[Ash]

It's vying with the Helios 44m for camera time right now

Somehow I knew well in advance the 43 would have that effect on you Steve.
It's known to turn the toughest sceptics into fans in the blink of a shutter.

[jstevewhite]

Somehow I knew well in advance the 43 would have that effect on you Steve.
It's known to turn the toughest sceptics into fans in the blink of a shutter.

I dunno from pixie dust, but I sure do like this lens, and all of the LTD line. I always owned up to that, though; the glass is why I shoot Pentax - I don't own a Pentax lens I don't like. I'm seriously considering selling the Siggy 10-20 to get the 15 Ltd, particularly after the "15mm ltd controls my mind" thread. It's got the jsherman effect going, bigtime.

I think the 43 was definitely a good move - and I sold a DA70ltd and FA50 f1.4 to get it. The DA70, like all limiteds, is amazing, but no more amazing than the DA* 50-135 @70, IMO.

With the 43ltd in place, I've really considered selling the 10-20 AND the FA35 f2 AL to get a 15mm ltd, and putting back what's left in order to get the 21. Not sure 35-43 is a big enough spread to keep both.

[Ash]

the glass is why I shoot Pentax

Very much as it is with me. The whole FA ltd series is a photographic marvel.
Looks like a good practical move to go with primes, particularly if you don't need to go wider than 15mm.

Enjoy the 43.

[jstevewhite]

Very much as it is with me. The whole FA ltd series is a photographic marvel.
Looks like a good practical move to go with primes, particularly if you don't need to go wider than 15mm.

Enjoy the 43.

Heeh, thanks, I am. This is from this afternoon. It was sunset-ey, and the light had a definite golden cast, but the auto WB in the k-5 rendered the colors faithfully, so I hadda add back in the gold cast. Anyway, I took a buncha shots - this is my favorite:

[MSM]

@Simon: I love the last shot of your son. I love my 43 for the same times of portraits of the young ones.
@JSW: ^^ Nice shot. Glad you are enjoying the 43!

[Ash]

Simon, just saw "Feet Up" in PPG voting. Definite yes. Heartwarming capture.

OK Steve, there's something about that image of an ordinary scene that looks special. Hard to pinpoint it, probably just a combination of the texture, colour rendition and sharpness. I put it down to the "43 effect".

[Boris]

I've come that way - FA 50/1.7->M 50/1.4->FA 43/1.9 Ltd->A 50/1.2->FA 50/1.4->DFA 50/2.8 macro. Presently I have FA 43, A 50/1.2, FA 50/1.4 and DFA 50/2.8. Use them interchangingly. DFA 50/2.8 is more or less permanently mounted on my daughter's K-7 as an exercise for her.

I should say that FA 43 is a wonderful lens that has been badly overrated. It's build is second to none and starting from F2.8 it is certainly a dandy of a lens. Is it twice as good as FA 50/1.4 judging from (approximate) price comparison? No way, it is not.

FA 50/1.4 has a bit of a problem focusing on modern bodies. But starting from K20D one has individual AF correction that one may have to employ. And at f/1.6 FA 50/1.4 is infinitely sharper than FA 43.

My personal answer to the thread question:
- if you can afford it - get both of them; one can always serve as a backup to another
- otherwise - FA 50/1.4 is faster and if you a score a good copy, you won't regret having it.
- if you absolutely have to have the good feeling of owing the limited lens, then FA 43 is a good place to start - it is the cheapest of the "three amigos" and an excellent lens too.

[jstevewhite]

OK Steve, there's something about that image of an ordinary scene that looks special. Hard to pinpoint it, probably just a combination of the texture, colour rendition and sharpness. I put it down to the "43 effect".

ROFL nice.

[Ash]

And at f/1.6 FA 50/1.4 is infinitely sharper than FA 43

Careful there Boris. The 43 cannot be compared at f/1.6, so is that why you say it is 'infinitely' sharper? The same could be said at f/1.4 and f/1.8 but this is a moot point. The 43 is not soft at f/1.9, and where it can be compared with the FA 50 at f/2, it is of comparable *sharpness* however not in microcontrast and colour rendition, after which the FA 43 trumps the FA 50 in every measurable parameter.

[Raffwal]

An interesting thread. I once bought the FA 50mm f/1.4 to play with the shallow DOF, but I think it really isn't such a nice piece of glass. I find it so-so both optically and mechanically and definitely NOT worth the price it goes for after the price hikes. Then again, I wish to have something fast and good. The FA 43mm might be it, but getting that would probably demand some other changes in my lens collection since I already have the DA 40mm and I guess there's little sense in owning both.

[krypticide]

The 43mm gives a really nice pop to the subject. Bokeh circles aren't always to best wide open, but it's the only lens I have that gives the (coveted for me) 3D "pop" that you hear people talk about sometimes.

Sent from my EVO 4G with CM7

[TOUGEFC]

@Simon: I love the last shot of your son. I love my 43 for the same times of portraits of the young ones.
@JSW: ^^ Nice shot. Glad you are enjoying the 43!

Thanks mate!

Simon, just saw "Feet Up" in PPG voting. Definite yes. Heartwarming capture.

OK Steve, there's something about that image of an ordinary scene that looks special. Hard to pinpoint it, probably just a combination of the texture, colour rendition and sharpness. I put it down to the "43 effect".

Thanks for the vote Ash

And Steve, very nice, its certainly has the "43 effect"
(nice term Ash)

[Boris]

Careful there Boris. The 43 cannot be compared at f/1.6, so is that why you say it is 'infinitely' sharper? The same could be said at f/1.4 and f/1.8 but this is a moot point. The 43 is not soft at f/1.9, and where it can be compared with the FA 50 at f/2, it is of comparable *sharpness* however not in microcontrast and colour rendition, after which the FA 43 trumps the FA 50 in every measurable parameter.

You understood me exactly right, Ash. FA43 cannot open to f/1.6. FA 50/1.4 can. With all due respect to micro-contrast and color rendition, photographs I printed from either lens look wonderful in print. In fact, I don't notice any differences between the way FA43 and FA50/1.4 render color, but I know (and openly admit) that I am blind to subtle color variations, so indeed, my opinion may not be representative in this regard.

I do know that FA 43 is approximately twice as expensive as FA 50/1.4 whereas it is certainly better but not twice as much, may be by 10% if things such as image quality can be compared by percentage point, which is a silly notion to start with.

Although I do have all three FA limited lenses, use them and really like them, I don't subscribe to the "limited holiness" notion.

In a nutshell, FA 50/1.4 offers 90% of what FA43 can do for half the price. Everyone would then have to make their own choice and it is not at all a trivial one. To a beginning photographer I would suggest FA 50/1.4. To a seasoned veteran, so to say, my suggestion would be irrelevant 'cause they would know themselves what do they need.

[robgo2]

In a nutshell, FA 50/1.4 offers 90% of what FA43 can do for half the price. Everyone would then have to make their own choice and it is not at all a trivial one. To a beginning photographer I would suggest FA 50/1.4. To a seasoned veteran, so to say, my suggestion would be irrelevant 'cause they would know themselves what do they need.

This is a simple example of the law of diminishing returns. As you move up the quality scale, smaller incremental improvements are increasingly expensive. It's true of lenses, cameras, audio equipment, cars and just about every other manufactured good on the planet. Some people are willing to shell out the extra cash for better quality, while others are not.

Rob

[Boris]

robgo2, most certainly so. It is just that given finite budget one has to be able to see/draw the line/decide where to stop paying improved quality premium.