43mm... sell my 50mm and 35mm for a 31mm?

robgo2 · 05-24-2011, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by DogLover

Totally agree on the strength of 3D with the 55, but to me it renders with a little less warmth or romanticism than the 43. More WYSIWYG. Not better or worse, just different. I like having both lenses on call for different situations.

55mm corresponds to the classic focal length for portraits, which is what makes the DA*55 attractive. If I had been able to get a copy that focused consistently, I would now own it, rather than an FA43. I did not use the DA* long enough to draw any firm conclusions about its rendering, but my impression is that the FA43 renders differently and more pleasingly. In fact, the IQ from the FA43 absolutely amazed me from the first shot, which was not the reaction that I had to the DA*55, focusing issues aside. As mentioned above, the latter is a very good lens, just different.

As an aside, it is hard for me to believe that I am the only person who had problems with focusing the DA*55. I tried five copies on a K-7 and one on a K-5. They were all so erratic, that I absolutely could not trust them. I have had no such problems with any of my other lenses.

Rob

Last edited by robgo2; 05-24-2011 at 09:23 AM.

krypticide · 05-24-2011, 09:14 AM

I definitely am envying fast primes on other systems. My girlfriend has a 35mm L F1.4 on full frame, and that is a MAGICAL lens. I haven't found something equivalent.

Sent from my EVO 4G with MIUI

DogLover · 05-24-2011, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

There is truth is in what you say. It is a common human trait to identify with our possessions and to seek validation for possessing them. And the when the cost of these possessions is high, the trait becomes even stronger.

But that does not change the fact that there are qualitative differences between things, including lenses. Some people appreciate the differences, small or large, and are willing to pay for them. I have no doubt that many, if not most, of the FA Limited "rejectionists" have never seriously used one in their lives. I also have no doubt that if the prices of the FA Limiteds were cut in half, many of those same people would be flocking to buy them and would fill this forum with gushing praise for their new possessions.

Rob

Amen, brother!

DogLover · 05-24-2011, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

55mm corresponds to the classic focal length for portraits, which is what makes the DA*55 attractive. If I had been able to get a copy that focused consistently, I would now own it, rather than an FA43. I did not use the DA* long enough to draw any firm conclusions about its rendering, but my impression is that the FA43 renders differently and more pleasingly. In fact, the IQ from the FA43 absolutely amazed me from the first shot, which was not the reaction that I had to the DA*55, focusing issues aside. As mentioned above, the latter is a very good lens, just different.

As an aside, it is hard for me to believe that I am the only person who had problems with focusing the DA*55. I tried five copies on a K-7 and one on a K-5. They were all so erratic, that I absolutely could not trust them. I have had no such problems with any of my other lenses.

Rob

I remember your situation and it still baffles me. I guess the 55 is just not "meant to be" for you. But if your problems are what led you to the 43, that's no bad thing, right?

robgo2 · 05-24-2011, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by DogLover

I remember your situation and it still baffles me. I guess the 55 is just not "meant to be" for you. But if your problems are what led you to the 43, that's no bad thing, right?

That's how I see it as well. Perhaps down the road, I will give the DA*55 another try, but that is not in my immediate future. Instead, I have just placed an order for a DA15. (B&H has a new supply for "only" $509.) After reading so many glowing reviews about that lens, I felt the need to add it to my prime lens kit. I expect that it will give a very different look than the FA Limiteds.

Rob

DogLover · 05-24-2011, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

That's how I see it as well. Perhaps down the road, I will give the DA*55 another try, but that is not in my immediate future. Instead, I have just placed an order for a DA15. (B&H has a new supply for "only" $509.) After reading so many glowing reviews about that lens, I felt the need to add it to my prime lens kit. I expect that it will give a very different look than the FA Limiteds.

Rob

It will, but probably no less of an immediate delight. I'm not really a "wide" guy, but I clicked with the 15 from the first time I used it. I could be happy with it as my only really wide lens from now on. I may get the 8-16 someday because I find it unique and intriguing, but it will never replace the 15 for me. Enjoy!

tommyx · 07-09-2011, 11:49 PM

i have the 3 amigos now. 31 being the last to join the pack.

The 43 is always in the cabinet now since i got the 31.

Anyone else in the same boat?

Chex · 07-10-2011, 02:18 AM

I feel like selling my 43 and saving up for the 31 personally... but I really think I need a UWA lens first. If I had the 31 and 43, I don't think the 43 would get much action either.

vrrattko · 07-12-2011, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by krypticide

Lots of focal lengths in the title...but it says it all.

My latest lens acquisition was the 43mm, which I absolutely love. When I want a prime on my camera, I always think of the 43mm. So the FA 50mm and FA 35mm aren't feeling any love. Should I sell them both and get the FA 31mm?

No. I would consider selling the lenses but buying something wider, maybe FA*24/2 just because FA31 and FA43 are IMHO quite close to each other (see the post above by TOMMYX). So I will probably keep FA43 and buy FA*24 if I'm in your shoes

vrrattko · 07-12-2011, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by Chex

I feel like selling my 43 and saving up for the 31 personally... but I really think I need a UWA lens first. If I had the 31 and 43, I don't think the 43 would get much action either.

Funny, I have the same idea...but opposite....more and more feel like selling my 31 and getting 43 + maybe da70. It's just the preference, i guess I like the 43 focal lenght bit more....

vrrattko · 07-12-2011, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by JHD

A fundamental fact not many are willing to entertain. People need to feel good about their over priced purchases so it's important for them to try to convince others that their expensive lenses are more than just incrementally better. When more than a few people buy into this false line of reasoning I call that phenomena the Sarah Palin effect.

Maybe 'Sarah Palin deffect' would be more appropiate .... just kiddin

**Ash** · 07-12-2011, 04:41 AM

The 31 and 43 are quite different in the results, not just in terms of focal length. I see the 43 as a lens for the quirky bokeh effect in portraiture while the 31 is great for punchy sharp detail with extraordinary colour and texture. The 43 is a special little lens that is worth the investment, but focal length preference is a most important aspect for lens suitability.

vrrattko · 07-12-2011, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Ash

The 31 and 43 are quite different in the results, not just in terms of focal length. I see the 43 as a lens for the quirky bokeh effect in portraiture while the 31 is great for punchy sharp detail with extraordinary colour and texture. The 43 is a special little lens that is worth the investment, but focal length preference is a most important aspect for lens suitability.

I had both and besides of focal lenght I can see bit of a difference in contrast....fa43 seems to me to have bit more contrast and maybe therefore more punchier photos. In regards to bokeh, they're pretty good both of them....

krypticide · 08-01-2011, 09:01 AM

I've found myself wanting to go wider, especially indoors, so I think I am going to take the plunge on the 31mm...

Frogfish · 08-01-2011, 01:24 PM

I have the 43 and a Sigma 30/1.4. I keep on looking at the 31 as I think 30/31 is the perfect FL for a walkabout lense and the 30/1.4 is on my camera more often than not - no matter whether you are shooting people, small groups, landscapes, street whatever, it's a great FL. However I'm just afraid that I'm giving up too much to go from 1.4 to 1.8 as I love my low DoF shooting such as this (@ 1.6)

Can anyone post their low DoF shots from the 31 shot at 1.8 ?

07-12-2011, 04:31 AM	#55
vrrattko Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 753	Hi Chex Originally posted by Chex I feel like selling my 43 and saving up for the 31 personally... but I really think I need a UWA lens first. If I had the 31 and 43, I don't think the 43 would get much action either. Funny, I have the same idea...but opposite....more and more feel like selling my 31 and getting 43 + maybe da70. It's just the preference, i guess I like the 43 focal lenght bit more....

07-12-2011, 04:36 AM	#56
vrrattko Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 753	Hi Originally posted by JHD A fundamental fact not many are willing to entertain. People need to feel good about their over priced purchases so it's important for them to try to convince others that their expensive lenses are more than just incrementally better. When more than a few people buy into this false line of reasoning I call that phenomena the Sarah Palin effect. Maybe 'Sarah Palin deffect' would be more appropiate .... just kiddin

07-12-2011, 05:15 AM	#58
vrrattko Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 753	Hi Ash Originally posted by Ash The 31 and 43 are quite different in the results, not just in terms of focal length. I see the 43 as a lens for the quirky bokeh effect in portraiture while the 31 is great for punchy sharp detail with extraordinary colour and texture. The 43 is a special little lens that is worth the investment, but focal length preference is a most important aspect for lens suitability. I had both and besides of focal lenght I can see bit of a difference in contrast....fa43 seems to me to have bit more contrast and maybe therefore more punchier photos. In regards to bokeh, they're pretty good both of them....

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax FA 31mm/FA 43mm/FA 77mm/DFA 100mm/DA* 16-50mm/ DA*50-135mm/DA 55-300mm	loveisageless	Sold Items	24	03-01-2011 03:51 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax FA 31mm/1.8, FA 43mm/1.9, DA 35mm/2.8 Macro, DA 12-24mm, AF160 flash (U	farfisa	Sold Items	15	12-10-2010 02:00 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Sell Off Part 3: FA Limited 43mm and 77mm	k100d	Sold Items	14	11-04-2009 06:31 AM

05-24-2011, 09:13 AM	#46
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by DogLover Totally agree on the strength of 3D with the 55, but to me it renders with a little less warmth or romanticism than the 43. More WYSIWYG. Not better or worse, just different. I like having both lenses on call for different situations. 55mm corresponds to the classic focal length for portraits, which is what makes the DA55 attractive. If I had been able to get a copy that focused consistently, I would now own it, rather than an FA43. I did not use the DA long enough to draw any firm conclusions about its rendering, but my impression is that the FA43 renders differently and more pleasingly. In fact, the IQ from the FA43 absolutely amazed me from the first shot, which was not the reaction that I had to the DA55, focusing issues aside. As mentioned above, the latter is a very good lens, just different. As an aside, it is hard for me to believe that I am the only person who had problems with focusing the DA55. I tried five copies on a K-7 and one on a K-5. They were all so erratic, that I absolutely could not trust them. I have had no such problems with any of my other lenses. Rob Last edited by robgo2; 05-24-2011 at 09:23 AM.

05-24-2011, 09:14 AM	#47
krypticide Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,079 Original Poster	I definitely am envying fast primes on other systems. My girlfriend has a 35mm L F1.4 on full frame, and that is a MAGICAL lens. I haven't found something equivalent. Sent from my EVO 4G with MIUI

05-24-2011, 12:57 PM	#48
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by robgo2 There is truth is in what you say. It is a common human trait to identify with our possessions and to seek validation for possessing them. And the when the cost of these possessions is high, the trait becomes even stronger. But that does not change the fact that there are qualitative differences between things, including lenses. Some people appreciate the differences, small or large, and are willing to pay for them. I have no doubt that many, if not most, of the FA Limited "rejectionists" have never seriously used one in their lives. I also have no doubt that if the prices of the FA Limiteds were cut in half, many of those same people would be flocking to buy them and would fill this forum with gushing praise for their new possessions. Rob Amen, brother!

05-24-2011, 01:00 PM	#49
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by robgo2 55mm corresponds to the classic focal length for portraits, which is what makes the DA55 attractive. If I had been able to get a copy that focused consistently, I would now own it, rather than an FA43. I did not use the DA long enough to draw any firm conclusions about its rendering, but my impression is that the FA43 renders differently and more pleasingly. In fact, the IQ from the FA43 absolutely amazed me from the first shot, which was not the reaction that I had to the DA55, focusing issues aside. As mentioned above, the latter is a very good lens, just different. As an aside, it is hard for me to believe that I am the only person who had problems with focusing the DA55. I tried five copies on a K-7 and one on a K-5. They were all so erratic, that I absolutely could not trust them. I have had no such problems with any of my other lenses. Rob I remember your situation and it still baffles me. I guess the 55 is just not "meant to be" for you. But if your problems are what led you to the 43, that's no bad thing, right?

05-24-2011, 01:17 PM	#50
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by DogLover I remember your situation and it still baffles me. I guess the 55 is just not "meant to be" for you. But if your problems are what led you to the 43, that's no bad thing, right? That's how I see it as well. Perhaps down the road, I will give the DA*55 another try, but that is not in my immediate future. Instead, I have just placed an order for a DA15. (B&H has a new supply for "only" $509.) After reading so many glowing reviews about that lens, I felt the need to add it to my prime lens kit. I expect that it will give a very different look than the FA Limiteds. Rob

05-24-2011, 01:24 PM	#51
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by robgo2 That's how I see it as well. Perhaps down the road, I will give the DA*55 another try, but that is not in my immediate future. Instead, I have just placed an order for a DA15. (B&H has a new supply for "only" $509.) After reading so many glowing reviews about that lens, I felt the need to add it to my prime lens kit. I expect that it will give a very different look than the FA Limiteds. Rob It will, but probably no less of an immediate delight. I'm not really a "wide" guy, but I clicked with the 15 from the first time I used it. I could be happy with it as my only really wide lens from now on. I may get the 8-16 someday because I find it unique and intriguing, but it will never replace the 15 for me. Enjoy!

07-09-2011, 11:49 PM	#52
tommyx Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Singapore Posts: 122	i have the 3 amigos now. 31 being the last to join the pack. The 43 is always in the cabinet now since i got the 31. Anyone else in the same boat?

07-10-2011, 02:18 AM	#53
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	I feel like selling my 43 and saving up for the 31 personally... but I really think I need a UWA lens first. If I had the 31 and 43, I don't think the 43 would get much action either.

07-12-2011, 04:26 AM	#54
vrrattko Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 753	Originally posted by krypticide Lots of focal lengths in the title...but it says it all. My latest lens acquisition was the 43mm, which I absolutely love. When I want a prime on my camera, I always think of the 43mm. So the FA 50mm and FA 35mm aren't feeling any love. Should I sell them both and get the FA 31mm? No. I would consider selling the lenses but buying something wider, maybe FA24/2 just because FA31 and FA43 are IMHO quite close to each other (see the post above by TOMMYX). So I will probably keep FA43 and buy FA24 if I'm in your shoes

07-12-2011, 04:41 AM	#57
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	The 31 and 43 are quite different in the results, not just in terms of focal length. I see the 43 as a lens for the quirky bokeh effect in portraiture while the 31 is great for punchy sharp detail with extraordinary colour and texture. The 43 is a special little lens that is worth the investment, but focal length preference is a most important aspect for lens suitability.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-01-2011, 09:01 AM	#59
krypticide Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,079 Original Poster	I've found myself wanting to go wider, especially indoors, so I think I am going to take the plunge on the 31mm...

08-01-2011, 01:24 PM	#60
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	I have the 43 and a Sigma 30/1.4. I keep on looking at the 31 as I think 30/31 is the perfect FL for a walkabout lense and the 30/1.4 is on my camera more often than not - no matter whether you are shooting people, small groups, landscapes, street whatever, it's a great FL. However I'm just afraid that I'm giving up too much to go from 1.4 to 1.8 as I love my low DoF shooting such as this (@ 1.6) Can anyone post their low DoF shots from the 31 shot at 1.8 ?