Photozone re-reviews FA 43 Limited

**robbiec** · 05-19-2012, 09:50 PM

So the 31 came through basically unscathed when retested on the K-5 verses the older K10D. The 43 however has a surprising test, really really strong center as expected from f/1.9 but showing as soft on the borders / extreme from f/1.9 to f/4.0

Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited - Lab Test / Review

Personally I think a typical 43 is stronger than shown across the frame than the numbers seem to suggest.

Sol Invictus · 05-19-2012, 10:42 PM

The results are consistent with the Lenstip review and what I see in my copy.

selar · 05-19-2012, 11:28 PM

I'm thankful I had the good sense not to believe the hype about the FA43. Pretty poor performance.

**jackassp** · 05-19-2012, 11:41 PM

I'd like to see them re-test the FA77 lens too, I think it would make some people rethink this lens too.

But then, there is more to photography than just lab tests...

Last edited by jackassp; 05-19-2012 at 11:43 PM. Reason: typo

MichaelBilson · 05-20-2012, 12:02 AM

I just purchased the 43mm. This review is like a slap in my face. But then again, the FA 43mm is small and light, feels very nice to use and is compatible with my imaginary FF Pentax camera.

I do not regret my purchase.

DSims · 05-20-2012, 12:04 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by selar

I'm thankful I had the good sense not to believe the hype about the FA43. Pretty poor performance.

Too bad my poorly performing lens takes so many nice photos!

**jackassp** · 05-20-2012, 12:22 AM

There are no bad lenses, just bad photographers?

DSims · 05-20-2012, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by jackassp

There are no bad lenses, just bad photographers?

I'm afraid there are both!

If you like the colors you get from the DA15, I think you'd like the FA43 too. I sold my F50/1.4 shortly after I got the FA43, because the FA43 easily had better IQ and sharpness. If I need great bokeh I use my K50/1.2 instead.

I guess I need to start making the edges of my frame the focal point of my shots, so I can better appreciate the shortcomings of my FA43!

bossa · 05-20-2012, 01:10 AM

I knew there were reasons I just couldn't bring myself to buy that lens.

DSims · 05-20-2012, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by bossa

I knew there were reasons I just couldn't bring myself to buy that lens.

Are you sure it's not because you have the DA*55?

The combination of the FA43 and the K50/1.2 is the only reason I didn't buy it!

EDIT: Silly me - I should have read the review first! I'm familiar enough with the lens that I just didn't bother before commenting. There's nothing to get worked up about in the review. It just describes the lens as it is.

Anyone who owns one quickly discovers that you don't shoot with it wide-open. You only do that with a few lenses, like an FA31 or FA77. You also might do it with a 50/1.2 or DA*55 (which is why the DA*55 is actually worth what it costs). I never shoot the FA43 wider that f/2.2 because there's too much loss of IQ otherwise, and often go for f/2.5, 2.8, or narrower. But since it's still better than any of the 50s (besides the 50/1.2s) at those apertures that doesn't bother me. The article is saying what we already know - that it's usable from f/2.2 to f/2.8 and isn't truly optimal until it reaches at least f/4. I've seen this fact discussed many times before by owners - that it begins to really come into its own somewhere between f/2.8 and f/4.

It's OK that the FA43 shouldn't be shot wide open, because the few lenses that can cost even more than the FA43, and it has other outstanding characteristics. For example, nothing but perhaps the DA15 can touch it in color rendering. (Exception: the inexpensive DA35/2.4 is really a crippled FA35/2 which now starts at just the right aperture and can be shot wide open).

Big deal - the two best AF "50s" are still the FA43 and the DA*55. You just pick the one that better suits you (unless you get both).

selar · 05-20-2012, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by jackassp

I'd like to see them re-test the FA77 lens too, I think it would make some people rethink this lens too.

My thoughts exactly, I fear a similar result.

twitch · 05-20-2012, 02:08 AM

Meanwhile, the retest of a FA31 came out as glowing as the first time round. Does it matter though? To those who own these lenses it doesn't.

Kennod · 05-20-2012, 02:08 AM - **2 Likes**

I have just re-reviewed Photozone and decided their conclusions have little relevance to real world photography. I don't care what they measured, the 43 can produce sublime images that people look at.

So I've revised my overall rating of Photozone from "Interesting" down to "Almost meaningless"

bossa · 05-20-2012, 02:12 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Kennod

I have just re-reviewed Photozone and decided their conclusions have little relevance to real world photography. I don't care what they measured, the 43 can produce sublime images that people look at.

So I've revised my overall rating of Photozone from "Interesting" down to "Almost meaningless"

Agreed... you don't value art by determining how technically perfect the paint brushes were.

Kennod · 05-20-2012, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by selar

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

Nope... it' called forming your own opinion based on real results with your own copy of the FA 43 rather than blindly accepting that someone else's measurement of a different copy applies to all. There is enough photographic evidence that the FA43 is much better than "poor".

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FA-43mm-F1.9-Limited-Lens.html

05-19-2012, 09:50 PM	#1
robbiec Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Cork Photos: Albums Posts: 1,882	Photozone re-reviews FA 43 Limited So the 31 came through basically unscathed when retested on the K-5 verses the older K10D. The 43 however has a surprising test, really really strong center as expected from f/1.9 but showing as soft on the borders / extreme from f/1.9 to f/4.0 Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited - Lab Test / Review Personally I think a typical 43 is stronger than shown across the frame than the numbers seem to suggest.

05-20-2012, 01:41 AM	#10
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by bossa I knew there were reasons I just couldn't bring myself to buy that lens. Are you sure it's not because you have the DA55? The combination of the FA43 and the K50/1.2 is the only reason I didn't buy it! EDIT: Silly me - I should have read the review first! I'm familiar enough with the lens that I just didn't bother before commenting. There's nothing to get worked up about in the review. It just describes the lens as it is. Anyone who owns one quickly discovers that you don't shoot with it wide-open. You only do that with a few lenses, like an FA31 or FA77. You also might do it with a 50/1.2 or DA55 (which is why the DA55 is actually worth what it costs). I never shoot the FA43 wider that f/2.2 because there's too much loss of IQ otherwise, and often go for f/2.5, 2.8, or narrower. But since it's still better than any of the 50s (besides the 50/1.2s) at those apertures that doesn't bother me. The article is saying what we already know - that it's usable from f/2.2 to f/2.8 and isn't truly optimal until it reaches at least f/4. I've seen this fact discussed many times before by owners - that it begins to really come into its own somewhere between f/2.8 and f/4. It's OK that the FA43 shouldn't be shot wide open, because the few lenses that can cost even more than the FA43, and it has other outstanding characteristics. For example, nothing but perhaps the DA15 can touch it in color rendering. (Exception: the inexpensive DA35/2.4 is really a crippled FA35/2 which now starts at just the right aperture and can be shot wide open). Big deal - the two best AF "50s" are still the FA43 and the DA55. You just pick the one that better suits you (unless you get both). Last edited by DSims; 05-20-2012 at 02:33 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Photozone re-reviews FA31mm	hcc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	91	05-30-2012 07:58 PM
Photozone Reviews Tamron 70-200 2.8 HOT! HOT! HOT!	JHD	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	02-03-2011 09:11 AM
K5 and photozone	bluekorn	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	02-02-2011 02:15 AM
photozone da35mm limited review is up!	architorture	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	28	08-23-2008 07:38 AM
More Photozone reviews!	feronovak	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	05-04-2007 05:26 PM

05-19-2012, 10:42 PM	#2
Sol Invictus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Calgary, Alberta Photos: Gallery Posts: 392	The results are consistent with the Lenstip review and what I see in my copy.

05-19-2012, 11:28 PM	#3
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	I'm thankful I had the good sense not to believe the hype about the FA43. Pretty poor performance.

05-19-2012, 11:41 PM	#4
jackassp Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 813	I'd like to see them re-test the FA77 lens too, I think it would make some people rethink this lens too. But then, there is more to photography than just lab tests... Last edited by jackassp; 05-19-2012 at 11:43 PM. Reason: typo

05-20-2012, 12:02 AM	#5
MichaelBilson Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 40	I just purchased the 43mm. This review is like a slap in my face. But then again, the FA 43mm is small and light, feels very nice to use and is compatible with my imaginary FF Pentax camera. I do not regret my purchase.

05-20-2012, 12:04 AM - 1 Like	#6
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by selar I'm thankful I had the good sense not to believe the hype about the FA43. Pretty poor performance. Too bad my poorly performing lens takes so many nice photos!

05-20-2012, 12:22 AM	#7
jackassp Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 813	There are no bad lenses, just bad photographers?

05-20-2012, 12:47 AM	#8
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by jackassp There are no bad lenses, just bad photographers? I'm afraid there are both! If you like the colors you get from the DA15, I think you'd like the FA43 too. I sold my F50/1.4 shortly after I got the FA43, because the FA43 easily had better IQ and sharpness. If I need great bokeh I use my K50/1.2 instead. I guess I need to start making the edges of my frame the focal point of my shots, so I can better appreciate the shortcomings of my FA43!

05-20-2012, 01:10 AM	#9
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	I knew there were reasons I just couldn't bring myself to buy that lens.

05-20-2012, 02:00 AM	#11
selar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,042	Originally posted by jackassp I'd like to see them re-test the FA77 lens too, I think it would make some people rethink this lens too. My thoughts exactly, I fear a similar result.

05-20-2012, 02:08 AM	#12
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Meanwhile, the retest of a FA31 came out as glowing as the first time round. Does it matter though? To those who own these lenses it doesn't.

05-20-2012, 02:08 AM - 2 Likes	#13
Kennod Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Melbourne Posts: 126	I have just re-reviewed Photozone and decided their conclusions have little relevance to real world photography. I don't care what they measured, the 43 can produce sublime images that people look at. So I've revised my overall rating of Photozone from "Interesting" down to "Almost meaningless"

05-20-2012, 02:12 AM - 1 Like	#14
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by Kennod I have just re-reviewed Photozone and decided their conclusions have little relevance to real world photography. I don't care what they measured, the 43 can produce sublime images that people look at. So I've revised my overall rating of Photozone from "Interesting" down to "Almost meaningless" Agreed... you don't value art by determining how technically perfect the paint brushes were.

05-20-2012, 02:23 AM	#15
Kennod Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Melbourne Posts: 126	Originally posted by selar That, is called "sticking your head in the sand". Nope... it' called forming your own opinion based on real results with your own copy of the FA 43 rather than blindly accepting that someone else's measurement of a different copy applies to all. There is enough photographic evidence that the FA43 is much better than "poor". https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FA-43mm-F1.9-Limited-Lens.html