[roentarre]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

...with a very narrow focusing ring.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. That was probably my biggest gripe about the 43. It's an unbelievable lens on a film body, but manually focusing is really tricky with that diminutive focus ring!

Voigtlander ultron 40mm has a very nice manual focus comparing to fa 43. Fa 43 limited can have inconsistent autofocus. Still, pros and cons for everything.

[Kguru]

i'll bite,

and remember people, one of these is a 5 dollar lens... and no peaking at the EXIF, i made them all 900mm focal lengths...

these are all F2.8, 1/25, ISO 200, tripod, mirror lockup.

With those three I'll try 43, 35, 50.
This is based on the rendering of the red bear, just a small object out of the whole photo. Can't use the rest as I see little rendering on them.

Also, the 3rd photo is higher exposed making the bear look washed out and flat. If that happens to be by the 43 you can't blame the lens for it.

[Gooshin]

With those three I'll try 43, 35, 50.
This is based on the rendering of the red bear, just a small object out of the whole photo. Can't use the rest as there is little rendering on them.

Also, the 3rd photo is higher exposed making the bear look washed out and flat. If that happens to be by the 43 you can't blame the lens for it.

43, 50, 35

and you are right, the last one is over exposed, but it shouldnt be, they are all 1/25 and all f2.8 so it was weird...

[WendyB]

actualy the 50 is not the Pentax 50 1.7, its the Chinon 50 f1.9 that i mentioned in another thread.

and Buddah actualy got it right, its 50, 43 then 35 but i have a feeling he snuck a peak at the exifs

Of course we are not comparing apples to oranges, now that you point this out.
It is no wonder we were both banned from DP. I tend to speak of the truth and experience as you also do, they seem to not like nor accept that sort of perspective at that particular forum.

I still stand behind the F50 1.7 as one of Pentax's best builds in the 50mm .7 range if not the absolute best 50 1.7 ever made to date baring the next generation DA which can not be discussed at this point in time.

---

Last edited by WendyB; 02-18-2008 at 12:40 AM.

[heatherslightbox]

Honestly, I couldn't tell that much of a difference between the 3 lenses. Once I get the 50, I'll have to do my own comparison tests to see for myself. Regardless of what I do with the 50, I'll be closing in on having enough money to at least pick up the 28-75 pretty soon, especially if I pick up a gently used one.

Hurry up, rebate check!

Thanks for all the advice--I'll most likely be hanging on to the 43, as it is one of my favorite lenses.

Heather

[rparmar]

This has been an interesting exercise for one such as me who has not used any of the three lenses mentioned. Nonetheless I consistently picked the 43mm as my "favourite" shot, based on focal plane sharpness, level of detail and colour rendition. Bokeh I cannot talk about, especially as the third shot in the second sequence has distinctly different DOF from the other two.

Certainly the difference is not massive, but it is distinct. So now I'm rethinking my "obvious" first lens purchase of a 50mm f/1.4. (Actually I grabbed an off-brand 28mm 2.8 for 20 bucks, since that is pretty well a no-brainer! And I have the kit lens. So this is a "third purchase".)

There is also much talk of the more natural field of view of the 43mm, and the greater sense of 3D, both of which I can certainly seee in sample photos from other threads.

So I might be hit for £400 for a 43mm instead of £170 for the 50mm. Grrrr... someone unconvince me! Or sell me on their 43mm from a location in Europe. ;-)

[heatherslightbox]

So I might be hit for £400 for a 43mm instead of £170 for the 50mm. Grrrr... someone unconvince me! Or sell me on their 43mm from a location in Europe. ;-)

Why don't you try posting to the "Wanted" subforum of the Marketplace?

I did hop on Fleabay and found this listing:
PENTAX smc FA 43mm f/1.9 LIMITED BLACK BRAND NEW IN BOX - eBay (item 120223028598 end time Feb-22-08 18:42:39 PST)
This seller is out of Canada and obviously deals in Canadian $$$, so if I did the exchange rate the right way, this could be a really good deal for you and the seller charges C$30 for shipping to the UK. They also have the 43 in silver, as well (personally, I like the black better, from a perfectly aesthetic point of view).

HTH,
Heather

[deejjjaaaa]

which one is which? ahh? ahh?

the right way will be to make 3 shots, then post slight variations only of the one shot w/ faked
EXIFs (sourced from 2 others) and see what 95% of people who cry loud about "outclassing" will say

[Gooshin]

the right way will be to make 3 shots, then post slight variations only of the one shot w/ faked
EXIFs (sourced from 2 others) and see what 95% of people who cry loud about "outclassing" will say

either way people just dont want to admit that alens that got handed to me by a used camera gear clerk from the bottom of some drawer with no lens cap that i paid with the 5 dollars in change i had left over from a night full of partying could even remotely compete with a world famous 400 dollar lens. (and by remotely i mean nearly indistinguishable unless you pixel peep)

someone up top said they could clearly see a difference... yeah.. okay... i guess if you stare long and hard and read exifs you could figure out

but BETTER? or MINDBLOWING? come on...

our "art" is for the massess, people seem to forget that sometimes.

[deejjjaaaa]

either way people just dont want to admit that alens that got handed to me by a used camera gear clerk from the bottom of some drawer with no lens cap that i paid with the 5 dollars in change i had left over from a night full of partying could even remotely compete with a world famous 400 dollar lens. (and by remotely i mean nearly indistinguishable unless you pixel peep)

someone up top said they could clearly see a difference... yeah.. okay... i guess if you stare long and hard and read exifs you could figure out

but BETTER? or MINDBLOWING? come on...

our "art" is for the massess, people seem to forget that sometimes.

отож, зато мы любим красивое слово IQ

[rparmar]

someone up top said they could clearly see a difference... yeah.. okay... i guess if you stare long and hard and read exifs you could figure out

I neither pixel peeped or read EXIFs to make my conclusions, but neither would I say the differences were that big. After all, it's a low resolution screen and a small image. But blow these up to an A2 and smaller differences will become more noticeable.

However, I certainly agree that lots of lenses can do a decent job. It always costs twice as much to get 10% better.

[rparmar]

I did hop on Fleabay and found this listing

Thanks Heather, but the problem with listings like this is I need to add 6% duty and then 21% VAT on top. UPS charges an exorbitant rate to clear the parcel, and there's VAT on that as well. This soon pushes the price over $600, though that still compares well with prices of well over €500 here.

In fact it compares very well with prices from stores in Canada, the lowest of those being $470.

In any case I can get the FA 50mm f/1.4 for half the price, so I'm still wrestling.

[CWL]

rparmar, I have both the Fa50 f1.4 and 43 before, then I sold the 50. Wideopen 50@1.4 is slightly worst than 43@1.9, both @2 the sharpness were almost same. However, this was just some quick test when I just bought the 43, I didn't do formal tests. But in daily use, the 43mm produced more "wow" photos to me, but probably I use it more frequently. 43 is also a better FOV for indoor. Anyway, both are the very best lenses in this focal length, you won't be disappointed for getting either one IMO. So if on tight budget, I would choose the 50mm. You can always get 43mm later when you have the budget, selling the FA50 will not lost much $$.

[tux08902]

On digital, 50mm isn't the ideal focal lenght anymore. The 43mm has considerably more coverage. I felt the bad effects of that today when I was shooting. I nearly ruined a shot due to framing and then salvaged it in GIMP.

[Kguru]

someone up top said they could clearly see a difference... yeah.. okay... i guess if you stare long and hard and read exifs you could figure out

but BETTER? or MINDBLOWING? come on...

How about testing these lenses on Marketplace, $200 each, sit back see which one gets snapped up first. That's the truest sign of the better lens

More seriously, I was able to pick out the 43's rendering on the red bear. This bear was a minor item in the whole pic so imagine when it's a larger part it does make a difference overall.

I don't like picking out single pics, but I'm prepared to have this bet with you anytime: give me two fair collections of 10 pics each, one from 43 and one from your $5 lens, I will pick which collection is which. Right I win one wrong I pay you two ... interested??