[Artifarty]

I am coming across a used Da 35 Macro, but I have been wanting a FA43 for awhile and the funding is here!! What should I choose..... I have a Sigma 30 and I love it but it has its limitation, so this is my 2nd Normal lens for my KR...... Ideas please!!

[Chex]

honestly, if you have a 30 and I presume a kit 18-55.. I would look at something more like the FA 77mm Ltd or D-FA 100 Macro depending what you have for range. I love my 43mm and all, but I would probably trade it for a 77 or 31 Ltd if I had the chance. I find it's just a bit of an oddball focal length, which is good.. but I often find it too wide for close portraits, too long for nice scenic shots or indoors (small house). I think most of what can be pulled out of a 43mm ltd could probably be done with a SMC Tak 50mm f1.7 or FA 50mm f1.4. But it sure is hard to duplicate some of the extra pixie dust from a Ltd. lens.

[lguckert79]

Well the two lenses are great they both have good qualities. On one hand you get the macro with the 35mm with a some what fast apature and it does not have a crop factor with the KR. Then you have the FA 43mm with the faster apature and the crop factor comes in to play. if i were you i would read the lens reviews on the both of them and then make your choice.

me personaly i would go with the 43mm just cause if you ever want to use it on a film camera it will work and if pentax ever releases a FF D-slr.

[Clavius]

And me personally, would go for the FA43. I own the DA35 and it's really good. But the grass is always greener somewhere else.

Do you need the macro capability? You shouldn't get the DA35 for shooting bugs, because at 35mm, you'll have to be right on top of them.

[Ash]

What limitations do you have with the 30 that you'd want a 43?
If it's macro capability, then the 43 will disappoint you.
In every other regard, the 43 is worth the investment.
Then again the 35 macro is one of the finest pieces of lens engineering around, a very sharp lens.
The 35 macro and 43 ltd are quite different lenses - it's all up to you what you need from them.

[pbizarro]

These are very different focal lengths, and besides, these two lenses have very different characteristics. What do you plan to photograph with them?

[wjt]

I had both, given a choice I would pick the 43. Not saying the 35ltd is a bad lens, it is wonderful but I personally prefer the 43 by a touch. It does depend a lot on what you want to shoot though.

[Pentaxor]

you are saying that this is your second normal lens?

well, if you really love the FA43 that much, sell your Sigma 30 , get the FA43 as a fast normal and buy a 90/100mm macro lens for your remaining budget.

[London Rob]

My 10 pence is thus as I've just been in a simillar boat. Had funding for the 43 but really like the focal length of my old M 50mm F1.7. So, worked out I could basically get a new DA35mm Macro Limited AND a new FA50 F1.4. A two lens solution with 2 focal lengths giving macro to infinity and the possibility of superfast 1.4 when need. And I'm very happy with both (On my K-x)
And Iguckert71, I may very well be wrong but you say the 35mm "does not have a crop factor with the KR." I'm pretty certain it does. Of course crop factor is relative, relative to experience (If any) of using the same lenses on film cameras. So both the 35 and the 43 or any focal length for that matter are subject to the same crop factor when comparing film to sensor based cameras. The DA range is optimised for digital but doesn't alter the presence of a crop factor. I'm more than happy to be corrected on this assumption of course !!! (And I'll also have bought the wrong lenses!)

[Rondec]

Do you like the 40-ish mm focal length? That is the big question. The FA 43 is a great lens, but it isn't really a normal lens on crop frame. The DA 35 would give you a similar focal length to the Sigma (although it is slower on aperture, has macro/close up ability and is sharper on the edges).

It is hard really to make a recommendation, since we don't know what you feel that weaknesses are of the Sigma that you wish to rectify. The FA 31 would probably be the real answer, but it's kind of our of your price range (I know it is out of mine).

[yusuf]

I am coming across a used Da 35 Macro, but I have been wanting a FA43 for awhile and the funding is here!! What should I choose..... I have a Sigma 30 and I love it but it has its limitation, so this is my 2nd Normal lens for my KR...... Ideas please!!

What limitations do you think in 30mm? MFD?

[robgo2]

I have both the FA31 and the FA43, and I find the focal lengths to be sufficiently different to warrant owning both lenses. The 31 (which is virtually the same FL as your 30) is a great general purpose focal length. The 43 is a short telephoto that I find especially useful for environmental and upper body portraits, but it can also serve as a walk-around lens. I actually prefer the rendering of the 43, but it is a close call. Regarding the DA35/2.8, no doubt it is a fine lens, but its FL is very close to your 30, so what you are gaining is macro capability. However, as others have suggested, 35mm is not the ideal FL for macro photography.

I happen to love the unique rendering of the FA Limiteds. Given the choice you pose, I would get the FA43 without any hesitation. If you decide to get the DA35, I suggest that you sell the Sigma 30 and start saving for a DA70 or FA77.

Rob

[Pentaxor]

What limitations do you think in 30mm? MFD?

overall rendering maybe?

[Artifarty]

Thanks for all the reply and I am still trying to digest a bit.

I will explain a bit more clearly about my situation...... I love Sigma 30 for shooting kids, shooting indoor, isolating objects, creamy bokeh & its centre sharpness. But its weakness is its softness on the borders even when stopped down to F8. Love Sigma 30 for what it is but I also want a lens that I can bring out for some street, landscape, city shoots..... etc.

Again, if the lense has macro, is a bonus, not a necessity for my use. I used to have a Canon 400D with a 50 1.8 (a FOV of 80mm in FF) and it's a bit too narrow in some cases but 43mm (64.5) might be okay and the difference to a 35mm (52.5) is not that much???

31mm is out of my budget and its 1/2 a stop slower than 30 1.4. If it's cheaper than US750 or if I shoot film, I will consider.... but 1-2 years down the road I might think otherwise.

Anyway thanks for all the input....... I am still undecided!?!

[Frogfish]

After seeing what you want the lense for then the 43 Ltd is a no-brainer. I also have the Sigma 30/1.4 and it's a great street lense but when you want just a bit more then the 43 is always in my bag. As far as telephoto goes the 43 is so sharp that you'll have no problem cropping and still having a shot easily printable at large print sizes.