[pinholecam]

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.[COLOR="Silver"]
.

Separation wise, I think the 43ltd is less strong than the FA50/1.4, 77ltd, 31ltd.

I like to use my lenses a bit stopped down (0.3-1 stop to get little bit better bokeh, sharpness and enough DOF)

Here is an example of how the FA31ltd is really something special when it comes to a wide that makes the subject pop, all while stopped down f2.8


The environ of the subject in view to give context, the subject at about half body (ie. not a that up close shot ), but that subject to bkgnd separation is still very apparent.


This one with the 43ltd at about the same f2 or f2.8.


I just don't find that the bkgnd smoothly drops off as well, nor does the subject pop as much as compared to the purposely imposed 'flaws' of the 31ltd.
The central sharpness and weaker off-center, the drawing style and strong contrast of the 31ltd just makes the subject stand out more imo.
This is what I feel the designer of the 31ltd had in mind when he talked about using a pictorial assessment of a lens over just a numerical based one.


Now, this is with the humble FA50/1.4 stopped down to f1.8.


Its the reason why I find that the humble 50mm shines on FF.
Highly versatile, and that right combi of FL, fast aperture to give the shallow DOF enough to make subjects pop in many situations.



So in all, the 43ltd on FF to me is great as a portable lens, good 'reportage' style FOV, with some 'normal' like 50mm qualities as well.
For 'pop' and separation using shallow DOF and sharpness/contrast on the subject and sharpness falloff on the off-center, even the FA50 is stronger, imo.

---

Last edited by pinholecam; 11-08-2017 at 02:26 AM.

[Munki]

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.

Well, I never said being clinical was a bad thing...Mainly because as macro lenses, that's precisely what you want/expect from them. Sometimes the macro lenses can be brutally detailed to the point you need to soften images. I'm sad that I've passed on my DFA 50 and 100 (non-WR version), but no doubt will be getting the WR version some time down the track. I think you've pretty much convinced yourself that you don't need the 43, to be honest. If you ever have an ounce of hesitation, I say wait until you no longer have any before you commit to a purchase.

[ffking]

This isn't about the two lenses in question, because I don't own either, but I do own the other two FA Ltds and the 100mm macro, as well as the modern 24-70 and 70-200, and for, it's totally about what type of picture you are taking: the Ltds are Street lenses - light and small with amazing 3-D pop and spades of character - they can make your images really stand out - the flatter lenses are best for considered work, whether landscape or portraiture, where IQ rather than character is paramount. That's how I use them, anyway.

[BarryE]

Separation wise, I think the 43ltd is less strong than the FA50/1.4, 77ltd, 31ltd.

I like to use my lenses a bit stopped down (0.3-1 stop to get little bit better bokeh, sharpness and enough DOF)

Here is an example of how the FA31ltd is really something special when it comes to a wide that makes the subject pop, all while stopped down f2.8


The environ of the subject in view to give context, the subject at about half body (ie. not a that up close shot ), but that subject to bkgnd separation is still very apparent.


This one with the 43ltd at about the same f2 or f2.8.


I just don't find that the bkgnd smoothly drops off as well, nor does the subject pop as much as compared to the purposely imposed 'flaws' of the 31ltd.
The central sharpness and weaker off-center, the drawing style and strong contrast of the 31ltd just makes the subject stand out more imo.
This is what I feel the designer of the 31ltd had in mind when he talked about using a pictorial assessment of a lens over just a numerical based one.


Now, this is with the humble FA50/1.4 stopped down to f1.8.


Its the reason why I find that the humble 50mm shines on FF.
Highly versatile, and that right combi of FL, fast aperture to give the shallow DOF enough to make subjects pop in many situations.



So in all, the 43ltd on FF to me is great as a portable lens, good 'reportage' style FOV, with some 'normal' like 50mm qualities as well.
For 'pop' and separation using shallow DOF and sharpness/contrast on the subject and sharpness falloff on the off-center, even the FA50 is stronger, imo.

Again thanks for taking the time. From these shots I can see what you're trying to portray. I've just run a few test shots using a 77 against the D-FA 50 f2.8 macro, to compare the separation. The difference appear subtle. Zoom in on screen to the out of focus background and they look similar, however, when comparing how the subject stands out from the background these 'subtle background differences' somehow seem to project the subject forwards in the 77. I take the point that 43 may not match the 77's separation as much, but I suspect it's better than my 50 in this respect. How much, I'd like to know. Maybe I should hire one ... ?

---------- Post added 11-08-17 at 03:26 PM ----------

This isn't about the two lenses in question, because I don't own either, but I do own the other two Ltds and the 100mm macro, as well as the modern 24-70 and 70-200, and for, it's totally about what type of picture you are taking: the Ltds are Street lenses - light and small with amazing 3-D pop and spades of character - they can make your images really stand out - the flatter lenses are best for considered work, whether landscape or portraiture, where IQ rather than character is paramount. That's how I use them, anyway.

That seems to summarise the differences. Mostly I do the considered style, but map 'street' to 'isolated, coloured leaf against a multi-coloured, wet background' style of shot and my 77 creates a different image to my newer lenses. So I'm thinking the 43's in the reckoning as it will be closer in IQ to the 77, as opposed to my newer or macro lenses.. All I need is SRS to offer in its next sale ... Thanks.

---

Last edited by BarryE; 11-08-2017 at 08:38 AM.

[bdery]

I have read that the DA 40 can work for FF

It does. Corners are soft, and you loose the camera's built-in corrections, but it certainly works.

[Glen]

I sold my FA 43. Usually when I sell a lens I get around half of what I paid and that is after a long wait. The FA 43 sold for slightly more than I paid. That said, it's the only lens that I regret selling. It was fine for a walk around prime and excellent for portraits. My only complaint is the old felt style lens cap. It was quite loose so I worried that it would fall off. It never happened though.

[pschlute]

It does. Corners are soft, and you loose the camera's built-in corrections, but it certainly works.

...and it makes the kit considerably lighter !

[Fabian]

Great insights here from pinholecam. I actually viewed quite a few of your pictures on flickr before deciding to get a K-1 and Ltd primes (rather than a d810 with 1.8 primes). It influenced my decision, so it's nice to read your thoughts on them here. Nice work.

[sculptor666]

i have both, i'll post sample pics under same cicumstances later today.

[bdery]

My only complaint is the old felt style lens cap. It was quite loose so I worried that it would fall off. It never happened though.

I will speak heresy...

In order to keep the lens small, and given the circumstances where I use it more, I do not use either the dedicated cap nor hood on the FA 43mm. I use a generic 43mm cap, and no hood. I find that for what I do with it, contrast is not compromised and flare is a non-issue. So there.

[sculptor666]

i put a bunch here: temp | Flickr

flickr gave me some problems uploading... anyway, three not-to-different scenarios 41mm at 1.9, 2.8, 10, 22 and 50mm at 2.8, 10, and 22... and close focus comparison at f10. the exif info should be there, but all were with the k-1, both lenses with their hoods on, nso camera correction, all processed the same way. for me, they render colors pretty much the same, so i don't end up using the 43 much unless i'm going to a city or a concert... then it's always in my pocket. neither are very expensive. i had the 40mm for a day... bought from bh who listed it as the hd version(it wasn't)... it wasn't any better with ca, so i sent it back.

i don't used the ltd/felt cap either.... i have a ricoh plastic cap from a 50 or 28mm that fits over the hood perfectly (not a pinch style cap)

[leekil]

The 43 is my default full-frame lens (unless I explicitly want something wider, or a zoom) due to the combination of size, speed, and rendering. I do use the 40mm when I want the absolute smallest kit for carrying, but that is rare these days in that the additional benefits of the 43 are usually sufficient to overcome the extra size in all but very specific cases.

I mostly photograph people at reasonably close range, and therefore the slightly wider field of view (compared to a 50mm) is helpful as well.

[monochrome]

I will speak heresy...

In order to keep the lens small, and given the circumstances where I use it more, I do not use either the dedicated cap nor hood on the FA 43mm. I use a generic 43mm cap, and no hood. I find that for what I do with it, contrast is not compromised and flare is a non-issue. So there.

I believe I have used the Standard 49mm plastic clip-on hood and cap with my FA43.

[mikesbike]

The degree and gradation of background blur is going to be different between these lenses due to their being of different focal length alone. Into the mix comes the distance of the background behind the subject, the effect of which is different based on the FL of the lenses. As far as the quality of that blur (bokeh), that of the FA 77mm (probably the champion), and the FA 31mm Limiteds are rated superb. The FA 35mm is rated excellent as well, all according to lens tests, while the FA 43mm Limited comes in as good to very good- not quite perfect with certain backgrounds. It apparently improves when stopped down slightly, which is still very effective especially when the background is some distance behind the subject. The fast F and FA 50mm lenses do very well also.

Of course there are other important factors to consider. In reality, a 50mm lens is still very slightly tele even on a FF body. The 43mm FL is more true normal. In practical use, it allows a little more into the frame than a 50mm, and is thus more versatile for all-around use. True normal also means it has normal perspective. That is, background objects appear the same size relative to the foreground as would be seen by the naked eye from that spot, as is the apparent front-to-back depth of buildings and other objects. This gives a more overall realistic look to a photo of a scene. Nothing else can replicate this natural look. Like others, for maximum compactness, I sometimes go without the hood and use a 49mm cap instead. As the late Herbert Keppler said, the best lens hood is shading with your hat or other nearby overhead protrusions. You can achieve this look only with a 28mm lens on APS-C, but you cannot get a fast 28mm lens as compact and as well-built as the FA 43mm Limited, and having its fine imaging qualities.

The FA 35mm f/2 is also very versatile and useful on a FF body, especially for all-around scenics and general use. But it there will often be some detectable wide-angle perspective distortion in a scene if one takes a good look. Yet, the wider angle lets us get more in, without being so wide the perspective makes background objects seem overly distant, and front-to-back exaggeration too elongated. One of my most used primes for my 35mm film bodies.

[pinholecam]

Great insights here from pinholecam. I actually viewed quite a few of your pictures on flickr before deciding to get a K-1 and Ltd primes (rather than a d810 with 1.8 primes). It influenced my decision, so it's nice to read your thoughts on them here. Nice work.

Glad to be of help.

A Pentax camera and some small primes is really a nice setup.