Originally posted by Blue The FA 50/1.4 was released in late 1991 whereas the FA 43/1.9 was released in 1997. The 43 was also the first Pentax lens to receive the Ghostless Coating (patented ~ 1992) on the rear element not counting traffic cameras. Ironically the FA 35/2 released in 1999 also received the Ghostless Coating. It is too bad they didn't add this to the FA 50. Additionally, several manufacturers still have fast fifties in their catalogs from the early 90s.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the optical formula of the FA 50 remained about the same since the M era (or earlier?) I know the coatings have changed, but thats not exactly the same as designing a whole new lens (like the FA 43).
This is what I meant by "old design"... it's heritage is about 50 or 60 years.
----
To Boris:
I agree with you on almost everything. I personally like the smoothness of the FA 50, don't much value corner sharpness (if I really need it, just stop down), don't really like busy rendering, and think that pop has just as much to do with DOF control and lighting as it does with sharpness. But these are my personal convictions, and others feel very differently. I'm not exactly a good photographer, so I simply seek to understand both sides, rather than discredit their preferences. Some of the talented photographers here do wonderful things with the FA ltds., so they clearly aren't *bad*.
However, I do tend to ascribe talent more to photographers then to lenses, so I would suggest that the FA ltds are good enough lenses that they don't snuff out the talent of a good photographer. As far as the lenses making them *better* I would suggest that this is such a personal decision (based on preferred rendering, focal length, etc.) that trying to nail it down to a specific lens is pretty challenging (esp. for a prime).
The only time I speak up is when members of the FA ltd cult advise newbies to spend a bunch of money on an FA ltd or two when they really would be better off with a good beginner's lens like a zoom or budget prime (i.e., DA L 35 f2.4).
---
Pentaxor: I'm with you on the 50 1.7 thing. I sold mine because, as it might be well known by now, sharpness isn't really the most important thing to me. That lens was crazy sharp wide open, but I found it a rather busy lens, too. People who are looking for sharpness, though, will find it a really great little lens. It comes down to the same sort of thing I commented on above - personal rendering preferences.
---
jsteewhite: As for the 50 not being "exciting", well, depends on what gets you excited. I find the 50 very "pretty', but its pretty traditional in it's rendering. I think that is part of the appeal of the 43 (the 77, in my experience, renders very traditionally as well). I find it very exciting, but thats because it draws the pictures I see inside my head.
personal. preference.