[Rondec]

I think on APS-C I much prefer the 55mm focal length. I don't own the 43, but I do own the DA 40 as well and it just feels neither here nor there, while the 55 is enough longer that it works better for things like portraits. It does work decently on full frame, although it has quite a bit of vignetting between f1.4 and f2. I also own the FA 31 and FA 77 and the DA *55 feels like it splits the difference between the two better than the FA 43, which is a lot closer to the FA 31. Finally, I do notice less purple fringing with the DA *55 than with the FA limiteds, for what it is worth.

I think both lenses are really good and to me the bigger question is which focal length will work better for you. If you have a zoom that covers both, set it to 40-ish mm for a few days and shoot with it and then set it to 55-ish mm for a few days and shoot with that and see which feels more comfortable. That is probably more important than which lens is "better."

[Na Horuk]

I think we had threads that compare these lenses before. Feel free to search for them. I seem to remember one was quite detailed, with lots of owners of both chiming in, and some posting sample photos.
Differences were in CA and fringing, bokeh character, DoF (55mm is more telephoto and has faster max aperture).. and of course features. DA* has some premium features, so if you need silent AF or if you need WR, then this is your choice.
Both are great, beloved lenses. I dont think either will be terribly disappointing. And regardless which one you buy, you will still want to get the other one some time later.

I would use it for portraits.

Then you probably want the DA* 55mm. 43mm is quite a bit more wider, and portraiture is classically done with 85mm-135mm lenses on FF, and 55mm-85mm lenses on APSC.
I remember some portraiture photographer saying he would never us a 50mm for portraiture, that it is simply too wide, and has too much distortion/working distance problems even on APSC. He claimed 55mm is the minimum. So it comes down to how nitpicky you are

[Nicolas06]

I remember some portraiture photographer saying he would never us a 50mm for portraiture, that it is simply too wide, and has too much distortion/working distance problems even on APSC. He claimed 55mm is the minimum. So it comes down to how nitpicky you are

True that 55 is very nice portrait focal length.

But honestly, that also higly depend the type of portrait you do. On APSC I think you could do fine 24-35mm for a full body or environemental portrait. But if you are after head & shoulders you want at least 55mm (APSC), better something even longer like FA77 or then indoor without much space to back up. For a really tight portrait or event when you need reach, I'am quite happy with 135mm on APSC (200mm on FF). I get more subject separation, even at a modest f/2.8 and I can get the narrow shoot/reach I want.

FA31 & FA43 would be ideal for 3/4 or taking 2-4 people together and indoor the shorter focal length help when you want to have more in the frame.

What is also very important and Rondec said is that this is also quite subjective. I never really liked 50mm on APSC. And I enjoy 77mm for many occasions. To me 50-55mm is either too short or too long. But many prefer 50-55mm. So what is to understand what YOU like rather than get advice from what others like

[GlennG]

What do you think?

From what you say, why do you need either? You got your portrait lens in the 77, and your walk about lens with the 31. Sounds like you are set. I've neither of those two great lenses, by the way, or the 43 or 55, also great. I'm just wondering why you think you have to spend your money when you don't have to spend your money? Oh, wait....I just re-read your post and you have LBA. Well, never mind then - correct answer is to get both, of course.

[redcat]

surpass my sisters $14000 Nikon lens.

what ??? what Nikon lens costs $14000 ???

[Siegfried]

Hi, Condor.
Since you already have got other FA limiteds, then you should be aware of what to expect from FA43. I don't have this lens, but I do have got the DA*55 (and three DA limiteds too):
- DA*55 is not fast on focus (if I had to then I'd bet my money on the FA43 to be slightly faster), but it is quiet. It isn't slow, but it isn't fast either;
- DA*55 has got that naughty backlash on the focus ring in the MF which isn't that awful, but don't expect to get any joy when manually focusing this lens - MF is workable, but not exciting (FA limiteds - or DA limiteds - don't have this MF freeplay in the focus ring). Focus throw is around 120-145 degrees, this isn't a MF-lens from ol' film days, but it's significantly better in this regard then most modern DA lenses, even DA limiteds, though I don't how it compares to FA lims;
- in terms of resolution at f=1/1.4 it is just a good ordinary F1.4 lens, not a bad one, but not something astonishing. One stop down and it noticeably improves and in the f=1/2.8-1/5.6 range it really shines;
- all the limiteds are very nice at tactile level - like when you do the MF thing and such - until it goes really cold around. At -10F you can your fingers literary and literally iced to the lens and your skin will peel off when you remove your hand off the lens, which doesn't happen with plastic-coated DA* lenses like DA*55.

All in all, I bought the DA*55 specially for portraits and for portraits only and I'm quite happy with this purchase. I've listed all the cons above (I added one FA con for a sake of balance) so if you're ok with them, then go for it and you'll be happy with its pros (like color rendering, bokeh, level of aberrations, flare-resistance and so on). If you feel like you are not quite ok with those cons, then go with the FA43 and that's it.

Zig

[condor27596]

what ??? what Nikon lens costs $14000 ???

I do not know myself. I know she had a sigma that was $9000 and traded it in the Nikon was near $14000. Maybe it was $12000 used $14000 new. I forget honestly.

She always gets the " best one " so whatever that is that's it. I don't even remember the size 200 or 300 mm comes to mind but it is 5 inches around? And 8 inches long ?

I can't give better details. Her dad always bought her things like this ( I think the camera body was $8000) when she tells me about it my ears just hear the Charlie Brown teacher voice.

---------- Post added 07-24-16 at 05:52 PM ----------

Thank you zig !

I was more thinking I wanted to see how it does at the portrait level being kinda 85 mm. I'm encouraged to hear that you use yours for portraits and are happy. I have an HD 40. It's nice for carry around but I didn't like the portrait with it.

The 77 does exactly what I want. But you have to be so far back. The 31 is perfect for two people, full body, etc.

I want something in the middle. Something for 1/2 body shots outside as well as Santa, etc, inside.

I do not focus manually. I'm still temped to get the fa 43.

I need to get it in the mail very soon for the birthday portrait.

[bassek]

what ??? what Nikon lens costs $14000 ???

They have a Nikkor 400/2.8 with AF on sale here at 12999...

I really like my FA43 for walkaround.

Seb