Help me love my FA 43

Driline · 07-21-2014, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Kayaker-J

I'm excited about that; but I am concerned it may still be a bit long for my tastes in a price-y, main go-to lens.

Are you talking about the 43 or 31?

Kayaker-J · 07-21-2014, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by johnha

For me the 43 only really makes sense on a film camera, on APS-C it's an awkward focal length. It's my preferred lens on my LX, but I've only put it on my K-5 once (to check the AF performance). I bought an FA28 to get a similar field of view on APS-C (which also works well as a wide-angle on film).

I'd suggest buying a manual focus film SLR and giving it a try before making a decision to sell it.

John.

I'm with you on the field of view thing, I think: I always used 35-40mm as a "normal" in the film era (I've been away from the craft a long while!). I finally broke down on price (mainly) after all my FA28mm /Sigma AF-primes /FA31mm deliberations for reasons well enough documented on site. I figure the 31mm is in it for the long haul here, given the growing FF options out there. I then picked up an FA20mm to complement the 31mm, tentatively concluding it would suit my needs better than the DA21mm. I have the SMC-"K" 28mm/3.5 as an option, as well. I look at a selection of affordable MF "50-58's" and an F50mm/1.7 to give me options in speed and "rendering". Yeah, I confess, I wish I could see a simpler way, given my own objectives. We'll see, I guess, if I've been clever or overthinking it! 😄

---------- Post added 07-21-14 at 09:49 PM ----------

Originally posted by Driline

Are you talking about the 43 or 31?

The 31mm, for me -- as of tonight's thoughts on the matter! See the comments I just added.

Driline · 07-21-2014, 07:04 PM - **1 Like**

I'll be using my FA 31 as my wide prime in my small arsenal of lenses. To me it does not feel like a long lens. My quick 2 day impressions so far comparing it to the FA 43 is that they are really similar just different focal lengths. Although I find the FA 43 a bit more difficult to take shots wide open compared to the FA 31. However when you do nail the FA 43 shot wide open it becomes "Magical". So I really need them both

I mean look at this FA 43 pic I shot on a whim in the backyard. There's pixie poo all over it...or is that dust?

Kayaker-J · 07-21-2014, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by calculator01

Great advice right here ^^^. I bought the Three Amigos because everyone said everyone should. The only one I am sold on is the FA43. I think I would like the DA 70 more than the 77 and I don't think I would replace the 31 if I sold it. (unless a DA 28 2.0 Ltd 49mm filters came about).

I have a NIB HD DA70mm here now... and still deliberating, I guess... all things considered. I'd prefer a great 60mm/1.8, ideally, if I were ordering from the Utopian menu. I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts on the FA77mm, though, your having owned and used the three FA Limiteds. How do you really get across ineffable characteristics in print?

I'd 'kill' for a truly great and modern DA28mm/2.0 Limited (though I'd probably 'kill twice' for a true "26")!

---------- Post added 07-21-14 at 10:27 PM ----------

Originally posted by Driline

I'll be using my FA 31 as my wide prime in my small arsenal of lenses. To me it does not feel like a long lens. My quick 2 day impressions so far comparing it to the FA 43 is that they are really similar just different focal lengths. Although I find the FA 43 a bit more difficult to take shots wide open compared to the FA 31. However when you do nail the FA 43 shot wide open it becomes "Magical". So I really need them both

I mean look at this FA 43 pic I shot on a whim in the backyard. There's pixie poo all over it...or is that dust?

Gee, I wish I hadn't seen that shot just now... 😄. They don't have methadone for L.B.A., do they? Seriously, I figure I have to go with the right F.O.V. & perspective over the pixie dust thing, if necessary, unless and until my new K3 and recent lens acquisitions prove my "conservative" thinking on the matter wrong... subjectively, of course. I wish we could all just have it all -- without practical limitations or guilt -- in one compact kit. Dig me up and resusitate when that happens!

Last edited by Kayaker-J; 07-22-2014 at 08:07 AM.

LeRolls · 07-21-2014, 08:55 PM

I'm not sure what to tell you. I've loved my 43 from the very beginning. It was the 43 that made me determined to stick with Pentax and to eventually get the 77 and the 31. I don't even touch my DA Limiteds anymore. I also agree that the K-01 and the 43 are a great combo.

Kayaker-J · 07-22-2014, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by LeRolls

I'm not sure what to tell you. I've loved my 43 from the very beginning. It was the 43 that made me determined to stick with Pentax and to eventually get the 77 and the 31. I don't even touch my DA Limiteds anymore. I also agree that the K-01 and the 43 are a great combo.

Well... now that is certainly an interesting and strong statement of preference; which I'm not at all disputing, I emphasize. For my curiosity and education, which DA Limiteds do you have or have used?

My problem, if you can call it that, is that I never, never used a zoom lens back when I was shooting film, before my long hiatus from photography; so I just can hardly relate to the "odd" focal lengths and fields of view the film era 43mm and 77mm effectively yield on APS-C. I always considered getting closer a rule of thumb procedure for getting better, more involving photos (ref. the '43' vs. a '35' or the '31')... and I found my Nikkor 105mm (the DA 70mm "equivalent") to be just a bit long to be as useful as a short tele might have been in terms of using it in more situations. But that lens was and is a classic, of course, and a real bargain.

I note today's popular preference for 85mm as a first go-to short telephoto in full frame, employed as a general purpose lens. So you can see why I wonder about testimonies here at PF. This is, let's face it, just about the only place these effective fields of view are touted and openly loved. I simply don't know how to place this in context, objectively. Are Limited-loving Pentaxians really objective about FL and F.O.V.? ...Or inebriated on pixie dust?

LeRolls · 07-22-2014, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Kayaker-J

Well... now that is certainly an interesting and strong statement of preference; which I'm not at all disputing, I emphasize. For my curiosity and education, which DA Limiteds do you have or have used?

My problem, if you can call it that, is that I never, never used a zoom lens back when I was shooting film, before my long hiatus from photography; so I just can hardly relate to the "odd" focal lengths and fields of view the film era 43mm and 77mm effectively yield on APS-C. I always considered getting closer a rule of thumb procedure for getting better, more involving photos (ref. the '43' vs. a '35' or the '31')... and I found my Nikkor 105mm (the DA 70mm "equivalent") to be just a bit long to be as useful as a short tele might have been in terms of using it in more situations. But that lens was and is a classic, of course, and a real bargain.

I note today's popular preference for 85mm as a first go-to short telephoto in full frame, employed as a general purpose lens. So you can see why I wonder about testimonies here at PF. This is, let's face it, just about the only place these effective fields of view are touted and openly loved. I simply don't know how to place this in context, objectively. Are Limited-loving Pentaxians really objective about FL and F.O.V.? ...Or inebriated on pixie dust?

I have the DA 15 (which I do also love), DA 21, DA 40 XS and the DA 70. All fine lenses to be sure but truth be told I kind of wish that I had bit the bullet from the beginning and just got the FA Limiteds from the get go. I understand where you're coming from as far as not being able to relate to these "odd" focal lengths. Although, I'm not too sure that the effective field of view that these lenses offer is really the main selling point but that they just happen to fall within a certain range of usability that doesn't necessarily suit everyone. I think it's more about all the other qualities (size, unique rendering, build quality, etc). Several of us (myself included) have adapted our styles of photography to make better use of these lenses simply because we love them. I also have to admit that objectivity hardly plays a role for me as I definitely view my style of photography as something more akin to an art that I am passionate about and less a science. So you may conclude that I am indeed "inebriated on pixie dust" but I surely wouldn't have it any other way.

**Digitalis** · 07-22-2014, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by johnha

For me the 43 only really makes sense on a film camera, on APS-C it's an awkward focal length

I use my Pentax SMC43mm f/1.9 special* on a Leica Monochrom and trust me - it gets even weirder on FX format - fortunately there is a shoe mount VF for it as Leica rangefinders don't have any frame lines for 40mm lenses, I actually use a back up one from my Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 so I don't run the risk of losing the matched 43mm Pentax VF.

*which is really a Pentax FA43mm f/1.9 with no AF, and in Leica drag.

Kayaker-J · 07-22-2014, 07:55 AM

@LeRolls... Thanks so much for your point of view. Helpful. @Digitalis... "it gets even weirder": Ha, ha, a similar perspective, then! --> "I get no kick from champaigne. Mere alcohol doesn't thrill me at all... ...but I get a kick out of you."

**todd** · 07-22-2014, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by LeRolls

adapted our styles of photography to make better use of these lenses

This is how I feel regarding any 'weird focal length' statement I come across. For me with any focal length, if I shoot with it enough, I adapt to it, and it ceases to be weird...

Kayaker-J · 07-22-2014, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by todd

This is how I feel regarding any 'weird focal length' statement I come across. For me with any focal length, if I shoot with it enough, I adapt to it, and it ceases to be weird...

I don't think anyone here characterized any focal length as "weird". Please read more carefully and respond more thoughtfully.

**todd** · 07-22-2014, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Kayaker-J

I don't think anyone here characterized any focal length as "weird". Please read more carefully and respond more thoughtfully.

I am not going to go obey you and go analyzing the thread for specific remarks. I thought somebody stated something to the effect that FA43 is an odd focal length on APS-C, and I've read people state that opinion in many other places before, to which they're certainly entitled to. Please add me to you ignore list and I will gladly do the same after your annoying remark. (And you have the honor of being the first person I've ever added.)

Kayaker-J · 07-22-2014, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by todd

I am not going to go obey you and go analyzing the thread for specific remarks. I thought somebody stated something to the effect that FA43 is an odd focal length on APS-C, and I've read people state that opinion in many other places before, to which they're certainly entitled to. Please add me to you ignore list and I will gladly do the same after your annoying remark. (And you have the honor of being the first person I've ever added.)

...AND you put your fabricated target "comment" in quot. marks to direct the negativity with additional focus. More educated people prefer to note the meaningful distinctions between words like "weird" and "odd"... particularly in context and particularly when the latter has been purposely softened of bite and given an implicit attribution to multiple sources. Have a teacher explain this to you sometime. BTW, you should think about obeying teachers, at least.

I note that the person I responded to was not offended, as you were, and replied cheerfully and helpfully. So, yes, please do refrain from placing any more distorted semantic implications, by effect, into my posting voice -- via implication or otherwise. I think that is a reasonable and fair request.

bxf · 07-22-2014, 01:41 PM

Sorry, but odd focal length or weird focal length come across pretty much the same way in the context they are meant in these forums. Personally, I don't find any focal length weird or odd. I never understood the qualities that make the traditional focal lengths mandatory guidelinesa.

robjmitchell · 07-22-2014, 02:11 PM

The traditional focal lengths seem to be based on portraiture at distances that don't distort facial features, ie 85mm on FF = classic head and shoulders. I do find the 43ltd a bit of a weird length on apsc, yet for me this can be an advantage since it means it doesn't get pigeon holed. I can pretty much do anything with it, sure i might have to take a few steps but this just helps with the creativity.

07-21-2014, 06:47 PM	#32
Kayaker-J Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: N.E. Ohio Posts: 535	Originally posted by johnha For me the 43 only really makes sense on a film camera, on APS-C it's an awkward focal length. It's my preferred lens on my LX, but I've only put it on my K-5 once (to check the AF performance). I bought an FA28 to get a similar field of view on APS-C (which also works well as a wide-angle on film). I'd suggest buying a manual focus film SLR and giving it a try before making a decision to sell it. John. I'm with you on the field of view thing, I think: I always used 35-40mm as a "normal" in the film era (I've been away from the craft a long while!). I finally broke down on price (mainly) after all my FA28mm /Sigma AF-primes /FA31mm deliberations for reasons well enough documented on site. I figure the 31mm is in it for the long haul here, given the growing FF options out there. I then picked up an FA20mm to complement the 31mm, tentatively concluding it would suit my needs better than the DA21mm. I have the SMC-"K" 28mm/3.5 as an option, as well. I look at a selection of affordable MF "50-58's" and an F50mm/1.7 to give me options in speed and "rendering". Yeah, I confess, I wish I could see a simpler way, given my own objectives. We'll see, I guess, if I've been clever or overthinking it! 😄 ---------- Post added 07-21-14 at 09:49 PM ---------- Originally posted by Driline Are you talking about the 43 or 31? The 31mm, for me -- as of tonight's thoughts on the matter! See the comments I just added. Last edited by Kayaker-J; 07-21-2014 at 06:52 PM.

07-22-2014, 01:23 AM	#36
Kayaker-J Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: N.E. Ohio Posts: 535	Originally posted by LeRolls I'm not sure what to tell you. I've loved my 43 from the very beginning. It was the 43 that made me determined to stick with Pentax and to eventually get the 77 and the 31. I don't even touch my DA Limiteds anymore. I also agree that the K-01 and the 43 are a great combo. Well... now that is certainly an interesting and strong statement of preference; which I'm not at all disputing, I emphasize. For my curiosity and education, which DA Limiteds do you have or have used? My problem, if you can call it that, is that I never, never used a zoom lens back when I was shooting film, before my long hiatus from photography; so I just can hardly relate to the "odd" focal lengths and fields of view the film era 43mm and 77mm effectively yield on APS-C. I always considered getting closer a rule of thumb procedure for getting better, more involving photos (ref. the '43' vs. a '35' or the '31')... and I found my Nikkor 105mm (the DA 70mm "equivalent") to be just a bit long to be as useful as a short tele might have been in terms of using it in more situations. But that lens was and is a classic, of course, and a real bargain. I note today's popular preference for 85mm as a first go-to short telephoto in full frame, employed as a general purpose lens. So you can see why I wonder about testimonies here at PF. This is, let's face it, just about the only place these effective fields of view are touted and openly loved. I simply don't know how to place this in context, objectively. Are Limited-loving Pentaxians really objective about FL and F.O.V.? ...Or inebriated on pixie dust? Last edited by Kayaker-J; 07-22-2014 at 01:31 AM.

07-22-2014, 09:50 AM	#43
Kayaker-J Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: N.E. Ohio Posts: 535	Originally posted by todd I am not going to go obey you and go analyzing the thread for specific remarks. I thought somebody stated something to the effect that FA43 is an odd focal length on APS-C, and I've read people state that opinion in many other places before, to which they're certainly entitled to. Please add me to you ignore list and I will gladly do the same after your annoying remark. (And you have the honor of being the first person I've ever added.) ...AND you put your fabricated target "comment" in quot. marks to direct the negativity with additional focus. More educated people prefer to note the meaningful distinctions between words like "weird" and "odd"... particularly in context and particularly when the latter has been purposely softened of bite and given an implicit attribution to multiple sources. Have a teacher explain this to you sometime. BTW, you should think about obeying teachers, at least. I note that the person I responded to was not offended, as you were, and replied cheerfully and helpfully. So, yes, please do refrain from placing any more distorted semantic implications, by effect, into my posting voice -- via implication or otherwise. I think that is a reasonable and fair request. Last edited by Kayaker-J; 07-22-2014 at 10:06 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Help please: FA 43 + FA 77 or DA* 50-135	sydneysider	Pentax K-r	7	03-13-2014 04:40 AM
Rainy day wedding with D800 makes me love my K5	Wired	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	39	07-17-2013 10:59 AM
Finally got my FA 43	London Rob	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	12-31-2012 08:57 AM
Do I sell my DA35mm 2.4 AL to help fund an FA 43?	London Rob	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	06-18-2011 08:27 AM
help me make up my mind: Pentax FA 50mm f1.4 vs Tamron 28-75mm f2.8	macky112	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	22	04-28-2010 09:17 PM

07-21-2014, 06:28 PM	#31
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,705	Originally posted by Kayaker-J I'm excited about that; but I am concerned it may still be a bit long for my tastes in a price-y, main go-to lens. Are you talking about the 43 or 31?

07-21-2014, 07:04 PM - 1 Like	#33
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,705	I'll be using my FA 31 as my wide prime in my small arsenal of lenses. To me it does not feel like a long lens. My quick 2 day impressions so far comparing it to the FA 43 is that they are really similar just different focal lengths. Although I find the FA 43 a bit more difficult to take shots wide open compared to the FA 31. However when you do nail the FA 43 shot wide open it becomes "Magical". So I really need them both I mean look at this FA 43 pic I shot on a whim in the backyard. There's pixie poo all over it...or is that dust?

07-21-2014, 07:10 PM	#34
Kayaker-J Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: N.E. Ohio Posts: 535	Originally posted by calculator01 Great advice right here ^^^. I bought the Three Amigos because everyone said everyone should. The only one I am sold on is the FA43. I think I would like the DA 70 more than the 77 and I don't think I would replace the 31 if I sold it. (unless a DA 28 2.0 Ltd 49mm filters came about). I have a NIB HD DA70mm here now... and still deliberating, I guess... all things considered. I'd prefer a great 60mm/1.8, ideally, if I were ordering from the Utopian menu. I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts on the FA77mm, though, your having owned and used the three FA Limiteds. How do you really get across ineffable characteristics in print? I'd 'kill' for a truly great and modern DA28mm/2.0 Limited (though I'd probably 'kill twice' for a true "26")! ---------- Post added 07-21-14 at 10:27 PM ---------- Originally posted by Driline I'll be using my FA 31 as my wide prime in my small arsenal of lenses. To me it does not feel like a long lens. My quick 2 day impressions so far comparing it to the FA 43 is that they are really similar just different focal lengths. Although I find the FA 43 a bit more difficult to take shots wide open compared to the FA 31. However when you do nail the FA 43 shot wide open it becomes "Magical". So I really need them both I mean look at this FA 43 pic I shot on a whim in the backyard. There's pixie poo all over it...or is that dust? Gee, I wish I hadn't seen that shot just now... 😄. They don't have methadone for L.B.A., do they? Seriously, I figure I have to go with the right F.O.V. & perspective over the pixie dust thing, if necessary, unless and until my new K3 and recent lens acquisitions prove my "conservative" thinking on the matter wrong... subjectively, of course. I wish we could all just have it all -- without practical limitations or guilt -- in one compact kit. Dig me up and resusitate when that happens! Last edited by Kayaker-J; 07-22-2014 at 08:07 AM.

07-21-2014, 08:55 PM	#35
LeRolls Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: PSL, FL Posts: 4,504	I'm not sure what to tell you. I've loved my 43 from the very beginning. It was the 43 that made me determined to stick with Pentax and to eventually get the 77 and the 31. I don't even touch my DA Limiteds anymore. I also agree that the K-01 and the 43 are a great combo.

07-22-2014, 05:20 AM	#37
LeRolls Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: PSL, FL Posts: 4,504	Originally posted by Kayaker-J Well... now that is certainly an interesting and strong statement of preference; which I'm not at all disputing, I emphasize. For my curiosity and education, which DA Limiteds do you have or have used? My problem, if you can call it that, is that I never, never used a zoom lens back when I was shooting film, before my long hiatus from photography; so I just can hardly relate to the "odd" focal lengths and fields of view the film era 43mm and 77mm effectively yield on APS-C. I always considered getting closer a rule of thumb procedure for getting better, more involving photos (ref. the '43' vs. a '35' or the '31')... and I found my Nikkor 105mm (the DA 70mm "equivalent") to be just a bit long to be as useful as a short tele might have been in terms of using it in more situations. But that lens was and is a classic, of course, and a real bargain. I note today's popular preference for 85mm as a first go-to short telephoto in full frame, employed as a general purpose lens. So you can see why I wonder about testimonies here at PF. This is, let's face it, just about the only place these effective fields of view are touted and openly loved. I simply don't know how to place this in context, objectively. Are Limited-loving Pentaxians really objective about FL and F.O.V.? ...Or inebriated on pixie dust? I have the DA 15 (which I do also love), DA 21, DA 40 XS and the DA 70. All fine lenses to be sure but truth be told I kind of wish that I had bit the bullet from the beginning and just got the FA Limiteds from the get go. I understand where you're coming from as far as not being able to relate to these "odd" focal lengths. Although, I'm not too sure that the effective field of view that these lenses offer is really the main selling point but that they just happen to fall within a certain range of usability that doesn't necessarily suit everyone. I think it's more about all the other qualities (size, unique rendering, build quality, etc). Several of us (myself included) have adapted our styles of photography to make better use of these lenses simply because we love them. I also have to admit that objectivity hardly plays a role for me as I definitely view my style of photography as something more akin to an art that I am passionate about and less a science. So you may conclude that I am indeed "inebriated on pixie dust" but I surely wouldn't have it any other way.

07-22-2014, 05:30 AM	#38
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by johnha For me the 43 only really makes sense on a film camera, on APS-C it's an awkward focal length I use my Pentax SMC43mm f/1.9 special* on a Leica Monochrom and trust me - it gets even weirder on FX format - fortunately there is a shoe mount VF for it as Leica rangefinders don't have any frame lines for 40mm lenses, I actually use a back up one from my Voigtlander 40mm f/1.4 so I don't run the risk of losing the matched 43mm Pentax VF. *which is really a Pentax FA43mm f/1.9 with no AF, and in Leica drag.

07-22-2014, 07:55 AM	#39
Kayaker-J Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: N.E. Ohio Posts: 535	@LeRolls... Thanks so much for your point of view. Helpful. @Digitalis... "it gets even weirder": Ha, ha, a similar perspective, then! --> "I get no kick from champaigne. Mere alcohol doesn't thrill me at all... ...but I get a kick out of you."

07-22-2014, 09:01 AM	#40
todd Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,799	Originally posted by LeRolls adapted our styles of photography to make better use of these lenses This is how I feel regarding any 'weird focal length' statement I come across. For me with any focal length, if I shoot with it enough, I adapt to it, and it ceases to be weird...

07-22-2014, 09:14 AM	#41
Kayaker-J Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: N.E. Ohio Posts: 535	Originally posted by todd This is how I feel regarding any 'weird focal length' statement I come across. For me with any focal length, if I shoot with it enough, I adapt to it, and it ceases to be weird... I don't think anyone here characterized any focal length as "weird". Please read more carefully and respond more thoughtfully.

07-22-2014, 09:22 AM	#42
todd Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,799	Originally posted by Kayaker-J I don't think anyone here characterized any focal length as "weird". Please read more carefully and respond more thoughtfully. I am not going to go obey you and go analyzing the thread for specific remarks. I thought somebody stated something to the effect that FA43 is an odd focal length on APS-C, and I've read people state that opinion in many other places before, to which they're certainly entitled to. Please add me to you ignore list and I will gladly do the same after your annoying remark. (And you have the honor of being the first person I've ever added.)

07-22-2014, 01:41 PM	#44
bxf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Lisbon area Posts: 1,660	Sorry, but odd focal length or weird focal length come across pretty much the same way in the context they are meant in these forums. Personally, I don't find any focal length weird or odd. I never understood the qualities that make the traditional focal lengths mandatory guidelinesa.

07-22-2014, 02:11 PM	#45
robjmitchell Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne Aus Posts: 1,776	The traditional focal lengths seem to be based on portraiture at distances that don't distort facial features, ie 85mm on FF = classic head and shoulders. I do find the 43ltd a bit of a weird length on apsc, yet for me this can be an advantage since it means it doesn't get pigeon holed. I can pretty much do anything with it, sure i might have to take a few steps but this just helps with the creativity.