Originally posted by Boris In a nutshell, FA 50/1.4 offers 90% of what FA43 can do for half the price.
I don't think this is a proper way of looking at it. They are different lenses for different purposes. In the same way, the 43 does 90% of what the FA 50 does for 2x the price!
Instead, lets consider the history of each lens. The FA 50 is very old. It's not incredibly sharp until f4, but there, it is about as sharp as you could want. It renders like an old lens.... not the best corner sharpness, smooth bokeh, poor flare resistance, etc. It looks like a classic lens. On digital, it makes for a great portrait lens with character.
The 43 is new-age. It's pretty damn sharp at f2.5. It looks pretty moderm (*pop*). It's shorter, making it better for general photography / environmental portraits, and less suited to tighter portraits. The bokeh of the 43 does suffer in some situations, unlike the 50 1.4. The 43 renders "busy" - it's a modern look. The 50 is classic, with less detail retention. It depends on your motives. The 43 has much better colour - something much more important to the film era than the digital one.
In general, I think they both excel at their own thing, however, since they *happen* to be close together in focal length, one is seen to replace the other. If one has the 43, it makes more sense to own a 55 or 70. If one owns the 50, it makes more sense to own the 35 or 31.
This is the pattern of behaviour I see, which leads to this rather silly comparison. Both lenses are so different in their utility that the only thing they really *share* in common is focal length range.
On a budget, the 50 wins for obvious reasons. On film, the 43 wins every time (focal length, sharpness, and colour). On digital, the decision should be made based on focal length, because we are getting closer to portrait lengths and the type of shooting you like to do is going to play a factor!
I hope this was helpful..