[Digitalis]

Unless they're Leica CLs!

There is a reason Leica discontinued that model - the base length is too narrow for lenses faster than f/2.8. The Leica Summicron-C 40mm f/2 ASPH was seriously pushing the limits of RF accuracy on the CL.

Another thing I will say about the FA43 is on the Leica monochrom, it has higher contrast than most Leica/Zeiss/Voigtlander/Hexanon lenses at wider apertures, and it is significantly more resistant to flare. Also when the FA43 is stopped down: contrast and resolution go through the roof at f/4~f/8 aperture range, on the monochrom I frequently have to reduce, or even turn off the default sharpening in LR with certain lenses because the accutance in the original file is more than enough*.

*Due to the lack of a Bayer CFA the Leica monochrom has no need for an AA filter.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 12-30-2015 at 12:22 AM.

[Hattifnatt]

Getting the FA 43 in 30 minutes... Weather is nice so I'll try some snaps right away.

[waterfall]

Getting the FA 43 in 30 minutes... Weather is nice so I'll try some snaps right away.

Wow, fast shipping! Enjoy this lens. Looking forward to your posts.

[MadMathMind]

I have seen your work using the 31 Ltd in cosplay, since I have all 3 Ltd lenses, I can share my view on the 43. In all 3 lenses, I think the image rendering capability of the lenses is superb and as close to realism as it can get. Bokeh wise, they are all good but I prefer the 31 in particular, but that could be due to focal length perspective. Among the three, I use the 31 more and the 77 the least mainly due to focal length in crop mode. Also because I have the topcor 58f1.4 manual lens, the 77 Ltd. does not get used as much. Again, it is just a matter of taste on focal length (I find that 58mm seems to work quite nice). There is no question that I will likely try out the 43 Ltd when the Pentax FF is available - I expect that the 43 on a FF would be nice.

Your tendency is similar to mind. I've found the FA77 more useful with film, for sure. I'm looking forward to using it more with the FF camera.

I may just stick with the tandem of the FA31 and FA77. I don't get to use the FA31's bokeh too much because full-body shots require being 8-10 feet away. At that distance, the strength of blur is greatly reduced, with little difference between f/2.8 and f/2.2. (So I've been using f/2.8 more because the focus is more forgiving.) But with the FF camera, a full body shot can probably be had at 5' so the bokeh will come back in. Then I can switch to FA77 for close-ups and head shots.

The FA31 is only really matched by the K/A 50mm f/1.2 for bokeh quality, the FA77 and FA43 have different bokeh characteristics from the FA31. Overall colour and contrast are practically identical with the FA limited lenses, though the FA31 is a standout as its resolution characteristic is more consistent across the frame than the FA43 and FA77 at wider apertures, especially on full format. At f/4, optically there is essentially no difference between the three limited lenses, apart from the missing aperture blade on the FA43.

I have noticed that the FA31 looks absolutely ridiculous on film. It's obvious the difference with the FA50, a nice lens, but not the FA31. I really like the FA77 as well. My regret is that I don't get to use it as much as I'd like because it's simply too long in a lot of cases.

The 43 is the most unforgiving and difficult to use of the three. However, once you appreciate its limitations it can be used to take some truly beautiful photographs.

Can you elaborate more on this? Do you mean its focus is generally worse or something?

[gofour3]

I may just stick with the tandem of the FA31 and FA77. I don't get to use the FA31's bokeh too much because full-body shots require being 8-10 feet away. At that distance, the strength of blur is greatly reduced, with little difference between f/2.8 and f/2.2. (So I've been using f/2.8 more because the focus is more forgiving.) But with the FF camera, a full body shot can probably be had at 5' so the bokeh will come back in. Then I can switch to FA77 for close-ups and head shots.

A 31mm lens for FF body shots would not be anywhere near my first choice, unless you are talking about a large group of people. For one person 77mm or 85mm is way better. Head shots are good with lenses in the 100-105mm range. I know some portrait photographers who like to use 50mm lens and get in the models face, but that style may not be for everyone.

Personally I like the K85/1.8 a lot better than the FA77/1.8 for body shots, it's a better all around lens for that purpose. I use my K105/2.8 for head shots.

Phil.

[heasley]

Can you elaborate more on this? Do you mean its focus is generally worse or something?

It can produce some very poor results in terms of the following:

1. poor contrast
2. chromatic aberrations
3. buisy and unpleasant bokeh

It takes a while to learn its limitations and shoot accordingly.

[MadMathMind]

A 31mm lens for FF body shots would not be anywhere near my first choice, unless you are talking about a large group of people. For one person 77mm or 85mm is way better. Head shots are good with lenses in the 100-105mm range. I know some portrait photographers who like to use 50mm lens and get in the models face, but that style may not be for everyone.

I don't do head shots. Remember that the costume is the whole point of the photo. Just the head/shoulders captures none of that, so I very rarely do them. It's a very different style of portraiture from what you are used to. A lot of the 'rules' need to be broken.

Head-to-toe body shots with a 75-85mm (35mm equivalent) are generally impractical for my purposes. Everything is shot on location, never in a studio. The locations on which we shoot frequently do not have so much room. Furthermore, the locations are usually chosen to have some relevance to the character in costume, so the shot needs to include some environment as well. For head-to-toe shots, my most frequent shots, even the 31 can be a tight squeeze from time to time. I'd rather have headroom by backing up a step and cropping the excess in post. That avoids geometric distortion.

If I were doing waist-up, then a 75-85mm would be more useful. As it stands, I only pull out the 50mm when the 31 isn't focusing for whatever reason. Often, it's just too much lens for the cramped spaces in which we find ourselves.

---------- Post added 12-31-15 at 12:05 AM ----------

It can produce some very poor results in terms of the following:

1. poor contrast
2. chromatic aberrations
3. buisy and unpleasant bokeh

It takes a while to learn its limitations and shoot accordingly.

All the film lenses have #2. It's a challenge with cosplay because there's so much blue and purple in the costumes, so defringing has to be done carefully.

#3 is one that concerns me. I never worry what the FA31 or FA77 will do. The FA50 f/1.7 also suffers from #1 and #3 from time to time.

---

Last edited by MadMathMind; 12-30-2015 at 11:10 PM.

[Hattifnatt]

Wow, fast shipping! Enjoy this lens. Looking forward to your posts.

That was not shipping... I was on vacation in my home country and it happened the seller is living within walking distance from my house

Lens is in excellent condition. Snapped a few photos, can't process them right now but they already look very very good on camera display.

[pathdoc]

What is it with these South Australians?

You're not the only one who asks himself that question, at least on this forum. I'm originally from Adelaide, so I wonder if I get to vicariously gloat a little whenever they demonstrate their knowledge. Except of course I wasn't all that much of a Pentaxian while I was actually living there full-time In fact, not at all...

[UncleVanya]

All the film lenses have #2. It's a challenge with cosplay because there's so much blue and purple in the costumes, so defringing has to be done carefully.

#3 is one that concerns me. I never worry what the FA31 or FA77 will do. The FA50 f/1.7 also suffers from #1 and #3 from time to time.

I have never noticed the bokeh or the contrast problems you mention with my F 50 f/1.7 - is there that much difference or am I lucky?

[bpv_UW]

The FA31 is only really matched by the K/A 50mm f/1.2 for bokeh quality

How does the Da 55/1.4 measure up here?

[MadMathMind]

I have never noticed the bokeh or the contrast problems you mention with my F 50 f/1.7 - is there that much difference or am I lucky?

It's pretty rare on contrast issues. Every now and then I'll get a wash out. The Limiteds never wash out. Ever.

Bokeh is, for the most part, pretty good, but there can be some artifacts. Like this nearly frog egg bokeh:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/madmathmind/21501562160/in/album-72157649133020379/

This is ok:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/madmathmind/23262561439/in/album-72157649133020379/

But it's not nearly as smooth and smarmy as the FA31 or FA77. I think I have been spoiled. The worst of the FA50 is better than the worst of the Sigma 18-35, for sure, but the Sigma can hit sublime. The FA50's best is just a hint behind:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/madmathmind/17073173231/in/album-72157649133020379/

And every now and then, it turns out bokeh masterpieces like this:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/madmathmind/22170091114/

[MadMathMind]

So I ended up getting it. The three FA Limiteds together are a thing of beauty!

[aleonx3]

So I ended up getting it. The three FA Limiteds together are a thing of beauty!

I love those 3 amigos. My 43 is silver whereas the other siblings are in black. I love those lenses and especially on how images are rendered as they look so real with no (or may be very little) distortions.

BTW, congrats on getting on the FA limited bandwagon...

[monochrome]

So I ended up getting it. The three FA Limiteds together are a thing of beauty!

Such lovely Princesses.