[BarryE]

Having come to the FA Limited party late, I'm in the process of discovering the 77's ability to 'render' or 'draw' or whatever term you care to use to describe its image quality. Add into the question mix how impressed I am with the D-FA 50 f2.8 macro's precision and flatness across the frame which I find very useful ... Now here comes the question after this background opening ...

I appreciate it's subjective, but - can anyone comment on how the FA 43 compares with the D-FA 50 macro ? I know the characteristics of the 50 well and love its accuracy across the frame. Now I appreciate the way the 77's subjects somehow seem to stand out from the background. I know the 43 would not be as flat across the frame as the 50 is. I reckon the 43 would probably disappoint if I was to try and use it as I do with my 50, relying on its trusted flat plane of focus. But for other type of images, maybe more creative ones where the subject needs to pop, would I see a rather different image rendered from the 43 ? Or would the difference be marginal ?

Does this question make sense ?

[6BQ5]

The FA Limited lenses were not designed with many optical corrections we take for granted in most lenses. I can't remember all the details but it was something like vertical aberrations were corrected but horizontal were left alone. There's a white paper floating around the interweb that documents all of that. This was done on purpose. The resulting images look like how we remember the scene vs. how we see the scene.

That doesn't mean the images aren't razor sharp, especially in the center. They are indeed sharp!

I think the "pop" we always talk about is how the lens transitions from sharp details to creamy bokeh. Think of how a 3-D object "defocuses" as features find themselves at different distance from the focus point. Designing that kind of bokeh is not trivial and I think imitating how the mind sees a blurry background is a challenge!

The macro lens has all the corrections missing in the FA Limited lenses. It's a different kind of sharpness with much, much less distortion. It may not transition from sharp to blurry in the same way.

[08amczb]

I like my 43, it produces some magical images. (For portraits the DA*55 is a little better sometimes.) It's one of my most used lenses.
Here are some recent examples (images taken by my KP):

[Ole]

Great images in the above post!

If you need more you can use our photo search tool. The link I provided is set to display all photos on PF taken with the 43mm.

[Na Horuk]

The macro is optimized for flat field of focus and high sharpness across the frame even at narrow apertures; things important for macro work.
The FA limited is optimized for pleasing photos with character and bokeh; things important for general beautiful photography.
If you shoot raw and do heavy PP these differences can be minimized.
You should get both, eventually. Some day. Until then you can get wildly different lenses, like super telephoto and ultra wide and fast aperture and old manual glass with odd character.. its called Lens buying addiction. Enjoy your stay.

[mikesbike]

I bought both my FA 43mm and 77mm Limiteds for 35mm film use while DSLR development still had a way to go before I would consider getting one. I've found the 77mm LTD just as useful with a DSLR, while for me the 43mm while still very fine, becomes a short tele on an APS-C body instead of a more versatile semi-wide normal.

You might consider the DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited instead, if using APS-C, and not doing a great deal of low-light or high-speed photography and needing the f/1.9 aperture. The DA 40mm LTD has a very good reputation for edge-to-edge sharpness, even wide open. It is also one of the smallest lenses you can mount on your camera, and its 40mm presents a little wider FOV compared with the 43mm.

Another option, for a non-tele, fast normal lens for APS-C, and a fast wide-angle lens for FF, the FA 35mm f/2 is a great choice. great for low-light photography as well. Assuming you get a good copy of course, edge-to-edge performance is excellent even wide open at f/2, and bokeh is excellent also. The bokeh of your 77mm Limited, however, is absolutely top-notch, but then that is also a totally different focal length, so the uses are going to be very different. I now have all 4.

[Munki]

I've always felt the DFA 50 (and 100) were quite clinical compared to the more artistic nature of the FA limiteds. Maybe that's just me though.

[pinholecam]

The 43ltd is the more 'technical' of the 3 ltds imo.

Its benefits are small size, rather even sharpness at wider apertures (or 1 stop down) and FL between 35mm and 50mm.
Sharpish 50mm like qualities stopped down.
Probably the weakest amongst the 3 ltds for bokeh and subject separation (flatter field) imo.

That said, I do like it a lot.

[robjmitchell]

The magic of the 43ltd comes from the 3D pop it can give to your subject. The trick is to stop down the lens so your subject completely in focus (f2.8-5.6)while the background is only slightly out of focus, like a photojournalistic image. The 43ltd does this better than any other lens i know of. It also produces a different style of image wide open, a sort of softer low contrast style. Its actually sharper in the corners than reviewers give it credit for as it has a lot of field curvature. Like all the FA ltds it also produces lovely skin tones and excels at dusk/dawn landscapes.

[Kozlok]

Buy one used, sell it for the same price if you don’t like it. I love mine, but it’s more about colors than anything else. It’s just beautiful.

[bdery]

I'm in the process of discovering the 77's ability to 'render' or 'draw' or whatever term you care to use to describe its image quality.

The 43 renders in much the same way, although the 77's DOF in similar conditions is narrower of course.

can anyone comment on how the FA 43 compares with the D-FA 50 macro ?

Different animals. The 50 is sharp across the frame, the 43 is not. Both are comparable in the center (the macro probably has the advantage but both are very good). At smaller apertures the 43 becomes almost as good in the corners and edges.

However, the 50 is more "clinical" in its rendering. Neutral, reliable, but it might lack some "personality" when compared. The 77, 43 and 31's images seem to pop more, they have a 3D rendering (and that's not just fanboys talking: the design was optimized in part to line up the colours in the out-of-focus areas, creating a rather unique bokeh and improving subject isolation).

I know the 43 would not be as flat across the frame as the 50 is.

Correct.

But for other type of images, maybe more creative ones where the subject needs to pop, would I see a rather different image rendered from the 43 ? Or would the difference be marginal ?

I believe you would see a difference. The sentence above describes just what the 43 will give you.

the only non-Limited lens (I'd even say non-FA Limited lens) coming close to the same rendering as the 31, 43 and 77 is the DFA 100 macro WR.

[BarryE]

One of the best ways to evaluate a lens's characteristics in a variety of real world scenarios is to simply type the lens name into flickr and start scrolling through examples. Since you have many photographers with different styles and levels of ability, it gives a good sense of the overall performance of a lens.

Good idea. Thanks.

---------- Post added 11-07-17 at 08:00 PM ----------

The FA Limited lenses were not designed with many optical corrections we take for granted in most lenses. I can't remember all the details but it was something like vertical aberrations were corrected but horizontal were left alone. There's a white paper floating around the interweb that documents all of that. This was done on purpose. The resulting images look like how we remember the scene vs. how we see the scene.

That doesn't mean the images aren't razor sharp, especially in the center. They are indeed sharp!

I think the "pop" we always talk about is how the lens transitions from sharp details to creamy bokeh. Think of how a 3-D object "defocuses" as features find themselves at different distance from the focus point. Designing that kind of bokeh is not trivial and I think imitating how the mind sees a blurry background is a challenge!

The macro lens has all the corrections missing in the FA Limited lenses. It's a different kind of sharpness with much, much less distortion. It may not transition from sharp to blurry in the same way.

What you say is along the lines of what I've gleaned. I shouldn't be that surprised as to how the 77 has performed, really should I This pop is the subjective question I'm trying to determine about the 43. All helps. Thanks for taking the time to reply ...

---------- Post added 11-07-17 at 08:01 PM ----------

I like my 43, it produces some magical images. (For portraits the DA*55 is a little better sometimes.) It's one of my most used lenses.
Here are some recent examples (images taken by my KP):

Some nice sample there. Helps me decide. Thanks.

---------- Post added 11-07-17 at 08:03 PM ----------

The macro is optimized for flat field of focus and high sharpness across the frame even at narrow apertures; things important for macro work.
The FA limited is optimized for pleasing photos with character and bokeh; things important for general beautiful photography.
If you shoot raw and do heavy PP these differences can be minimized.
You should get both, eventually. Some day. Until then you can get wildly different lenses, like super telephoto and ultra wide and fast aperture and old manual glass with odd character.. its called Lens buying addiction. Enjoy your stay.

Thanks. Your PP statement is, to be truthful, what was I wondering ... The WBA is not a problem. I can stop buying anytime I like

---------- Post added 11-07-17 at 08:06 PM ----------

I bought both my FA 43mm and 77mm Limiteds for 35mm film use while DSLR development still had a way to go before I would consider getting one. I've found the 77mm LTD just as useful with a DSLR, while for me the 43mm while still very fine, becomes a short tele on an APS-C body instead of a more versatile semi-wide normal.

You might consider the DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited instead, if using APS-C, and not doing a great deal of low-light or high-speed photography and needing the f/1.9 aperture. The DA 40mm LTD has a very good reputation for edge-to-edge sharpness, even wide open. It is also one of the smallest lenses you can mount on your camera, and its 40mm presents a little wider FOV compared with the 43mm.

Another option, for a non-tele, fast normal lens for APS-C, and a fast wide-angle lens for FF, the FA 35mm f/2 is a great choice. great for low-light photography as well. Assuming you get a good copy of course, edge-to-edge performance is excellent even wide open at f/2, and bokeh is excellent also. The bokeh of your 77mm Limited, however, is absolutely top-notch, but then that is also a totally different focal length, so the uses are going to be very different. I now have all 4.

Thanks, Mike. It's for FF, so not the DA 40. Your getting '4' reference is what worries me, as I re-organise my APSC collection to FF - it's starting to hurt ...

---------- Post added 11-07-17 at 08:10 PM ----------

I've always felt the DFA 50 (and 100) were quite clinical compared to the more artistic nature of the FA limiteds. Maybe that's just me though.

Thanks. I agree, about the clinical but it has it's advantages, especially as some of the work I do is accurate botanical imagery. Also the 50 allows a FF image to be cropped to the edge, if the original composition is not 100% and still print large. But the 77 (and possible the 43) is creating different ways to approach things.

---------- Post added 11-07-17 at 08:14 PM ----------

The 43ltd is the more 'technical' of the 3 ltds imo.

Its benefits are small size, rather even sharpness at wider apertures (or 1 stop down) and FL between 35mm and 50mm.
Sharpish 50mm like qualities stopped down.
Probably the weakest amongst the 3 ltds for bokeh and subject separation (flatter field) imo.

That said, I do like it a lot.

Nice samples. Thanks. Your comment about it possible being the weakest of the 3 as far as separation is where the uncertainty has arisen. I wondered if anyone would say this as it was a background thought that I'd had. The separation of the 77 is where I see it's quality. The 43, perhaps being less, and the ability to PP the 50 to get closer to this separation creates some doubt about the 43s step up from the 43 to what I'm looking for.

---------- Post added 11-07-17 at 08:16 PM ----------

The magic of the 43ltd comes from the 3D pop it can give to your subject. The trick is to stop down the lens so your subject completely in focus (f2.8-5.6)while the background is only slightly out of focus, like a photojournalistic image. The 43ltd does this better than any other lens i know of. It also produces a different style of image wide open, a sort of softer low contrast style. Its actually sharper in the corners than reviewers give it credit for as it has a lot of field curvature. Like all the FA ltds it also produces lovely skin tones and excels at dusk/dawn landscapes.

Thanks Rob, that pushes me back towards the 43 as I work through the responses.

---------- Post added 11-07-17 at 08:23 PM ----------

The 43 renders in much the same way, although the 77's DOF in similar conditions is narrower of course.



Different animals. The 50 is sharp across the frame, the 43 is not. Both are comparable in the center (the macro probably has the advantage but both are very good). At smaller apertures the 43 becomes almost as good in the corners and edges.

However, the 50 is more "clinical" in its rendering. Neutral, reliable, but it might lack some "personality" when compared. The 77, 43 and 31's images seem to pop more, they have a 3D rendering (and that's not just fanboys talking: the design was optimized in part to line up the colours in the out-of-focus areas, creating a rather unique bokeh and improving subject isolation).



Correct.



I believe you would see a difference. The sentence above describes just what the 43 will give you.

the only non-Limited lens (I'd even say non-FA Limited lens) coming close to the same rendering as the 31, 43 and 77 is the DFA 100 macro WR.

Thanks. This special rendering is what I'm considering. I do a fair amount of accurate botanical work for sale, and the 50's clinical, accuracy is first rate for this. Getting the creative edge that the 43 seems might well offer, is pushing me towards it I'm one-in-one--out as far as lens buying is concerned, so to get the 43 would require me to sell a little used DA as a move to FF, just so I don't have too many lens filling my camera cupboard, and risk questions being asked about why I need another lens. Decisions. Decisions.

---------- Post added 11-07-17 at 08:52 PM ----------

I know what I'll do ... I'll set up a few test shots of the 77 and 50 and see how close I can make the 59 perform like the 77 for its 3d and out of focus planes and see how they compare - difference in FL compensated for. Maybe PP the shots to see how close I can possibly make them. This might give me an idea how the 43, might perform. I can try narrow dof, into the light (my favourite style of shots), up close etc etc. Will be interesting to see what comes of this experiment. Don't when I'll get the time, though...

[bdery]

I'm one-in-one--out as far as lens buying is concerned

I'm more or less like that too, except my reasoning is that I should have no duplicate functions. If a new lens serves a new purpose, it can stay, otherwise it's a replacement indeed.

[beachgardener]

yes different tools for different jobs, they might be similar focal lengths but render differently.

[mikesbike]

I have read that the DA 40 can work for FF, though I've not tried it myself. I've had the 43mm LTD for many years, having plenty of use on my film bodies, especially the compact MZ-S and ZX-L models, but a few years back got a great reduced price deal (quite cheap) for the tiny DA 40mm LTD when the HD version came out. I took that deal for when I want to go as tiny as I can get in terms of a pocketable DSLR (DA 40 + DA 21mm LTD set) which I can accommodate into large jacket pockets, including on a small camera body like the K-S2. And it is very good for edge-to-edge sharpness.

But yes, the FA 43mm LTD is a very versatile, fine lens for FF use, which is what it was designed for. If I should get a K-1 or its successor, it will see more use for sure!