of metal is a bonus. I see no reason whatsoever to seek out a substitue hood. To the OP, once you get your hands on this lens, you will see that I am right. In contrast, the built-in lens hood on the otherwise superb FA31 is virtually useless. Rob I agree with Rob. I've never had a problem with flare with the 43 and the little hood looks fantastic on the lense.