[iamwhoiam]

I already have the FA 43/1.9 is there any reason to purchase the DA 50/1.8? LBA is not an acceptable reason.

[SpecialK]

Not really, unless you want a low-cost lens at the beach.

[ZombieArmy]

Nope. The focal length will feel nearly identical.

[emalvick]

I have both those lenses, and in all honesty, I'd say no. The 50 came with my K-3, and I've used it a few times. It is good for a kit lens and better than the kit zooms, but I don't think it is going to challenge your 43.

I also hate the plastic feel of the lens. I'm sure it's fine, but the lens is too light, and it's not like the 43 weighs a lot. The 50 will probably be one of the first lenses I sell or give away. I thought it would be nice to have as an autofocus replacement for my M50/1.7, but who was I kidding? Almost nothing is as good as that lens.

[Docrwm]

I have both and the 43 gets used all the time - the 50 nearly never. It's a nice lens and certainly cheaper than the 43 (and a better bargain IMHO) but if you already have the 43 then its just LBA, really, to want it IMHO.

[stevebrot]

Not really, unless you want a low-cost lens at the beach.

1+

The 43 is noticeably wider on direct comparison, but in use the two focal lengths shoot essentially the same.


Steve

[rabblefrabble]

The 50 will probably be one of the first lenses I sell or give away..

Let me know when you ready to give it away

[Another dyemention]

If I could go back, I would've just skipped the 50 and got the tamron 17-50. For me, the 50 isn't much of an improvement with IQ and obviously not as versatile. But I did get it for $130 with my k50. It's worth that much.

[robthebloke]

The da 50 is a poor man's FA limited. If you don't own any primes at that focal length, then it's perfectly serviceable portrait lens - a nice cheap entry level prime. If however you own a DA* or FA limited, then it won't see much use.

It's good, but it lacks the pixie dust qualities of your 43mm.

[blackcloudbrew]

I have to say, while I don't own the FA43, I have used it bit on rental so I'm a bit familiar with it. I also own the DA 50. I will say that there are many valid points in the posts above and the difference between 43mm and 50mm is small, yet I have come to like the DA 50 because of it's lightness and small size. It's delivered some great images for me and should not be overlooked. If and when I acquire the FA43, I'd still be carrying and using the DA 50, which BTW is a full frame lens. I use it on my later era film cameras. So, while the OP's question is would you want both? In my case I'd put in a good word for the DA 50 and say yes.

[MPrince]

The 50 will probably be one of the first lenses I sell or give away.

Let me know when you ready to give it away

Let me know too. I'll pay the postage.

[starjedi]

I already have the FA 43/1.9 is there any reason to purchase the DA 50/1.8? LBA is not an acceptable reason.

DA 50/1.8 is much sharper than FA 43/1.9...FA 43/1.9 is soft wide open. If you think you need the ability at wide open, why not?

[emalvick]

DA 50/1.8 is much sharper than FA 43/1.9...FA 43/1.9 is soft wide open. If you think you need the ability at wide open, why not?

Hmm... my 43 is sharper than my 50 wide open. My 50 isn't very sharp at any aperture compared to other primes or even my Tamron 17-50 when it is at 50 mm (and comparable apertures). It is better than my 18-135 and 18-55.

[Sandy Hancock]

Personally, I would want a 50mm lens to offer something the FA43 doesn't give - either super-wide aperture or macro. I went for the former as I have the 35mm and 100mm macros.

The DA50 doesn't really bring anything new to the table.

[VisualDarkness]

Redirect your LBA to something more exciting!