Does anyone prefer DA 40 over FA 43?

**BigMackCam** · 01-09-2016, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

The thing is there no many lenses that are bad near 40mm at f/4 as long as they feature the apperture. What would be difficult indeed is to find a lens that would not perform well at 40mm f/4.

Agreed - but, as I said, it also performs very well wide open at f/2.8 - not just ok, but very well. Even the borders are good. At f/4, however, it starts to peak.

normhead · 01-09-2016, 05:44 PM - **1 Like**

I only own the 40XS, so, I have nothing....

OK. how about a couple 40XS images... you guys talk too much, not enough pictures.

Oh Canada

40XS slideshow...

**BigMackCam** · 01-09-2016, 06:03 PM

Nice photos, Norm - but most lenses work well for web size reproduction.

That said, the 40XS is also an excellent lens in its own right. I think the OP asked about the DA40 vs FA43, but if they were looking to get a taste of the DA40's performance, the 40XS is a cheaper way to try it...

alamo5000 · 01-09-2016, 06:23 PM - **1 Like**

I owned the DA40 for a long time and have owned the 43 for a year or two. Ultimately I parsed down my kit so I could carry my stuff around more easily. After owning every DA prime and the three amigos... the three amigos are staying in my bag for sure. You won't get them out of my hands.

I sold the 40... not because it was a bad lens... it's not. Its a fantastic lens. It's smaller, but not 'as fast' but looking at the rendering between the two (which I carefully did over time before I decided to sell)... the 43 came out the clear winner.

The 43 can get quirky when you get really close... the close focus distance is different. You have to give it more space than you do the 40 (when up close).

Also it depends on what aperture you're at. I was getting up close with my 43 and trying to dial it to f1.9 and would wonder why my shots weren't 100% sharp...

As a whole though the lens is at least as sharp if not sharper than the 40... but sharpness alone should not be your only criteria. If your lens is seriously out of calibration that's one thing... but trying for pixel peeping sharpness in every case often trumps the artistic nature of photography (at least for me) when in reality the latter is what is more important to me.

I was never disappointed in any of the DA Limited lenses...they are one of the key things that got me hooked on Pentax...but the FA Limiteds are something else...

genesmasher · 01-09-2016, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Siegfried

gs,
yes, DA40 is sharp right from f/2.8 - and, moreover, it is sharp all over the frame. So if the only thing you care of is sharpness, then you've got to go for DA40. But if you consider the other things too - like scene rendering - then stop where you are: DA40 has a damn awful bokeh. It is just plain bad. You'll struggle against this lens for getting nice smooth highlights blur and you'll lose most of the time. Though if you do the web-prints only limited to smth like 1024x680, then it may not be too much of an issue (that's why you will not see it here on PF where 99% of the pictures are resized down to 1024x680 or even 800x533), but even at full hd resolution (1920x1270) it is quite pronounced, let alone bigger prints.
...
Oh, and it is really small lens. It is really really small lens. It is a damn small lens! It is so small that it will challenge your Freudian unconscious! It is indecently, obscenely tiny! Every time I look at it I can't help but think of that famous Interstate 60 scene:...
But yes, it is sharp. Moreover, it is uniformly sharp across the whole frame starting right from the max f/2.8 - and it also has a very good flare resistance.

Bottom line: do I recommend going for a DA40 (whenever SMC or HD)? No, I do not. But if you decide to give it a try, I will wish you good luck.

Zig

P.S.
Although I haven't got the FA43.

Hahaha, this was great Zig!!

You made me watch that youtube video, it was hilarious. Size is not the main reason why I want to try DA40, FA43 is small enough. BTW, I almost never shoot FA wide open, so shallow DOF is not the problem. But maybe I need to go back and re-evaluate its center vs edge sharpness in my photos - may be its not as bad as I remember. I will try to find some shots of my FA43 to post, like I said I don't use it very often. DA35macro is a interesting option.

normhead · 01-09-2016, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

Nice photos, Norm - but most lenses work well for web size reproduction.

That said, the 40XS is also an excellent lens in its own right. I think the OP asked about the DA40 vs FA43, but if they were looking to get a taste of the DA40's performance, the 40XS is a cheaper way to try it...

That might be true, but I always add a comment if a photo is only good at web size. Most of the time the images I post are top rated, and absolutely top notch, and often have been selected from hundreds of images, shot in burst mode. So the fact that all images look good at web size doesn't mean the ones I post only look good at web size. That dog image at the top , I'll put up against any image taken on any camera anytime any place. Many of my images look way better on my 2700x1440 monitor than they do on these little 1280 files.

So the opposite is also true, any good image looks better at 2700x1440 than it does at web size, so really, it's just as likely that they are better full size than at web size as it is that they are only good at web size.

**robbiec** · 01-09-2016, 08:30 PM - **6 Likes**

Originally posted by genesmasher

This has probably been beaten to death. I've had FA 43 f/1.9 couple of years now, but every time I use it, cant help but notice that it's not as sharp as the other primes I own (DA21, DFA 100, etc) - even stepped down. Color is great, bokeh is great - just not as sharp. I even had my camera (K5II) focus calibrated by Pentax using this lens... I don't shoot at this length a lot (just a random portrait here and there). Did anyone go from FA 43 to DA 40 ?

Can you give us an example of lacking sharpness? I have a well used 43 that is sharp where I want it to be at any aperture.
@ f/1.9

@f/1.9

@f/2.0

@f/2.2

@f/2.8

All taken in the last week or so for the Single in challenge (January 2016).

Originally posted by kh1234567890

I don't have any experience of the FA43 but I thought that I might as well chip in. The FA43 doesn't interest me at all since I have no intention of switching to full frame, I can cope with autofocus and aperture setting via the camera, I don't see the point of having a lens which 'you have to stop down' in order to make it acceptably sharp and I don't fancy dragging around an antique poser dinosaur. So there.

Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with da40

How sharp is acceptably sharp?

Originally posted by alamo5000

The 43 can get quirky when you get really close... the close focus distance is different. You have to give it more space than you do the 40 (when up close).

Also it depends on what aperture you're at. I was getting up close with my 43 and trying to dial it to f1.9 and would wonder why my shots weren't 100% sharp...

Quirky up close? I have a couple of examples shown above at MFD (Cat, Dog and Turntable), can't see any quirkiness. Just pretty cool rendering and smooth transition to OOF.

I don't understand this whole I need / want / have to have 'sharpness' and across the frame as well, if that is what you want get a macro. The DFA50 will do the job for you. Sharpness is but one part of an optical makeup of a lens, some of the others being contrast, OOF rendering, flare resistance, colour cast but it seems that sharpness is the be all and end all of a lens in todays world. Maybe because it is the easiest to measure.

S!
Robbie

Last edited by robbiec; 01-12-2016 at 04:42 AM.

lesmore49 · 01-09-2016, 09:49 PM

I've got a 40mm Limited. Very pleased with it...sharpness, bokeh, etc. A very compact unit, 40 Limited on my smallish Km....in fact the combo is not too much bigger than my Canon G 12.

I don't have the 43 so unable to compare.

**snpsht** · 01-09-2016, 10:06 PM - **1 Like**

I have both and for pure joy of use and lovely photos, the 43 is the nicer rendering lens IMHO.

It is sharp, but if I want sharp sharp edge to edge and close up performance with brilliant colours I go for the DA35 Ltd Macro, which is also a good walk around lens with macro.

My 40Ltd might actually get sold - it is an excellent lens, but I prefer either of the others. Just a personal thing, perhaps?

JibbaJab · 01-09-2016, 10:30 PM

I own the DA 40 but not the 43. The 40 is more of a photojournalistic lens. As others have pointed out, it's sharp across the frame but the bokeh leaves much to be desired. I'm probably going to sell mine since I never use it.

ScooterMaxi Jim · 01-09-2016, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Digitalis

As I recall the DA40mm f/2.8 is basically a rehash of the M 40mm f/2.8 from the days of the ME super. The DA lens has had some digital optimizations which allegedly improve its performance on current DSLRs, I see that as marketing technobabble.I don't have much experience with the DA40 - personally it don't interest me as the ergonomic aspects of the lens are off putting( the tiny MF ring, lack of an aperture ring).

Not a rehash - not even close. See: Re: DA40/2.8 do full frame?: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Just because a lens has the same number of optical elements as an older model does not make it similar. In the case of the m40 (which is a very poor design and execution not remotely comparable to the AF versions), the designs are clearly different. Even among the current versions, performance differs. I'd love for my 40xs to have the total lack of CA that the Ltd. version features. Even if the optical design between these AF models are identical, coatings and tolerances (more critical as a design gets smaller) can have significant impact.

Oh, and the m40 was never packaged with the ME Super. It was aimed downscale - mostly at the MV and somewhat with the ME. I have that recollection because I was a retail seller in those days.

This reminds of the even bigger myth that rarely gets challenged - that the FA 35 and DA 35 are essentially the same. Not even close...

**Digitalis** · 01-10-2016, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim

Just because a lens has the same number of optical elements as an older model does not make it similar.

I was speaking in a broader conceptual sense, I'm well aware of the optical differences between them the DA40 is simply a spiritual successor to the M40.

Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim

the m40 was never packaged with the ME Super. It was aimed downscale - mostly at the MV and somewhat with the ME.

The M40 was designed for the M series bodies, ME,MX,MV,MG - the compactness of the lens was a major selling point and it was aimed at consumers that didn't want or need a 50mm f/1.2 lens.

**BigMackCam** · 01-10-2016, 01:27 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by normhead

That might be true, but I always add a comment if a photo is only good at web size. Most of the time the images I post are top rated, and absolutely top notch, and often have been selected from hundreds of images, shot in burst mode. So the fact that all images look good at web size doesn't mean the ones I post only look good at web size. That dog image at the top , I'll put up against any image taken on any camera anytime any place. Many of my images look way better on my 2700x1440 monitor than they do on these little 1280 files.

So the opposite is also true, any good image looks better at 2700x1440 than it does at web size, so really, it's just as likely that they are better full size than at web size as it is that they are only good at web size.

Norm, I think you misunderstood my reply. I was highlighting the fact that posting web sized photos such as these gives no real indication of lens sharpness (unless they're crops at 1:1 or 1:2 reproduction, for example). Like I said, they're nice photos (I don't doubt they are some of your best) and the 40XS is a nice little lens

EDIT: I'd also point out that the sometimes-less-than-stellar bokeh of the Pentax 40s (both the 40XS and the DA40 Limited that I have) isn't nearly as noticeable at web size. You can see it in the tree branches on your lovely dog shot, but this would undoubtedly show up more on a larger reproduction.

Clou · 01-10-2016, 02:46 AM

I have both. The FA 43 is the one I use more often (rendering), but I am surprised that no one mentioned the pretty good flare resistance and contrast in backlit situations, where the DA 40 has from my point view a little advantage over the FA 43. This is where it still sees some use.

Examples (DA 40):

Archer

Olympia Lake Cleanup

Nicolas06 · 01-10-2016, 03:10 AM

To me, your FA43 has some issue. If you don't use it at f/1.9, but f/2.8 or f/4 it should be sharp and if you are not after bokeh then you don't need the performance at f/1.8 or f/2.8 anyway. Looking at photozone the FA43 is sharper overall than the DA40 and loooking at ephotozine the DA40 is sharper. To me that this mean that this depend of lot of the samples you get. There seems to be a bit of variation for corner sharpness on that FA43...

So the first thing is to check your lens and try to see why its performance is not as good as you want it to be. And really taking a nice picture or 2 with it at say f/5.6 with crops of the center or border posted here would help to see how bad it is.

Then if you decide to change your FA43 for something else, if you are really after ultimate sharpness I would not go for the DA40 but the DA35 ltd or the DFA50.. Theses lens are not just sharp they are the sharpest lenses out tere you can find.

01-10-2016, 01:27 AM - 1 Like	#28
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,695	Originally posted by normhead That might be true, but I always add a comment if a photo is only good at web size. Most of the time the images I post are top rated, and absolutely top notch, and often have been selected from hundreds of images, shot in burst mode. So the fact that all images look good at web size doesn't mean the ones I post only look good at web size. That dog image at the top , I'll put up against any image taken on any camera anytime any place. Many of my images look way better on my 2700x1440 monitor than they do on these little 1280 files. So the opposite is also true, any good image looks better at 2700x1440 than it does at web size, so really, it's just as likely that they are better full size than at web size as it is that they are only good at web size. Norm, I think you misunderstood my reply. I was highlighting the fact that posting web sized photos such as these gives no real indication of lens sharpness (unless they're crops at 1:1 or 1:2 reproduction, for example). Like I said, they're nice photos (I don't doubt they are some of your best) and the 40XS is a nice little lens EDIT: I'd also point out that the sometimes-less-than-stellar bokeh of the Pentax 40s (both the 40XS and the DA40 Limited that I have) isn't nearly as noticeable at web size. You can see it in the tree branches on your lovely dog shot, but this would undoubtedly show up more on a larger reproduction. Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-10-2016 at 02:57 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sell da 35ltd da 40 and fa 50 for fa 43?	ncallender	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	16	11-22-2015 10:27 AM
FA 43 or HD DA 40….I asked myself	noelpolar	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	33	06-30-2014 07:21 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 31FA, 40 DA, 43 FA, 77 FA	benroy	Sold Items	6	08-08-2011 02:43 AM
I have to say I prefer DA 40 than the FA 43	henryjing	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	29	03-30-2010 03:10 PM
DA 40 or FA 43?	Biro	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	12-31-2009 07:52 PM

01-09-2016, 05:37 PM	#16
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,695	Originally posted by Nicolas06 The thing is there no many lenses that are bad near 40mm at f/4 as long as they feature the apperture. What would be difficult indeed is to find a lens that would not perform well at 40mm f/4. Agreed - but, as I said, it also performs very well wide open at f/2.8 - not just ok, but very well. Even the borders are good. At f/4, however, it starts to peak.

01-09-2016, 05:44 PM - 1 Like	#17
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I only own the 40XS, so, I have nothing.... OK. how about a couple 40XS images... you guys talk too much, not enough pictures. Oh Canada 40XS slideshow...

01-09-2016, 06:03 PM	#18
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,695	Nice photos, Norm - but most lenses work well for web size reproduction. That said, the 40XS is also an excellent lens in its own right. I think the OP asked about the DA40 vs FA43, but if they were looking to get a taste of the DA40's performance, the 40XS is a cheaper way to try it...

01-09-2016, 06:23 PM - 1 Like	#19
alamo5000 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 2,962	I owned the DA40 for a long time and have owned the 43 for a year or two. Ultimately I parsed down my kit so I could carry my stuff around more easily. After owning every DA prime and the three amigos... the three amigos are staying in my bag for sure. You won't get them out of my hands. I sold the 40... not because it was a bad lens... it's not. Its a fantastic lens. It's smaller, but not 'as fast' but looking at the rendering between the two (which I carefully did over time before I decided to sell)... the 43 came out the clear winner. The 43 can get quirky when you get really close... the close focus distance is different. You have to give it more space than you do the 40 (when up close). Also it depends on what aperture you're at. I was getting up close with my 43 and trying to dial it to f1.9 and would wonder why my shots weren't 100% sharp... As a whole though the lens is at least as sharp if not sharper than the 40... but sharpness alone should not be your only criteria. If your lens is seriously out of calibration that's one thing... but trying for pixel peeping sharpness in every case often trumps the artistic nature of photography (at least for me) when in reality the latter is what is more important to me. I was never disappointed in any of the DA Limited lenses...they are one of the key things that got me hooked on Pentax...but the FA Limiteds are something else...

01-09-2016, 07:02 PM	#20
genesmasher Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: California Posts: 33 Original Poster	Originally posted by Siegfried gs, yes, DA40 is sharp right from f/2.8 - and, moreover, it is sharp all over the frame. So if the only thing you care of is sharpness, then you've got to go for DA40. But if you consider the other things too - like scene rendering - then stop where you are: DA40 has a damn awful bokeh. It is just plain bad. You'll struggle against this lens for getting nice smooth highlights blur and you'll lose most of the time. Though if you do the web-prints only limited to smth like 1024x680, then it may not be too much of an issue (that's why you will not see it here on PF where 99% of the pictures are resized down to 1024x680 or even 800x533), but even at full hd resolution (1920x1270) it is quite pronounced, let alone bigger prints. ... Oh, and it is really small lens. It is really really small lens. It is a damn small lens! It is so small that it will challenge your Freudian unconscious! It is indecently, obscenely tiny! Every time I look at it I can't help but think of that famous Interstate 60 scene:... But yes, it is sharp. Moreover, it is uniformly sharp across the whole frame starting right from the max f/2.8 - and it also has a very good flare resistance. Bottom line: do I recommend going for a DA40 (whenever SMC or HD)? No, I do not. But if you decide to give it a try, I will wish you good luck. Zig P.S. Although I haven't got the FA43. Hahaha, this was great Zig!! You made me watch that youtube video, it was hilarious. Size is not the main reason why I want to try DA40, FA43 is small enough. BTW, I almost never shoot FA wide open, so shallow DOF is not the problem. But maybe I need to go back and re-evaluate its center vs edge sharpness in my photos - may be its not as bad as I remember. I will try to find some shots of my FA43 to post, like I said I don't use it very often. DA35macro is a interesting option.

01-09-2016, 07:52 PM	#21
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by BigMackCam Nice photos, Norm - but most lenses work well for web size reproduction. That said, the 40XS is also an excellent lens in its own right. I think the OP asked about the DA40 vs FA43, but if they were looking to get a taste of the DA40's performance, the 40XS is a cheaper way to try it... That might be true, but I always add a comment if a photo is only good at web size. Most of the time the images I post are top rated, and absolutely top notch, and often have been selected from hundreds of images, shot in burst mode. So the fact that all images look good at web size doesn't mean the ones I post only look good at web size. That dog image at the top , I'll put up against any image taken on any camera anytime any place. Many of my images look way better on my 2700x1440 monitor than they do on these little 1280 files. So the opposite is also true, any good image looks better at 2700x1440 than it does at web size, so really, it's just as likely that they are better full size than at web size as it is that they are only good at web size.

01-09-2016, 08:30 PM - 6 Likes	#22
robbiec Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Cork Photos: Albums Posts: 1,882	Originally posted by genesmasher This has probably been beaten to death. I've had FA 43 f/1.9 couple of years now, but every time I use it, cant help but notice that it's not as sharp as the other primes I own (DA21, DFA 100, etc) - even stepped down. Color is great, bokeh is great - just not as sharp. I even had my camera (K5II) focus calibrated by Pentax using this lens... I don't shoot at this length a lot (just a random portrait here and there). Did anyone go from FA 43 to DA 40 ? Can you give us an example of lacking sharpness? I have a well used 43 that is sharp where I want it to be at any aperture. @ f/1.9 @f/1.9 @f/2.0 @f/2.2 @f/2.8 All taken in the last week or so for the Single in challenge (January 2016). Originally posted by kh1234567890 I don't have any experience of the FA43 but I thought that I might as well chip in. The FA43 doesn't interest me at all since I have no intention of switching to full frame, I can cope with autofocus and aperture setting via the camera, I don't see the point of having a lens which 'you have to stop down' in order to make it acceptably sharp and I don't fancy dragging around an antique poser dinosaur. So there. Flickriver: kh1234567890's photos tagged with da40 How sharp is acceptably sharp? Originally posted by alamo5000 The 43 can get quirky when you get really close... the close focus distance is different. You have to give it more space than you do the 40 (when up close). Also it depends on what aperture you're at. I was getting up close with my 43 and trying to dial it to f1.9 and would wonder why my shots weren't 100% sharp... Quirky up close? I have a couple of examples shown above at MFD (Cat, Dog and Turntable), can't see any quirkiness. Just pretty cool rendering and smooth transition to OOF. I don't understand this whole I need / want / have to have 'sharpness' and across the frame as well, if that is what you want get a macro. The DFA50 will do the job for you. Sharpness is but one part of an optical makeup of a lens, some of the others being contrast, OOF rendering, flare resistance, colour cast but it seems that sharpness is the be all and end all of a lens in todays world. Maybe because it is the easiest to measure. S! Robbie Last edited by robbiec; 01-12-2016 at 04:42 AM.

01-09-2016, 09:49 PM	#23
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,349	I've got a 40mm Limited. Very pleased with it...sharpness, bokeh, etc. A very compact unit, 40 Limited on my smallish Km....in fact the combo is not too much bigger than my Canon G 12. I don't have the 43 so unable to compare.

01-09-2016, 10:06 PM - 1 Like	#24
snpsht Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: South Coast, NSW Posts: 286	I have both and for pure joy of use and lovely photos, the 43 is the nicer rendering lens IMHO. It is sharp, but if I want sharp sharp edge to edge and close up performance with brilliant colours I go for the DA35 Ltd Macro, which is also a good walk around lens with macro. My 40Ltd might actually get sold - it is an excellent lens, but I prefer either of the others. Just a personal thing, perhaps?

01-09-2016, 10:30 PM	#25
JibbaJab Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Southern California Posts: 362	I own the DA 40 but not the 43. The 40 is more of a photojournalistic lens. As others have pointed out, it's sharp across the frame but the bokeh leaves much to be desired. I'm probably going to sell mine since I never use it.

01-09-2016, 11:38 PM	#26
ScooterMaxi Jim Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,520	Originally posted by Digitalis As I recall the DA40mm f/2.8 is basically a rehash of the M 40mm f/2.8 from the days of the ME super. The DA lens has had some digital optimizations which allegedly improve its performance on current DSLRs, I see that as marketing technobabble.I don't have much experience with the DA40 - personally it don't interest me as the ergonomic aspects of the lens are off putting( the tiny MF ring, lack of an aperture ring). Not a rehash - not even close. See: Re: DA40/2.8 do full frame?: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review Just because a lens has the same number of optical elements as an older model does not make it similar. In the case of the m40 (which is a very poor design and execution not remotely comparable to the AF versions), the designs are clearly different. Even among the current versions, performance differs. I'd love for my 40xs to have the total lack of CA that the Ltd. version features. Even if the optical design between these AF models are identical, coatings and tolerances (more critical as a design gets smaller) can have significant impact. Oh, and the m40 was never packaged with the ME Super. It was aimed downscale - mostly at the MV and somewhat with the ME. I have that recollection because I was a retail seller in those days. This reminds of the even bigger myth that rarely gets challenged - that the FA 35 and DA 35 are essentially the same. Not even close...

01-10-2016, 12:33 AM	#27
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Just because a lens has the same number of optical elements as an older model does not make it similar. I was speaking in a broader conceptual sense, I'm well aware of the optical differences between them the DA40 is simply a spiritual successor to the M40. Originally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim the m40 was never packaged with the ME Super. It was aimed downscale - mostly at the MV and somewhat with the ME. The M40 was designed for the M series bodies, ME,MX,MV,MG - the compactness of the lens was a major selling point and it was aimed at consumers that didn't want or need a 50mm f/1.2 lens.

01-10-2016, 02:46 AM	#29
Clou Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 925	I have both. The FA 43 is the one I use more often (rendering), but I am surprised that no one mentioned the pretty good flare resistance and contrast in backlit situations, where the DA 40 has from my point view a little advantage over the FA 43. This is where it still sees some use. Examples (DA 40): Archer Olympia Lake Cleanup

01-10-2016, 03:10 AM	#30
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	To me, your FA43 has some issue. If you don't use it at f/1.9, but f/2.8 or f/4 it should be sharp and if you are not after bokeh then you don't need the performance at f/1.8 or f/2.8 anyway. Looking at photozone the FA43 is sharper overall than the DA40 and loooking at ephotozine the DA40 is sharper. To me that this mean that this depend of lot of the samples you get. There seems to be a bit of variation for corner sharpness on that FA43... So the first thing is to check your lens and try to see why its performance is not as good as you want it to be. And really taking a nice picture or 2 with it at say f/5.6 with crops of the center or border posted here would help to see how bad it is. Then if you decide to change your FA43 for something else, if you are really after ultimate sharpness I would not go for the DA40 but the DA35 ltd or the DFA50.. Theses lens are not just sharp they are the sharpest lenses out tere you can find.