[Ishpuini]

I agree this lens is a hard one to make up your mind about, esp in terms of FOV.

When I bought it many years ago it was partly to join my FA31 and FA77 to form the full three amigos limited set. Somehow its focal length didn't really work for me, but I loved the feel of my camera in my hands when it had the FA43 mounted. I ended up using it much less than the FA31 or the FA77.

Fast forward to the present. I've since developed a vision/style/gimmick (whatever ), part of which is my extensive use of a square crop. Of course losing (letting go of) 1/3 of the FOV along the longest side of an image, means your focal lengths work differently again. The DA21 has become much more of a standard lens for me (diagonal of square cropped APS-C sensor is 22mm!), and the FA43 turned out to provide my favorite mild tele lens FOV. Nowadays, my most used limiteds are the DA21 and FA43 (and to a lesser degree the DA15), i.e. an almost complete turnaround from the initial FA-only situation.

(This also explains why I love the DA20-40 so much, despite of its seemingly limited focal range)

Wim

---

Last edited by Ishpuini; 10-23-2014 at 12:35 AM.

[btnapa]

I agree this lens is a hard one to make up your mind about, esp in terms of FOV.

When I bought it many years ago it was partly to join my FA31 and FA77 to form the full three amigos limited set. Somehow its focal length didn't really work for me, but I loved the feel of my camera in my hands when it had the FA43 mounted. I ended up using it much less than the FA31 or the FA77.

Fast forward to the present. I've since developed a vision/style/gimmick (whatever ), part of which is my extensive use of a square crop. Of course loosing (letting go of) 1/3 of the FOV along the longest side of an image, means your focal lengths work differently again. The DA21 has become much more of a standard lens for me, and the FA43 turned out to provide my favorite mild tele lens FOV. Nowadays, my most used limiteds are the DA21 and FA43 (and to a lesser degree the DA15), i.e. an almost complete turnaround from the initial FA-only situation.

(This also explains why I love the DA20-40 so much, despite of its seemingly limited focal range)

Wim

My use of the 43 mirrors yours. I bought the three amigos together and ended up using the 31 and the 77 most of the time. Only recently did I use the 43. It is for an assignment and the focal length is just perfect for the type of shots I need to produce.

Your use of square crop is cool. It reminds of my Hassy days. Although I had the Hassy (6x6), most of my work was done with a Nikon f3 and the 35mm format. The few times I used my Hassy, I really like the square crop. The square crop make you think differently about composition and ultimately how people are going to see your images.

Thanks for sharing.

[KDAFA]

May as well post an example of what I'm talking about

Superb.

---------- Post added 10-22-14 at 01:33 AM ----------

I am chiefly a prime shooter. Early in the year my choice selections were the Sigma 30/1.4, the DA 35/2.4, and the DA 40/2.8 Limited. As you can see, I have quite an overlap Throughout the normal range. Nevertheless, they all had their strengths and weaknesses: the Sigma was contrasty and fast with beautiful bokeh, but distorted and was extremely soft; the DA 35 had a perfect field of view and was insanely sharp, but the build quality was questionable and the autofocus made it unusable in quite settings; lastly, the DA 40 was stealthy and jewel-like, but the lack of micro contrast left the images flat. Needless to say, while my kit excelled in some areas, each lens had an annoying fault.

My favorite of these three was the DA 35/2.4. It was my choice everyday street and normal portrait lens. But its major issue, the build quality, made my fears a reality when it just broke. The autofocus just stopped working, and I never figured out why. The ring became oddly stiff to the point where even manual focusing would not be possible without fear of breaking it further.

Because of this, I decided it was time to sell these three lenses and replace them with one all-purpose lens. The lens I chose was the Japanese FA 43/1.9 Limited. And here is my experience after about six months. I know another option is the DA 35/2.8 Limited, and it does look fabulous, but it goes for even more than the 43, and that's just too much for a hobbyist.

First thing's first: this lens is absolutely gorgeous. And even more beautiful on my MX. I thought the build quality of the DA 40 was good, but the 43 is even better than I remember my M 50/1.4 being. The set of screws on the underside are a little odd though. Even the dampening of the focusing ring feels better (albeit slightly looser). The balance between auto and manual focusing of the throw is perfect; it's fast on my K-5IIs, but accurate on my MX.

What about image quality? Here's the troubling part. Don't get me wrong, it is easily the sharpest of all the lenses mentioned. Tack sharp at the center wide open, and the corners look great at 2.8, but that's from real world use, I've never used a chart or anything. The problem is, however, is it is just not that much better than the DA 35/2.4 at the same apertures. Not even the bokeh. The sharpness and micro contrast are similar enough, plus, the 35 has the benefit of that perfect field of view (on the K-5IIs). Although, overall contrast easily goes to the 43.

As far as color accuracy, the 43 cannot touch the 35, which is the most neutral of all the lenses, but whether or not that is a good thing is very subjective. It may be my imagination, but oddly the 43 seems cool at wide apertures, but warmer when stopped down. But this is not something I have actually tested for, just an observation. I keep a hood on it, so I don't really experience any flares or ghosting.

Lastly, I would like to bring up the focal length again. It is something magical on my MX. It's as if there's no camera there. But it's very strange on APS-C; it's hard to visualize and get used to. I'm not sure what I was expecting, as my range before was all wider, but when I'm using my F 35-70, I often find myself going for reach, so I figured it would be a great middle ground. But it's not. It's weird.

So, after all this do I like this lens? Yes, I guess. Optically, it's great, if slightly overrated. It is definitely not the end-all-be-all prime I was expecting (at least not for digital). And I may make some enemies, but I feel it may have been a better idea to save the money and just buy another DA 35/2.4. But does this mean I'll sell it? Hell no! At least not unless I'm desperate. It is too perfect of a match with my MX--I mean "Leica who?" good.

So those are my very unscientific thoughts on the FA 43/1.9 Limited. What are your's?

Reading through your post, it seems to me that one of your key issues is FOV. That's a matter of personal taste and one's usage requirements of course - nothing to do with the lens itself.

There being no Pentax FF DSLR at the present time, if FOV is a critical factor for you, then this lens may not be the most suitable for your requirements. Having said that, it harmonises perfectly with your MX, so it is useful there; and with the appearance of the FF DSLR you may find much usage for the 43.

Indeed, I believe part of the reason for the popularity of the FA31 is simply because in APS-C it works out to normal focal length. In a situation where the FF DSLR were available, the situation may be altered, with the 43 seeing an increase in demand since it would be the normal lens then.

(I however love the 43's effective focal length in APS-C - it works great for my photographic needs/taste.)

I wouldn't call the FA43 overrated. Many who feel that way, say that perhaps because it did not match their expectation. But one needs to appreciate that here is a lens with a very specific rendering character, which in the right situations, and in the hands of a photographer who understands well the lens, can create utter magic. One can read through the forums and this point should be quite clear. Personally, I have shots taken with it which NOTHING else could have done - not even the FA77! Mind you, that's not a knock on the 77 at all - I use that lens too - amazing! It's just that I recognise the respective strengths of both lenses, and use them accordingly.

The other thing is, looking at the other lenses you mentioned, I suspect that part of your problem might be arising from the fact that the 43 is a lens that behaves and renders very differently than those other lenses which you mentioned, which you were more familiar with, and thus may not match what you expected (familiarity is a major factor). Perhaps with time and increased usage of the 43, you may begin to understand and like what this lens does. The 43 is a lens that is not understood primarily in terms of technical parameters (though they are important, of course). Rather, this lens has a character, a "soul" to it, as it were. One thinks of it more in terms of an artistic tool - like a fine, hand-crafted guitar, say; with a behaviour that needs to be learnt and mastered to yield what it is truly capable of - and that is nothing short of sheer, gorgeous magic.

[monochrome]

I am in a long-term process to simplify my collection, one lens at a time. While I retain my beloved K lenses I have let go most of my other manual focus lenses and acquired a MIJ 43 and a MIJ 31. I expect to acquire a MIJ 77 and those three along with a K135/2.5 and a K200/2.5 will be my lenses.

So far I can say that the 43 renders the promised 'painterly' quality in the correct light. It is as sharp at f/5.6 (my default) as the K28/3.5, though the colors aren't the same as the K35/3.5. The key is 'aren't the same' - neither better nor worse, just different. Maybe I'll keep the K35 as well since they are essentially worthless now.

[mikeSF]

boris, liked your post.
robmitchell, that example is very nice and exemplifies your point.
I think the FA43 was one of the first good limiteds I bought and I have never used it very much, but I usually am pleased with it.
I just took it to the zoo a few weeks ago and was happy with the center sharpness and pop of this image:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeoria/15537110655/in/photostream/lightbox/

I find the image is best viewed via flickr because it looks flat linked from my hosting site.

[bsamcash]

So I believe I have found a solution to the issues I was experiencing with the FA 43's focal length. I just ordered a DA 21/3.2 Limited. ^_^

[robjmitchell]

So I believe I have found a solution to the issues I was experiencing with the FA 43's focal length. I just ordered a DA 21/3.2 Limited. ^_^

The 43 and 21ltd do work lovely together as an ultra light prime kit

[Dr Orloff]

I had both the FA43 and the DA35/2.4. I took a few side by side images and sold the DA35 within days, no contest. The FA43 remains one of my favourite and least used lenses because I need to use it as a 43mm lens.

[LeRolls]

The 43 was the first Pentax lens that I truly fell in love with and the sole reason why I was willing to take a chance on the other FA Limiteds which I'm glad I did. The FA43 is still my go to lens for convention photography as I like it's compact size and FOV for that kind of work where space is an issue. Here are a few examples:



















All these shots were taken in fairly poor lighting conditions and without the use of flash.

[KDAFA]

The FA43 remains one of my favourite and least used lenses because I need to use it as a 43mm lens.

The arrival of the Pentax FF DSLR will doubtless be a tremendous milestone in many ways; and I believe specially significant for the FA43, engendering broader usage and greater visibility of this remarkable lens; and this having an impact on photography in general.

[monochrome]

I think it would be wonderful if Pentax continued the FA Limited line, but added a HD D-FA Limited line with QS, SDM, WS and no aperture ring.

[vrrattko]

back to your observation of DA35/2.4 vs FA43/1.9. It doesn't surprise me ....BUT - if I am correct DA35/2.4 is an evolution of older fullframe lens FA35/2, which has reputation of being very sharp indeed. Both lenses' resolutions were measured for example by Takinami ....and here are the results:

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_35.html

http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_normal.html

it shows that both lenses are similarly sharp, FA 35/2 being stronger closer to wide open, while FA43 is sharper in smaller F-stops. There are plenty of FA35/2 vs FA43/1.9 discussions - a good read really.

[btnapa]

The 43 was the first Pentax lens that I truly fell in love with and the sole reason why I was willing to take a chance on the other FA Limiteds which I'm glad I did. The FA43 is still my go to lens for convention photography as I like it's compact size and FOV for that kind of work where space is an issue. Here are a few examples:



















All these shots were taken in fairly poor lighting conditions and without the use of flash.

Great pics. Aside from the sharpness which is obvious. Your compositions look great. I also like the way the colors came out. It was probably a mixed lighting situation and you managed to get nicely balanced colors. Did you shoot RAW and adjust in post or are these camera auto white balance shots?

[LeRolls]

Great pics. Aside from the sharpness which is obvious. Your compositions look great. I also like the way the colors came out. It was probably a mixed lighting situation and you manages to get nicely balanced colors. Did you shoot RAM and adjust in post or are these camera auto white balance shots?

Thanks. I generally always shoot RAW and I also usually do a decent amount of PP simply because I rather enjoy the whole process but I have to say that overall the K-01 has pretty decent AWB.

[bsamcash]

The thing about the 43 Limited is that it can be temperamental. But when it agrees with you, it creates something immune to post processing.

This is a JPEG export through Preview directly from the DNG. I have no interest in editing it further.