[Class A]

Klaus wrote:

The center resolution characteristic may be different due to the different RAW profile of the cameras although I am surprised about the difference.

?

[robbiec]

A few things jump out for me on this retest.. First of all, a lot of people regard as gospel the numbers produced as being the be all and end all which is frankly a load of bollox. We have seen and I have personally experienced the 43 produce amazingly sharp shots with amazing colours and all of a sudden because of a couple of tests it is starting to seem as if they are now regarded as flukes!
Second... I am begining to wonder if the sensor positioning in the K-5 or the actual sensor itself is creating some of the disparaties shown while being measured. I have long suspected the Samsung in the K20D to be more tolerant across the whole frame than the Sony. Pity is does not like high ISO, as colour wise it is also better, again in my opinion.
Lastly.. I would propose to any of these sites that actual run a test on any Pentax equipment to get in 3 versions of each. The QA from the factories seems to be patchy at best, non existant at worst.

ps.. I adore my copy of the 43, it is noticeably sharp across the frame pre infinity from f/2.8 onwards, razor sharp from f/4 and it does return colours & contrast with loads of impact. All this does is add more ammunition to the FA or DA argument

[builttospill]

That, is called "sticking your head in the sand".

This is funny. It seems as though someone who avoids this lens because of another's opinion posted online is sticking their head in the sand, as opposed to someone not agreeing with said opinion. Lab tests are never as important for tried and true lenses. Maybe for a newly released lens they would mean more to me, but my real world use has proven the 43 to be a better performer than most other lenses out there, new or old.

[jac]

Lytrytyr:
Please read my comment. Subjective numbers, highly comparative and competitive, one lens scores a 4 and the other 2.5. Forget about the platform or even the lenses themselves. A lack of objectivity becomes apparent to me.

[twitch]

Unfortunately for Pentax users though what was best in 2001 for us is still the best available (with 1 or 2 exceptions perhaps, DA70, DFA100).

[lytrytyr]

Lytrytyr:
Please read my comment.

Which one?
I read and responded to your earlier one, and will be happy to respond to this one:

Subjective numbers, highly comparative and competitive, one lens scores a 4 and the other 2.5.

In one pair of tests, yes.
But as I mentioned in response to your earlier comment,
the same two lenses each received 3.5
as the corresponding subjective numbers in another pair of tests.

Forget about the platform or even the lenses themselves. A lack of objectivity becomes apparent to me.

The rating system is certainly subjective.

The tests themselves generally seem to be objective, just reading off from Imatest,
although there may be some subjective input in deciding to repeat tests,
or to choose one particular test image out of a series.

To interpret the tests (e.g. as a potential buyer of a particular lens),
you do need to consider the platform on which the lens was tested.

I would not regard the tests as "scientific,"
since they generally involve just one sample,
and do not seem to be reproducible.

[Rondec]

This is funny. It seems as though someone who avoids this lens because of another's opinion posted online is sticking their head in the sand, as opposed to someone not agreeing with said opinion. Lab tests are never as important for tried and true lenses. Maybe for a newly released lens they would mean more to me, but my real world use has proven the 43 to be a better performer than most other lenses out there, new or old.

As someone else has said, the 43mm focal length is one that just never worked for me. I own the FA 31, the DA *55 and the DA 70 and that gives me the coverage that I need/want with primes. I owned the DA 40 (but not the FA 43) and it was a very nice lens, but not one that worked well for me.

I wonder if this test doesn't reveal poor Pentax QC more than it does anything else. Klaus says that it was a different copy of the lens (he says who he borrows the lenses from at the top of the page) from the one he tested on the K10. Still, he is usually pretty good at identifying things like poorly aligned lens elements (which wouldn't really give this look anyway). It would be nice to see a different lens tested. Based on this one, you would choose the FA 50 or the DA 40 over this lens for most applications -- and they are cheaper too.

[Blue]

This test and the previous one are irrelevant. The FA43/1.9 is a 15 year old lens design optimized for the FF Pentax film cameras of the late 1990’s.

How it or any Pentax lens released during the film area fare on a DSLR has no bearing on how Pentax designed or built the FA43/1.9. An original review from 1997 would be more accurate.

Phil.

If that is the case, the same could be said about the FA 31 LTD, but it got top marks in the re-test on the K-5 and got the rare, recommended status which rarely happens on any Pentax lens at Photozone. The thing about the 43 and 77 is that they were both designed by Hirakawa Jun. The weren't really designed to perform well on flat res tests. It wouldn't surprise me to see them do well on a full frame sensor in a realistic shooting situation.

[twitch]

There aren't many "highly recommended" left now with it taken off the DA40 & FA43 in the K-5 retests.

So now just FA31, DA70 & DA*60-250?

I just noticed the FA50 has a "highly recommended" comment in the conclusion, but doesn't get the icon displayed for it

[monochrome]

As opposed to a personally held opinion that 43mm is a weird focal length on APS-C, not giving in to fetishism by collecting the "Three Amigos", and not wasting good money on Film era lenses based on an article from 2001 expressing an opinion that the FA Limiteds were the best lenses made.

They may have been the best lenses in 2001, but hey wake up Rip Van Winkles, its 2012 now!

A friendly question Selar - have you ever made a nice, friendly, non-snarky, uncritical comment (about anything whatsoever) on this Forum?

[Blue]

As opposed to a personally held opinion that 43mm is a weird focal length on APS-C, not giving in to fetishism by collecting the "Three Amigos", and not wasting good money on Film era lenses based on an article from 2001 expressing an opinion that the FA Limiteds were the best lenses made.

They may have been the best lenses in 2001, but hey wake up Rip Van Winkles, its 2012 now!

Well, Photozone hasn't re-tested the DA* 55/1.4 on the K-5 yet. Hell, they may be using a lens stained early run of the K-5. They wouldn't likely know since they use them only for lens testing.

[builttospill]

As opposed to a personally held opinion that 43mm is a weird focal length on APS-C, not giving in to fetishism by collecting the "Three Amigos", and not wasting good money on Film era lenses based on an article from 2001 expressing an opinion that the FA Limiteds were the best lenses made.

They may have been the best lenses in 2001, but hey wake up Rip Van Winkles, its 2012 now!

It is an odd focal length on a crop sensor; that I agree with. I've never used the FA 31 so I couldn't be classified as part of the fetish, right? I also owned the DA 40 at the same time as the 43; I kept the one I thought to be superior in every way. Also, even though it's 2012, I often use the 43 and 77 on film cameras, which are the best in quality and focal length. But now I suppose you'll tell me to wake up because film is dead.

[selar]

A friendly question Selar

Asked as a PM yes, it would have been a friendly question, asked openly, its just a poorly concealed ad hominem attack on my point of view in this thread.

[Blue]

Asked as a PM yes, it would have been a friendly question, asked openly, its just a poorly concealed ad hominem attack on my point of view in this thread.

Calling people Rip Van Winkles and "sticking their head in the sand" because they have a different opinion than you isn't exactly concealed either.

[selar]

Calling people Rip Van Winkles and "sticking their head in the sand" because they have a different opinion than you isn't exactly concealed either.

Agreed, and removing that stuff.