Originally posted by robgo2 Sharpness is not everything in lens performance and should not be the only criterion on which to base a choice. I think that most people would agree that these two lenses have different rendering characteristics. As to which renders better, that is largely a matter of personal preference. Personally, I have never used any lenses that produce more beautiful images than the FA Limiteds. Others may not be so enamored of the FA Limited look. I cannot argue with matters of personal taste.
Rob
When we use the word "should", we're talking about personal preference. I can think of applications where sharpness is the primary criteria, period. Macro, for instance, and copywork, and often (but not always) landscapes. Certainly there are many applications where sharpness is not the primary criteria, but certainly is important; then many others where sharpness might be the bottom of the list. I certainly can't dictate reasonably to anyone what their priorities "should" be, though.
When we use the word 'beautiful', we're talking about personal preference. I love my new FA43, particularly at f4-5.6, where it's bitingly, ridiculously sharp. I think the bokeh from the 50mm f1.4 was superior, but not sufficiently so to convince me to keep the 50 and get rid of the 43. I like the contrast and saturation of the FA43, which is better, IMO, than the 50 - although I can imagine circumstances where someone might prefer the more muted colors and softer bokeh of the 50.
I certainly agree that they render things differently, for many definitions of 'render', but I don't think that there's an objective "better" here; it's all about what you like.