Originally posted by rparmar The DA Limiteds are also nice lenses but were created with more normative design criteria. I am glad you are happy with the DA40, but there is no evidence to support your over-zealous claims.
I sold my DA 40 in favor of the FA 50. It was largely motivated by finances (I'm not going to be one of those people who buys up the entire limited line, FA or DA.)
Furthermore, when I am talking about DA lenses, I am including non-limited lenses. There is a difference between how the DA 12-24 and the F 70-210 picks up colour, as well. I have suggested it might be due to coatings, but people like Blue start yelling at me.
I am happy with this swap (I actually made some money in the process). DA 40 had better contrast, stronger colours, sexy size (that was not fully appreciated attached to the k20d), quickshift. FA 50 has superior DOF control. I found myself also wishing the DA 40 was a little longer, so the 50 was a good step for me.
Importantly, when it comes to colour, I don't see a major difference between the 50 and the 77. I DO see a difference in sharpness (the FA 77 is VERY sharp, even from wide open). I believe this sharpness gives the lens a *pop*, which is what makes it so coveted.
The 43 is the sharpest lens that Pentax makes, no question. It is also more prone to flare than the 40, and has less colour saturation (confirmed by owners and in sample pictures). This is what I mean by "information". (Should have be "purity of spectra"). If sharpness is your only criteria though, the 50 1.7 is no joke either. It's a great lens for about 1/9th the price.
Since the OP is comparing a very expensive lens to a very inexpensive lens, one should question how badly the OP actually needs something like the 43.
I don't care about image tests, or resolution charts. I compare real images with my eyes to make decisions.