Pentax FA 43 or DA 35 Macro?

Allison · 03-05-2013, 08:05 PM

I have both lenses and I love both, but I would go with the 43. It sounds like you have your close up situation under control with your other lens.the43 is going to give you a wow factor that the 35 just can't. I use the 35 a lot,but I do use the 43 more and the 43 is better at portraits.

Driline · 03-05-2013, 08:46 PM

I have been tracking the used lens prices for the 43 the past week or so and frankly it makes more sense to purchase one brand new with used ones going on average for $500. For an extra $84 you get a brand new one with warranty. The 35 Macro on the other hand has significantly gone higher and has broached the $700 mark. Too high in my opinion.

What is up with these lens price increases?

Driline · 03-06-2013, 05:41 PM

Yep, I took more shots with my 18-135mm and am finding out that it does everything I need it to do on the train layout. I can get some great close ups at 70mm. And the focus is perfect. So I guess what I really need is that wow factor lens I can shoot outdoors with.
DA 40 or FA 43? I'm assuming the FA 43 has the wow factor all over the DA 40

gnaztee · 03-06-2013, 09:45 PM

Owned the DA 35, thought it was amazing, but lusted after speed. Sold it for the 43. Liked it quite a bit, but it doesn't do colors or handle tougher situations (contrast in certain lighting, for instance) so I traded it to get another 35. The DA is a better lens at more things, and there's only a stop difference in speed. The "pixie dust" talk is just a difference in rendering that some prefer, while others don't. For me, I like it for some portrait stuff. For landscapes, I wasn't a fan of the 43.

Sandy Hancock · 03-06-2013, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Driline

DA 40 or FA 43? I'm assuming the FA 43 has the wow factor all over the DA 40

That's an even easier question for me. I spent last month shooting my DA40 (along with the 21 and 70) to decide whether it provided anything sufficiently unique to warrant keeping it alongside my FA43.

The short answer, for me at least, was no. Sure, it's a bit smaller and has quick shift, but they are not deal-breakers. In fact, I find it is too small to manually focus comfortably, which kind of cancels out both those advantages. Yes, it's sharp, even flawless, but there is nothing "special" about its rendering, whereas the FA43 really has the magic.

So if I were you I'd get the FA43. If you want a mint DA40 though....

DSims · 03-07-2013, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by sTi

One thing, however, puzzles me: you write of the DA*55 that it's "Color rendering is more or less like an average Tokina (which is good)". I'm not sure what you mean by that as I never owned a Tokina lens and don't know about their special rendering characteristics. Was the DA 55 also co-developed with Tokina like some other DA lenses?

I believe it is a Tokina; it certainly performs like one.

In the camera shops I've heard sales people recommend Tokina as the brand to look at for Canon or Nikon; I agree with them. Their performance often equals (or at least comes close to) lenses from the four big DSLR makers, while Tamron and Sigma often fall noticeably short.

Every lens renders uniquely, but there are distinct trends within brands, and usually within lines or generations from that brand as well. Much of it may be from differences in the glass itself. So IMO (and probably many others here too) if Pentax isn't going to develop a lens themselves, having Tokina do so is the next best thing, since Zeiss is already taken by Sony.

Each of the FA Ltd lenses is one of the better lenses ever made, but each is fairly unique in its rendering. So what I'm saying is that the DA*55 gives nice colors, but the FA43 will give you even more vivid colors just by changing the lens.

Driline · 03-07-2013, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by gnaztee

Owned the DA 35, thought it was amazing, but lusted after speed. Sold it for the 43. Liked it quite a bit, but it doesn't do colors or handle tougher situations (contrast in certain lighting, for instance) so I traded it to get another 35. The DA is a better lens at more things, and there's only a stop difference in speed. The "pixie dust" talk is just a difference in rendering that some prefer, while others don't. For me, I like it for some portrait stuff. For landscapes, I wasn't a fan of the 43.

So you like the DA 35 better as an outdoor lens than the 43?

gnaztee · 03-07-2013, 10:10 AM

Yes, I'd say that if you're referring to outdoor landscapes. Again, the 43 has a distinct look that I think is better suited to people and street photography.

03-07-2013, 01:08 AM	#36
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by sTi One thing, however, puzzles me: you write of the DA55 that it's "Color rendering is more or less like an average Tokina (which is good)". I'm not sure what you mean by that as I never owned a Tokina lens and don't know about their special rendering characteristics. Was the DA 55 also co-developed with Tokina like some other DA lenses? I believe it is a Tokina; it certainly performs like one. In the camera shops I've heard sales people recommend Tokina as the brand to look at for Canon or Nikon; I agree with them. Their performance often equals (or at least comes close to) lenses from the four big DSLR makers, while Tamron and Sigma often fall noticeably short. Every lens renders uniquely, but there are distinct trends within brands, and usually within lines or generations from that brand as well. Much of it may be from differences in the glass itself. So IMO (and probably many others here too) if Pentax isn't going to develop a lens themselves, having Tokina do so is the next best thing, since Zeiss is already taken by Sony. Each of the FA Ltd lenses is one of the better lenses ever made, but each is fairly unique in its rendering. So what I'm saying is that the DA55 gives nice colors, but the FA43 will give you even more vivid colors just by changing the lens. Last edited by DSims; 03-07-2013 at 01:13 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Help with Lens Choice FA 43 vs. DA 35 2.8 vs. DA 40	LukeSkywalker	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	10-19-2012 06:29 PM
FA 31 or DA 21 + FA 43	Rez	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	57	12-18-2011 11:16 PM
FA 43 or DA 40 or FA 31?	dr_romix	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	10-18-2011 10:49 AM
FA 43 or DA 35 Macro	yaojinglin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	11-24-2009 10:17 AM

03-05-2013, 08:05 PM	#31
Allison Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 667	I have both lenses and I love both, but I would go with the 43. It sounds like you have your close up situation under control with your other lens.the43 is going to give you a wow factor that the 35 just can't. I use the 35 a lot,but I do use the 43 more and the 43 is better at portraits.

03-05-2013, 08:46 PM	#32
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,705 Original Poster	I have been tracking the used lens prices for the 43 the past week or so and frankly it makes more sense to purchase one brand new with used ones going on average for $500. For an extra $84 you get a brand new one with warranty. The 35 Macro on the other hand has significantly gone higher and has broached the $700 mark. Too high in my opinion. What is up with these lens price increases?

03-06-2013, 05:41 PM	#33
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,705 Original Poster	Yep, I took more shots with my 18-135mm and am finding out that it does everything I need it to do on the train layout. I can get some great close ups at 70mm. And the focus is perfect. So I guess what I really need is that wow factor lens I can shoot outdoors with. DA 40 or FA 43? I'm assuming the FA 43 has the wow factor all over the DA 40

03-06-2013, 09:45 PM	#34
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772	Owned the DA 35, thought it was amazing, but lusted after speed. Sold it for the 43. Liked it quite a bit, but it doesn't do colors or handle tougher situations (contrast in certain lighting, for instance) so I traded it to get another 35. The DA is a better lens at more things, and there's only a stop difference in speed. The "pixie dust" talk is just a difference in rendering that some prefer, while others don't. For me, I like it for some portrait stuff. For landscapes, I wasn't a fan of the 43.

03-06-2013, 10:42 PM	#35
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	Originally posted by Driline DA 40 or FA 43? I'm assuming the FA 43 has the wow factor all over the DA 40 That's an even easier question for me. I spent last month shooting my DA40 (along with the 21 and 70) to decide whether it provided anything sufficiently unique to warrant keeping it alongside my FA43. The short answer, for me at least, was no. Sure, it's a bit smaller and has quick shift, but they are not deal-breakers. In fact, I find it is too small to manually focus comfortably, which kind of cancels out both those advantages. Yes, it's sharp, even flawless, but there is nothing "special" about its rendering, whereas the FA43 really has the magic. So if I were you I'd get the FA43. If you want a mint DA40 though....

03-07-2013, 07:41 AM	#37
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,705 Original Poster	Originally posted by gnaztee Owned the DA 35, thought it was amazing, but lusted after speed. Sold it for the 43. Liked it quite a bit, but it doesn't do colors or handle tougher situations (contrast in certain lighting, for instance) so I traded it to get another 35. The DA is a better lens at more things, and there's only a stop difference in speed. The "pixie dust" talk is just a difference in rendering that some prefer, while others don't. For me, I like it for some portrait stuff. For landscapes, I wasn't a fan of the 43. So you like the DA 35 better as an outdoor lens than the 43?

03-07-2013, 10:10 AM	#38
gnaztee Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: West Palm Beach, FL Posts: 772	Yes, I'd say that if you're referring to outdoor landscapes. Again, the 43 has a distinct look that I think is better suited to people and street photography.