[khardur]

I understand what you're saying, Peter. If I had the 43 I may say the same thing, but the price difference was a bit too much for me to bite off at the time. *shrug* If I ever get to a camera store in NYC that stocks Pentax stuff I'll be sure to ask to try one out just to see.

[Paul]

Hello Peter, the Fuji film canister is so much easier to work with then Pentax original cap. That's why I just put it away and use the film canister cap.

[Gooshin]

the cool thing about owning the 40mm, is that you can boast having the worlds smallest modern lens

i myself have the 43, and am happy with it, but at the same time i'm just as happy with my 35 and 21 with no noticable IQ differences across the board

i'm certain that given a 40mm i wouldnt notice a difference, but apperantly it is there.

[creampuff]

Hello Peter, the Fuji film canister is so much easier to work with then Pentax original cap. That's why I just put it away and use the film canister cap.

That is the proven workaround when using the supplied lens hood. Instead of using the screw in lens cap, this is cheaper and works great.

[creampuff]

the cool thing about owning the 40mm, is that you can boast having the worlds smallest modern lens

i myself have the 43, and am happy with it, but at the same time i'm just as happy with my 35 and 21 with no noticable IQ differences across the board

i'm certain that given a 40mm i wouldnt notice a difference, but apperantly it is there.

Nothing really remarkable about the smallest lens bit. Other companies have their pancake lenses too and dare I say are optically equal or better:

Konica used to have the excellent 40mm f/1.8 Hexanon. Had it many years ago paired to a Konica Autoreflex TC SLR. The Konica Hexanon beats the Pentax M 40mm hands down optically.

Contax have their Tessar T* 45mm f/2.8.

Nikon has their Nikkor 45mm f/2.8P as well, a lens that is popular among collectors. It comes in silver and black and known to be a good performer.

[Duplo]

And I am not going to part with either of them, for very different reasons though.

THe FA43ltd, is IMHO the perhaps finest rendering pentax lens produced.
At least among the ones I have tried and seen photos from.

The DA40ltd, while an excellent lens is not up to it, but an excellent lens by any standard.

However the DA40, coupled with the DS is a wonderful and very high quality compact camera.

Both are excellent, but renderingwise the FA43 is in a league of its own IMHO.

[jgredline]

The speed difference is significant, at least for me and If I'm going to spend the money on a prime that is in the same range as a zoom (tamron 28-75) I want the extra speed.

This is what I was thinking..Now I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I do not understand why Pentax or who ever who produce a slow lens...Why not make that 40 @ 1.4 or 1.7, but 2.8...??

Take this one.
Pentax DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Part Number 21590 @ samys.com
It does not make sense to me...But this goes back to the Prime VS zoom thread...

[Kguru]

I do not understand why Pentax or who ever who produce a slow lens...Why not make that 40 @ 1.4 or 1.7, but 2.8...??

A "flat" pancake lens necessarily requires small diameter glasses (otherwise too much angular bending from the outer parts). Small diameter means less area for light so 1.4/1.7 is just not possible.

[tux08902]

DA Limited lenses focus specifically on reduced size with great optics. So, Pentax has to make certain compromises in order to keep the size of the lens small. The FA Limited lenses focus only on superb optics. Accordingly, Pentax doesn't need to be as size-conscious, hence the FA 31/1.8 Limited. Both series try to accomplish different things.

[Gooshin]

Nothing really remarkable about the smallest lens bit. Other companies have their pancake lenses too and dare I say are optically equal or better:

Konica used to have the excellent 40mm f/1.8 Hexanon. Had it many years ago paired to a Konica Autoreflex TC SLR. The Konica Hexanon beats the Pentax M 40mm hands down optically.

Nikon has their Nikkor 45mm f/2.8P as well, a lens that is popular among collectors. It comes in silver and black and known to be a good performer.

notice i said "modern".

i'll be hard pressed to find Nikon and Canon owners that can recall a pancake lens for their bodies.

[creampuff]

notice i said "modern".

i'll be hard pressed to find Nikon and Canon owners that can recall a pancake lens for their bodies.

I personally know of 2 Nikon users with the Nikon 45mm pancake, which was a limited edition lens. It is just 2 mm thicker than the Pentax DA 40 but the build quality is better. It is a much heavier lens and the image quality is really good. The two Nikon users who own them are rangefinder enthusiasts who paid quite a lot for their pancake lens. To them it is the novelty of the compact dimensions.

The reason the DA 40 sells well is because it isn't priced too high and because of this there is steady demand to justify continued production. If priced higher, I'm not so sure it will sell that well because most users would begin to gravitate to a lens with a larger maximum aperture and performance.

[SCGushue]

And I am not going to part with either of them, for very different reasons though.

THe FA43ltd, is IMHO the perhaps finest rendering pentax lens produced.
At least among the ones I have tried and seen photos from.

The DA40ltd, while an excellent lens is not up to it, but an excellent lens by any standard.

However the DA40, coupled with the DS is a wonderful and very high quality compact camera.

Both are excellent, but renderingwise the FA43 is in a league of its own IMHO.

Thomas,

I couldn't agree more with what you said. These two lenses are inherently different lenses and hands down the 43Ltd is a more versatile professional lens. The solid build, aperture ring, and off the chart resolution capabilities make it the professional choice.

The fourty does not lag, per se, but it lacks the solid feel, ap ring and the somewhat limited DOF that can be used to effect on some occasions.

For a creative shooting session I would use the 43. For a high end walkabout lens I might consider the 40 a possibility... though quite frankly the 31LTD almost never leave the mount in those situations.

None the less, I own both and do not feel any reason to give one up at this time.

Stephen

[Nesster]

I haven't used a modern 40, but rather one of the older manual focus ones. So I really can't comment on that side....

The 43 - it simply melts/melds into a film body, perfect FOV for me, beautiful rendering, excellent flare resistance, tone, tone, tone... On a digital body, not quite as magical, for me.

[J.Scott]

I have neither owned or tried the 43mm - but I sure would like to! I do, however, own the 40mm Limited and have to admit I use it a lot - probably more than any other lens in my small collection. I tend to gravitate toward primes as I tend to second guess myself at which focal length I should be using for a given situation. I bought the 40mm when it first came out and paid far too much for it, so for that reason alone I won't part with it - it's just not worth it. That said, I find that it is not overly sharp but does render fine colours and is generally unobtrusive (in relation to size). The negative side to this lens is that darn screw-on lens cap. I am afraid I will lose the damn thing and not be able to replace it. If I could find a small snap-on cap I would be able to sleep at night.

I just checked Ebay and found a seller offering two 30.5mm snap-on caps for $4 - I bought them! A birthday gift to myself. Yeah me!

[rparmar]

Within minutes of getting my 43mm I was shooting off pictures. Met up with my singer and actor (and my lovely partner) Susannah Clare in town as we were on our way to different places, and in the midst of much blowing wind I shot off a few very quick shots... with barely time to focus. I hope to do a lot of these off-the-cuff shots to get a feel for the lens.

I am not so used to portrait shots but will be doing more now I have this lens. I do prefer natural light and hand-held work for a "real" feel. This is a simple RAW conversion with no correction or touch-ups beyond some histogram work. Any advice on what I have here? I would really appreciate advice from the experts. Should I do some touch-up work or try to set the scene differently? (I will wait for less blowing hair in wind next time!)

On a practical note, should I post larger images or is this enough to evaluate?



bigger version