FA35mm/2 or FA43mm/1.9 limited

yurko_yr · 04-21-2011, 10:09 AM

Dear Pentax Community,
I am rearranging my kit so I sold DA35 and FA50/1.4 and bought Tamron 17-50 for landscapes and cityscapes, and FA77/1.8 for portraits. But now I realized that really miss a lens that can stay on my camera all the time. I am carrying camera with me all the time coz there is always a possibility to make some shoots and was using 50/1.4 as everyday lens. For some reasons DA35 was not very convenient for me as a everyday lens, maybe due to slow autofocus – I can not explain this even to myself. So, I was thinking to buy FA43 to replace FA50, but than B&H listed FA35/2 that appears to be quite interesting as walk-around lens. So, what would be your choice? Highly appreciate your opinion.
Thanks in advance.
Yuriy

HEEGZ · 04-21-2011, 10:40 AM

Personally I would get the 31mm if I had my choice of any prime as a single standard lens. I find the 40-55mm range is too tight for everyday use, so personally I would go with 35mm. I'm using my 35mm f2.4 99% of the time now, and I often wish it was a bit faster and wider.

Ubuntu_user · 04-21-2011, 11:46 AM

43mm limited over fa 35mm.

-Better build
-Better rendering (personal preference)
-limited

sterretje · 04-21-2011, 11:54 AM

yurko_yr, why can't the Tammy live on your camera all the time?

My day to day lens is the FA31Ltd, by the way. Not so much because of its qualities, but because of its field of view. Wide enough AND long enough; absolutely perfect for me. I'm not familiar with the FA43Ltd and FA35, but would prefer the wider one from a FOV perspective

yurko_yr · 04-21-2011, 12:27 PM

Thanks a lot for your responses.
So, unfortunately, I can not afford FA31 for now, but can get a good deal on one of these two – 35 or 43. I was almost ready to buy 43 when FA35 appeared at B&H. So that was stopped me and made me consider this lens too. I do not think that I would like to buy DAL 35/2.4 – it is a bit slower and a bit too plastic.
Tamron is great lens but too big to carry in my everyday bag and I really like prime lenses.
So – I am looking lets say for “universal” everyday prime lens that could be used almost at every situation – rapid portraits, street photography, and some events photography.
I am leaning toward FA43, coz as I said FA50/1.4 was such lens for me before, but it had some limitations.
But, I read that FA35 is also a very good lens. So, I stuck in decision between these two and looking for your advices and opinions.

Ubuntu_user · 04-21-2011, 01:17 PM

If you get the fa 43 you'll never regret it. Or if you ever do, then send it to me.

**manishved** · 04-21-2011, 01:18 PM

I love both the 31ltd and the 43 ltd.

LenWick · 04-21-2011, 01:53 PM

I love them both too, and the 31 has a nice all around range, but it's big! The 43 stays on the body more often and I swap out for the 31 when I need it - No expereince with the new 35, but the 43 is a joy to use.

HEEGZ · 04-21-2011, 02:16 PM

Take your 17-50 zoom lens, set it at around 40-45mm and walk around trying to take portraits, street images, etc. Really experiment with different scenarios and see if that is a focal length you want a prime lens in. If so, then the 43mm is a great lens. I will never buy the 40mm or 43mm because I don't use that focal length very often. Even 35mm isn't wide enough for me on a regular basis. The nice thing about the 35mm is that it does macro for close up detail. Since you can't afford the 31mm, have you considered the 21mm or FA 28mm?

robgo2 · 04-21-2011, 03:38 PM

By most accounts, the FA 43 is a superior lens, and I can personally attest that it is absolutely splendid, but the focal length may be a bit too long for general purpose shooting. As others have suggested, the FA 31 is perhaps better suited to your purposes, but if it is unaffordable to you at this time, I should think that the 35 may serve you better. Perhaps you can raise funds for the 31 by selling something, e.g. A small child.

Rob

**Ash** · 04-21-2011, 04:05 PM

Few people will argue that the FA 43 is a better investment and will produce richer, more brilliant results. Indeed it comes down to focal length choice, and the FA 31 will of course be the ultimate in portability and IQ. Many alternatives of this lens have been postulated in a number of threads in this forum, but in general perhaps you can consider the DA 35/2.4 or DA 35/2.8 macro Ltd, or perhaps even a 28mm prime, but most will be at f/2.8 also. Any faster than these lenses and you are going to have to fork out more money.

robgo2 · 04-21-2011, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

By most accounts, the FA 43 is a superior lens, and I can personally attest that it is absolutely splendid, but the focal length may be a bit too long for general purpose shooting. As others have suggested, the FA 31 is perhaps better suited to your purposes, but if it is unaffordable to you at this time, I should think that the 35 may serve you better. Perhaps you can raise funds for the 31 by selling something, e.g. A small child.

Rob

Having re-read what the OP has written, I now think that the FA 43 is the best choice, given that it is in his price range. I base this on the fact that he was previously happy using the 50/1.4 as a walk-around lens. The FA 43 is slightly wider and should be even more usable. It is certainly a step up in quality.

Rob

paperbag846 · 04-21-2011, 07:55 PM

If you want a 35mm lens... consider the DA L 35mm 2.4. It's not that much slower than the much more expensive 2.0 and equal in pretty much every other way. With the money you save on that purchase, you can look at investing in another limited. Only buy the FA 43 if you want extreme sharpness. 35mm would be good for most things. I think you would be better off with a 35 + 15, 70 or 77 for general versatility (two primes are always better than one).

gp1806 · 04-21-2011, 08:00 PM

I've had the FA 35mm for a while now. I like a normal lens, so this works just fine for me. It is quite sharp and I like it. I can't afford the 31mm or I'd have it. I just don't know about that 43mm, seems a little tight. Set your zoom to that focal length and try it, as was said above.

axl · 04-22-2011, 12:31 AM

I've never tried FA35 but have the 43.
If you didn't like DA35, chances are you won't like FA35. Especially if you can't point your finger at the reason.
On the other side, 43 is closer to 50 in terms of FOV but still noticeably wider. I'd say it's just about the right walkaround lens. It's very well built and renders really well. I definitelly wouldn't hesitate to recommend it as walkaround lens...

04-21-2011, 10:09 AM	#1
yurko_yr Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Saarbrucken Photos: Gallery Posts: 332	FA35mm/2 or FA43mm/1.9 limited Dear Pentax Community, I am rearranging my kit so I sold DA35 and FA50/1.4 and bought Tamron 17-50 for landscapes and cityscapes, and FA77/1.8 for portraits. But now I realized that really miss a lens that can stay on my camera all the time. I am carrying camera with me all the time coz there is always a possibility to make some shoots and was using 50/1.4 as everyday lens. For some reasons DA35 was not very convenient for me as a everyday lens, maybe due to slow autofocus – I can not explain this even to myself. So, I was thinking to buy FA43 to replace FA50, but than B&H listed FA35/2 that appears to be quite interesting as walk-around lens. So, what would be your choice? Highly appreciate your opinion. Thanks in advance. Yuriy

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

04-21-2011, 10:40 AM	#2
HEEGZ Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Missouri Photos: Albums Posts: 258	Personally I would get the 31mm if I had my choice of any prime as a single standard lens. I find the 40-55mm range is too tight for everyday use, so personally I would go with 35mm. I'm using my 35mm f2.4 99% of the time now, and I often wish it was a bit faster and wider.

04-21-2011, 11:46 AM	#3
Ubuntu_user Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,545	43mm limited over fa 35mm. -Better build -Better rendering (personal preference) -limited

04-21-2011, 11:54 AM	#4
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	yurko_yr, why can't the Tammy live on your camera all the time? My day to day lens is the FA31Ltd, by the way. Not so much because of its qualities, but because of its field of view. Wide enough AND long enough; absolutely perfect for me. I'm not familiar with the FA43Ltd and FA35, but would prefer the wider one from a FOV perspective

04-21-2011, 12:27 PM	#5
yurko_yr Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Saarbrucken Photos: Gallery Posts: 332 Original Poster	Thanks a lot for your responses. So, unfortunately, I can not afford FA31 for now, but can get a good deal on one of these two – 35 or 43. I was almost ready to buy 43 when FA35 appeared at B&H. So that was stopped me and made me consider this lens too. I do not think that I would like to buy DAL 35/2.4 – it is a bit slower and a bit too plastic. Tamron is great lens but too big to carry in my everyday bag and I really like prime lenses. So – I am looking lets say for “universal” everyday prime lens that could be used almost at every situation – rapid portraits, street photography, and some events photography. I am leaning toward FA43, coz as I said FA50/1.4 was such lens for me before, but it had some limitations. But, I read that FA35 is also a very good lens. So, I stuck in decision between these two and looking for your advices and opinions.

04-21-2011, 01:17 PM	#6
Ubuntu_user Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,545	If you get the fa 43 you'll never regret it. Or if you ever do, then send it to me.

04-21-2011, 01:18 PM	#7
manishved Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: N. Calif Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,651	I love both the 31ltd and the 43 ltd.

04-21-2011, 01:53 PM	#8
LenWick Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Front Range, Colorado Photos: Albums Posts: 113	I love them both too, and the 31 has a nice all around range, but it's big! The 43 stays on the body more often and I swap out for the 31 when I need it - No expereince with the new 35, but the 43 is a joy to use.

04-21-2011, 02:16 PM	#9
HEEGZ Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Missouri Photos: Albums Posts: 258	Take your 17-50 zoom lens, set it at around 40-45mm and walk around trying to take portraits, street images, etc. Really experiment with different scenarios and see if that is a focal length you want a prime lens in. If so, then the 43mm is a great lens. I will never buy the 40mm or 43mm because I don't use that focal length very often. Even 35mm isn't wide enough for me on a regular basis. The nice thing about the 35mm is that it does macro for close up detail. Since you can't afford the 31mm, have you considered the 21mm or FA 28mm?

04-21-2011, 03:38 PM	#10
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	By most accounts, the FA 43 is a superior lens, and I can personally attest that it is absolutely splendid, but the focal length may be a bit too long for general purpose shooting. As others have suggested, the FA 31 is perhaps better suited to your purposes, but if it is unaffordable to you at this time, I should think that the 35 may serve you better. Perhaps you can raise funds for the 31 by selling something, e.g. A small child. Rob

04-21-2011, 04:05 PM	#11
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Few people will argue that the FA 43 is a better investment and will produce richer, more brilliant results. Indeed it comes down to focal length choice, and the FA 31 will of course be the ultimate in portability and IQ. Many alternatives of this lens have been postulated in a number of threads in this forum, but in general perhaps you can consider the DA 35/2.4 or DA 35/2.8 macro Ltd, or perhaps even a 28mm prime, but most will be at f/2.8 also. Any faster than these lenses and you are going to have to fork out more money.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-21-2011, 07:27 PM	#12
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by robgo2 By most accounts, the FA 43 is a superior lens, and I can personally attest that it is absolutely splendid, but the focal length may be a bit too long for general purpose shooting. As others have suggested, the FA 31 is perhaps better suited to your purposes, but if it is unaffordable to you at this time, I should think that the 35 may serve you better. Perhaps you can raise funds for the 31 by selling something, e.g. A small child. Rob Having re-read what the OP has written, I now think that the FA 43 is the best choice, given that it is in his price range. I base this on the fact that he was previously happy using the 50/1.4 as a walk-around lens. The FA 43 is slightly wider and should be even more usable. It is certainly a step up in quality. Rob

04-21-2011, 07:55 PM	#13
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	If you want a 35mm lens... consider the DA L 35mm 2.4. It's not that much slower than the much more expensive 2.0 and equal in pretty much every other way. With the money you save on that purchase, you can look at investing in another limited. Only buy the FA 43 if you want extreme sharpness. 35mm would be good for most things. I think you would be better off with a 35 + 15, 70 or 77 for general versatility (two primes are always better than one).

04-21-2011, 08:00 PM	#14
gp1806 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Chicago suburbs Photos: Albums Posts: 848	I've had the FA 35mm for a while now. I like a normal lens, so this works just fine for me. It is quite sharp and I like it. I can't afford the 31mm or I'd have it. I just don't know about that 43mm, seems a little tight. Set your zoom to that focal length and try it, as was said above.

04-22-2011, 12:31 AM	#15
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	I've never tried FA35 but have the 43. If you didn't like DA35, chances are you won't like FA35. Especially if you can't point your finger at the reason. On the other side, 43 is closer to 50 in terms of FOV but still noticeably wider. I'd say it's just about the right walkaround lens. It's very well built and renders really well. I definitelly wouldn't hesitate to recommend it as walkaround lens...