FA 43mm F1.9 Limited for traveling

thonimahoni · 11-15-2014, 01:25 PM

Hello everyone,

I hope and think there is no such topic for the FA 43 mm.

I am considering buying the FA 43. It should basically replace my DA 35/2.4 on my travels. The thing is that the lense would work in critical environment such as subtle water dust from water falls, dust from mountains or deserts, quick rain showers, very low and very high temperatures (from time to time everything in one single day

). Although the DA 35mm is not water resistant it did a very good job in this situations. I know the FA 43 is a very good lense and it has a very high build quality. I am sure it is way better than the qualtiy of the DA 35 but if I damage the DA it wouldn't hurt so much my wallet. In my opinion the DA has an incredible good price for value ratio.

Anyway, my questions to you are:
Have you experience with this lense under such or similar cirumstances?
And if so, how did the lense perform and how bad does it influence the image qualtiy?
Did it greater damage to the lense and if so what would you estimate how drastically it would decrease the lifetime of the lense?
Or is it an insane idea to consider using the FA this way?

Well I hope some of you have already made such experiences and could share them with me and anyone else interested in this topic.

Greetings,
Thoni

Ole · 11-15-2014, 02:23 PM

From your description it looks as of you should be looking for a weather sealed lens. The DA 20-40mm limited comes to mind if you want to travel relatively light.

thonimahoni · 11-15-2014, 04:09 PM

Hi Ole,

yes of course this lense would be an alternative and there are a pleanty of other lenses which also would fit pretty well. Naturally I already checked for other lenses but in this thread I wanted to gather information about the resistance of the FA 43. Is it usable under this conditions or too valuable? For me a lense is a tool so I can shoot great pictures. So as I see it the 43 is a pretty good compromise for the most situations one can get in whilst travelling. You can use it for portrait shots of locals, landscape (more or less), and (for me also important) because of the low f-number for astro shots. And it is suitable for full frame DSLRs in case Ricoh-Pentax releases one.

But again the reason I started this thread was so I can estimate the weather resitability of the FA 43. Naturally I am open for suggestions of alternativ lenses.

In any case thanks for the information,
Thoni

cxdoo · 11-15-2014, 04:13 PM

This depends on what you value more, your future precious FA43, or the photos you'd get with it.

Just for the record, I was shooting crushing waves on the seafront just last weekend with FA43. It went well, photos are sort of ok, but after wiping the lens later that night from all the salt speckles I decided it wasn't the smartest thing to do.

hcc · 11-15-2014, 05:04 PM

I travel several times per year for 1-2 weeks at a time and I shoot outdoor mostly. With each trip, I take a camera (K-3) with a mounted lens, sometimes (but not too often) a spare lens in my luggage. Basically I like to shoot with one system: one body+one lens, and I want to avoid to swap lenses. Before each travel, a key question is: what will be my lens? In nearly all cases, I will go for a sturdy lens. Then the focal length selection and speed: what will I shoot? When will I shoot? From where will I shoot?

Looking at my last 5 overseas trips, I chose: Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f1.4 (2 times), FA31 mm (1 time) and DA18-250mm (2 times). The pattern would be consistent with most of my trips, among my 14 lenses (LBA). In fact, these 3 lenses were my first three K-mount lens purchases in the following order: (1) DA18-250mm, (2) Voigtlander Nokton 58mm, (3) FA31mmm.

Your selection of the FA43mm is not unlike some of my selections. The lens is well-built. But ... would I shoot crushing waves on the seafront, rainstorms in tropical Taiwan, the coastline from a sandy beach with with a FA Limited? No. I have the FA31mm and FA77mm, and I would not dare to push my luck. Yes the FA Ltd are well-built, but they are not 'tanks' like my all-metal VL58mm or the sturdy DA18-250mm.

IMHO the DA18-55mm WR and DA18-135WR both make a lot of sense for general photography. If you want low-light capability and/or special IQ, you need to go with primes. The choice is more limited with AF lenses, but there are many great MF oldies for K-mount.

I hope that the comments may help.

**Hattifnatt** · 11-15-2014, 05:32 PM

Can't you just put a good filter on it and take a cleaning kit with you?

cxdoo · 11-15-2014, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Hattifnatt

Can't you just put a good filter on it and take a cleaning kit with you?

I don't think it helps much with spraying water. My front element was clean but the body was covered in salt specks.

thonimahoni · 11-16-2014, 07:02 AM

Hi cxdoo,

thank you very much. In fact for me the photos are much more valuable than any lense. On the other hand I cannot afford to buy for each trip a new lense. Just to be clear I don't intend to be careless with this or any other lense indepentently from its price. I just don't want to be in a situation where I hesitate to use the FA 43.

Well I agree with you that salt water is very critical for a lense and the camera. The first thing I do with new lenses is to protect it with a pol filter. Of course this only protects the front lense and just to a certain point. How much do you think has the salt water negatively influenced the lense (long-term speaking) and would you do it again?

Greetings,
Thoni

cxdoo · 11-16-2014, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by thonimahoni

How much do you think has the salt water negatively influenced the lense (long-term speaking) and would you do it again?

Well not so much in my case as I wasn't so close to be showered but sprayed by fine mist.
I don't think I did any damage to the lens and I cleaned it thoroughly when I came home, but still I think I took too much risk for not really great photos. I was one strong gust of wind in right moment away from being showered, so no, I wouldn't do it again. On top of that, for what I was shooting, AF wasn't needed so trusty cheap M50/1.7 would have been equally good. Heck, with the light I had and aperture I used, 18-55WR would have been good.

thonimahoni · 11-16-2014, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Hattifnatt

Can't you just put a good filter on it and take a cleaning kit with you?

Hi Hattifnatt,

this is what I am currently doing and it worked out fine so far. I was wondering if this would also work out with the FA 43.

Mr Bassie · 11-16-2014, 07:14 AM

I would keep the da35 and just use that. I have the fa43 and not the da35 but I would imagine that the picture quality would likely not improve a tremendous amount. Though I must say I do love my 43.

For the conditions you are asking about I would think most lenses would survive in relatively good condition. maybe if they were subjected to daily water and dust you might have a problem.

Pablom · 11-16-2014, 07:18 AM

If you are looking for an excellent WR prime the obvious (and only) choice is DA*55. The FL is significantly different but outside it is easier to compensate.

thonimahoni · 11-16-2014, 07:34 AM

Hey hcc,

thanks for sharing your experience. I travled so far always with 2 lenses. One lense for landscape and protrait shots and one telephoto lense for animals. You never know what you will see so better be prepared, right?

It is very interesting that you chose once the FA31. What did this lense has to go through and how did you used it? You already said that you would not dare to push your luck by shooting a seafront, rainstorms or sandy beaches. If it is not too personal what did you shoot with it (and in which environment, etc)?

In my opinion it would be a pity to have such a great lense and not to use it when it counts the most. Naturally this is my opinion and everyone has its own. But if I am on another continent, in far off countries and experiencing incredible moments I try to keep these moments in my mind. And after that I try to make a picture as close as possible of these moments to remind myself of them (the older I get the more I will probably need this).

The DA18-55 WR and the DA18-135WR are of course great lenses. But I am looking for a spiecial one that I can use like a tool. I hope this wasn't too confusing.

Mr Bassie · 11-16-2014, 07:51 AM

I suggest you look at the lens clubs for the 18-55 and 18-135 and see how good those lenses can be.

thonimahoni · 11-16-2014, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Pablom

If you are looking for an excellent WR prime the obvious (and only) choice is DA*55. The FL is significantly different but outside it is easier to compensate.

Hi, yes of course great lense. But Pentax strength is its FFL lenses. And out of the FFL lenses the FA31, FA43, FA77 are the most preffered, so I heared. FA31 would be the best choice for me I guess but I don't want so sell my liver, you know? The FA43 is barely affordable to me and a great lense. The questions is how resistant it is.

11-15-2014, 01:25 PM	#1
thonimahoni New Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9	FA 43mm F1.9 Limited for traveling Hello everyone, I hope and think there is no such topic for the FA 43 mm. I am considering buying the FA 43. It should basically replace my DA 35/2.4 on my travels. The thing is that the lense would work in critical environment such as subtle water dust from water falls, dust from mountains or deserts, quick rain showers, very low and very high temperatures (from time to time everything in one single day ). Although the DA 35mm is not water resistant it did a very good job in this situations. I know the FA 43 is a very good lense and it has a very high build quality. I am sure it is way better than the qualtiy of the DA 35 but if I damage the DA it wouldn't hurt so much my wallet. In my opinion the DA has an incredible good price for value ratio. Anyway, my questions to you are: Have you experience with this lense under such or similar cirumstances? And if so, how did the lense perform and how bad does it influence the image qualtiy? Did it greater damage to the lense and if so what would you estimate how drastically it would decrease the lifetime of the lense? Or is it an insane idea to consider using the FA this way? Well I hope some of you have already made such experiences and could share them with me and anyone else interested in this topic. Greetings, Thoni

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens Tournament: FA 43mm F1.9 Limited vs A 50mm F1.2	Adam	Pentax Forums Giveaways	30	10-29-2014 10:32 PM
Lens Tournament: FA 31mm F1.8 Limited vs FA 43mm F1.9 Limited	Adam	Pentax Forums Giveaways	38	10-26-2014 08:24 PM
For Sale - Sold: FA 77mm f1.8, FA 43mm f1.9 limited, K 50mm f1.2	Nuff	Sold Items	2	10-20-2014 07:02 PM
For Sale - Sold: FA 43mm f1.9 limited black	Aaronofford	Sold Items	4	03-12-2013 03:59 PM
For Sale - Sold: FA limited 43mm/f1.9 (black), FA limited 77mm/f1.8 (silver), FA 28-105mm/f3.2-	chemxaj	Sold Items	24	10-16-2008 11:17 AM

11-15-2014, 02:23 PM	#2
Ole Administrator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,409	From your description it looks as of you should be looking for a weather sealed lens. The DA 20-40mm limited comes to mind if you want to travel relatively light.

11-15-2014, 04:09 PM	#3
thonimahoni New Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9 Original Poster	Hi Ole, yes of course this lense would be an alternative and there are a pleanty of other lenses which also would fit pretty well. Naturally I already checked for other lenses but in this thread I wanted to gather information about the resistance of the FA 43. Is it usable under this conditions or too valuable? For me a lense is a tool so I can shoot great pictures. So as I see it the 43 is a pretty good compromise for the most situations one can get in whilst travelling. You can use it for portrait shots of locals, landscape (more or less), and (for me also important) because of the low f-number for astro shots. And it is suitable for full frame DSLRs in case Ricoh-Pentax releases one. But again the reason I started this thread was so I can estimate the weather resitability of the FA 43. Naturally I am open for suggestions of alternativ lenses. In any case thanks for the information, Thoni

11-15-2014, 04:13 PM	#4
cxdoo Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Limassol, Cyprus Posts: 1,150	This depends on what you value more, your future precious FA43, or the photos you'd get with it. Just for the record, I was shooting crushing waves on the seafront just last weekend with FA43. It went well, photos are sort of ok, but after wiping the lens later that night from all the salt speckles I decided it wasn't the smartest thing to do.

11-15-2014, 05:04 PM	#5
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,005	I travel several times per year for 1-2 weeks at a time and I shoot outdoor mostly. With each trip, I take a camera (K-3) with a mounted lens, sometimes (but not too often) a spare lens in my luggage. Basically I like to shoot with one system: one body+one lens, and I want to avoid to swap lenses. Before each travel, a key question is: what will be my lens? In nearly all cases, I will go for a sturdy lens. Then the focal length selection and speed: what will I shoot? When will I shoot? From where will I shoot? Looking at my last 5 overseas trips, I chose: Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f1.4 (2 times), FA31 mm (1 time) and DA18-250mm (2 times). The pattern would be consistent with most of my trips, among my 14 lenses (LBA). In fact, these 3 lenses were my first three K-mount lens purchases in the following order: (1) DA18-250mm, (2) Voigtlander Nokton 58mm, (3) FA31mmm. Your selection of the FA43mm is not unlike some of my selections. The lens is well-built. But ... would I shoot crushing waves on the seafront, rainstorms in tropical Taiwan, the coastline from a sandy beach with with a FA Limited? No. I have the FA31mm and FA77mm, and I would not dare to push my luck. Yes the FA Ltd are well-built, but they are not 'tanks' like my all-metal VL58mm or the sturdy DA18-250mm. IMHO the DA18-55mm WR and DA18-135WR both make a lot of sense for general photography. If you want low-light capability and/or special IQ, you need to go with primes. The choice is more limited with AF lenses, but there are many great MF oldies for K-mount. I hope that the comments may help.

11-15-2014, 05:32 PM	#6
Hattifnatt Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Bucharest Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,626	Can't you just put a good filter on it and take a cleaning kit with you?

11-15-2014, 05:38 PM	#7
cxdoo Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Limassol, Cyprus Posts: 1,150	Originally posted by Hattifnatt Can't you just put a good filter on it and take a cleaning kit with you? I don't think it helps much with spraying water. My front element was clean but the body was covered in salt specks.

11-16-2014, 07:02 AM	#8
thonimahoni New Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9 Original Poster	Hi cxdoo, thank you very much. In fact for me the photos are much more valuable than any lense. On the other hand I cannot afford to buy for each trip a new lense. Just to be clear I don't intend to be careless with this or any other lense indepentently from its price. I just don't want to be in a situation where I hesitate to use the FA 43. Well I agree with you that salt water is very critical for a lense and the camera. The first thing I do with new lenses is to protect it with a pol filter. Of course this only protects the front lense and just to a certain point. How much do you think has the salt water negatively influenced the lense (long-term speaking) and would you do it again? Greetings, Thoni

11-16-2014, 07:08 AM	#9
cxdoo Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Limassol, Cyprus Posts: 1,150	Originally posted by thonimahoni How much do you think has the salt water negatively influenced the lense (long-term speaking) and would you do it again? Well not so much in my case as I wasn't so close to be showered but sprayed by fine mist. I don't think I did any damage to the lens and I cleaned it thoroughly when I came home, but still I think I took too much risk for not really great photos. I was one strong gust of wind in right moment away from being showered, so no, I wouldn't do it again. On top of that, for what I was shooting, AF wasn't needed so trusty cheap M50/1.7 would have been equally good. Heck, with the light I had and aperture I used, 18-55WR would have been good.

11-16-2014, 07:09 AM	#10
thonimahoni New Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9 Original Poster	Originally posted by Hattifnatt Can't you just put a good filter on it and take a cleaning kit with you? Hi Hattifnatt, this is what I am currently doing and it worked out fine so far. I was wondering if this would also work out with the FA 43.

11-16-2014, 07:14 AM	#11
Mr Bassie Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,258	I would keep the da35 and just use that. I have the fa43 and not the da35 but I would imagine that the picture quality would likely not improve a tremendous amount. Though I must say I do love my 43. For the conditions you are asking about I would think most lenses would survive in relatively good condition. maybe if they were subjected to daily water and dust you might have a problem.

11-16-2014, 07:18 AM	#12
Pablom Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Usa Posts: 1,940	If you are looking for an excellent WR prime the obvious (and only) choice is DA*55. The FL is significantly different but outside it is easier to compensate.

11-16-2014, 07:34 AM	#13
thonimahoni New Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9 Original Poster	Hey hcc, thanks for sharing your experience. I travled so far always with 2 lenses. One lense for landscape and protrait shots and one telephoto lense for animals. You never know what you will see so better be prepared, right? It is very interesting that you chose once the FA31. What did this lense has to go through and how did you used it? You already said that you would not dare to push your luck by shooting a seafront, rainstorms or sandy beaches. If it is not too personal what did you shoot with it (and in which environment, etc)? In my opinion it would be a pity to have such a great lense and not to use it when it counts the most. Naturally this is my opinion and everyone has its own. But if I am on another continent, in far off countries and experiencing incredible moments I try to keep these moments in my mind. And after that I try to make a picture as close as possible of these moments to remind myself of them (the older I get the more I will probably need this). The DA18-55 WR and the DA18-135WR are of course great lenses. But I am looking for a spiecial one that I can use like a tool. I hope this wasn't too confusing.

11-16-2014, 07:51 AM	#14
Mr Bassie Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,258	I suggest you look at the lens clubs for the 18-55 and 18-135 and see how good those lenses can be.

11-16-2014, 08:10 AM	#15
thonimahoni New Member Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 9 Original Poster	Originally posted by Pablom If you are looking for an excellent WR prime the obvious (and only) choice is DA*55. The FL is significantly different but outside it is easier to compensate. Hi, yes of course great lense. But Pentax strength is its FFL lenses. And out of the FFL lenses the FA31, FA43, FA77 are the most preffered, so I heared. FA31 would be the best choice for me I guess but I don't want so sell my liver, you know? The FA43 is barely affordable to me and a great lense. The questions is how resistant it is.