[BarryE]

I'll try and get time to take some shots with the 43 to see if I can get the sort of image I'm looking for and report back, if anyone is interested. In the meantime here's a couple of examples of what I'm referring to. Hope they've uploaded properly. Could the 43 do this ? Guess I'll find out soon enough ...

(Edit> the first and last are macro lenses and the middle one is a weak at the edges zoom, which managed to be fine as the frost naturally sharpened it)

Here's an example that I've sold a few times when printed at A1 size (33"): Taken on the 50 at f11. It has detail from edge to edge in the focal plane and recession that blurs away.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/images/pentaxforums/attach/jpg.gif

And another one that's taken not with the 50, but shows the edge to edge and recession I've referred to - again I've sold several of these at 33"
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/421116d1535703012-what-all-about-fa-43-limited-sample-1.jpg

Ditto this image:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/421117d1535703269-what-all-about-fa-43-limited-sample-2.jpg

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by BarryE; 08-31-2018 at 03:51 AM.

[Pikselisiirto]

Pentax should had made DFA*43 instead DFA*50 because I find 50 a bit too narrow and 35 is a bit too wide. 43mm focal length is uncommon, so they didn't want to risk it I guess, but it would had made Pentax a bit special just like it is with the K-1 and KP.

[pid]

... and don't forget, that Macrolenses often are not as good with far objects. They are optimized for near objects.

[bassek]

Macros are sharper but my FA43 is simply SHARP ENOUGH. And gives reliable results, not too many shots goes directly into trash bin.

Seb

[BarryE]

... and don't forget, that Macrolenses often are not as good with far objects. They are optimized for near objects.

I've heard that, but the D-FA 50 and 100 are both fine with distant objects I find, and anyway aerial perspective generally clobbers distance
.

[noelpolar]

I reach for the 43 a bit for landscape shots..... but more about mood then resolution or sharpness.... mostly f4 to f11 ish....

[BarryE]

I reach for the 43 a bit for landscape shots..... but more about mood then resolution or sharpness.... mostly f4 to f11 ish....

They are very nice. Moody is probably my preferred style and the 43 clearly does that. However, when I'm at art & craft fairs, time and again I find sharpness is what most buyers are attracted to. The dreamy, misty shot, perhaps leaning to a monotone, often doesn't get the response I need, sadly.

[clickclick]

I've heard that, but the D-FA 50 and 100 are both fine with distant objects I find, and anyway aerial perspective generally clobbers distance
.

Have you everr used the 31 Limited? I'm wondering if it would be more of what you are looking for. Perhaps not as sharp as the macro on edges, but a wonderful lens with a lot of feel to it.

[bdery]

Anyone got the two lenses and feels the 43mm may better the 50mm in IQ ?

I have a high amount of respect for the FA 50mm macro. It's one of the lenses I sometimes miss (replaced it, and a manual 135mm, with the DFA 100mm macro). It's indeed a bit clinical but reliable, sharp across the frame, with smooth bokeh.

But I like the FA 43 more. Aperture, size, weight, AF speed are of course differences. But I like its rendering more. Its colors pack a punch and I, for one, find it hard to reproduce its rendering in post-processing. The way it handles out-of-focus blur is superb, but it's the TRANSITIONS that really set the FA Limited apart.

[kernos]

Noelporter, that first photo at the beach is just awe inspiring.

[clickclick]

The way it handles out-of-focus blur is superb, but it's the TRANSITIONS that really set the FA Limited apart.

Agree. As part of my LBA enjoyment, I often will swap betwen lenses when shooting the same flower(s). A typical chorus might include my Sigma Art 35, 43 ltd, and CZJ Biotar, and they are all distinct and wonderful in their own way, but the 43 just hits the spot. If I am only grabbing one of the three, the 43 would be it.

Of course, this is a very different use than landscapes, but it's part of what's great about LBA. There's a reason to have a variety of choices in the kit.

[clackers]

... and don't forget, that Macrolenses often are not as good with far objects. They are optimized for near objects.

With floating elements (introduced by Nikon decades ago) that isn't true.

[BarryE]

I have a high amount of respect for the FA 50mm macro. It's one of the lenses I sometimes miss (replaced it, and a manual 135mm, with the DFA 100mm macro). It's indeed a bit clinical but reliable, sharp across the frame, with smooth bokeh.

But I like the FA 43 more. Aperture, size, weight, AF speed are of course differences. But I like its rendering more. Its colors pack a punch and I, for one, find it hard to reproduce its rendering in post-processing. The way it handles out-of-focus blur is superb, but it's the TRANSITIONS that really set the FA Limited apart.

You may well be right about the transitions - this subtlety is often missed in a quick comparison. It's akin to printing on different papers, some have good tonal transitions, but cannot match the contrast (d-max) of others. Overtime, the tonal characteristics win for me as the image seems to grow more with a longer viewing. However, my problem is when customers visit my stands, it is all too often that they are primed for high impact, in-your-face images - I struggle with this as I prefer subtle tones.

I need more time to see what I can discover with the 43 ...

[leekil]

Taken on the 50 at f11. It has detail from edge to edge in the focal plane and recession that blurs away.

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you are talking about with your three sample images. They are a bit low-res for the amount of detail in the images, so everything comes up a bit pixelly, and it's hard for me to tell exactly what is in focus -- not that much looks out of focus. But looking at your EXIF, if you're using apertures like 14 and 11, then basically isn't practically *everything* in focus? I'm not seeing the "plane of focus" I was expecting; in the first one, maybe the line of trees and everything in front of it is in focus, but the far background is not? In the second one, similar, where everything up to the trees past the fence is in focus? In the third, presumably the plane of tree is in focus, but the pixellation makes it hard to tell. If you used f11 or 14 on the 43, I would think you could get the same effect as the rest two photos, but maybe you would have to focus on a slightly different spot?

Your second one I particularly like, but that isn't because of the focus, it's because of the moody, misty look.

[BarryE]

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you are talking about with your three sample images. They are a bit low-res for the amount of detail in the images, so everything comes up a bit pixelly, and it's hard for me to tell exactly what is in focus -- not that much looks out of focus. But looking at your EXIF, if you're using apertures like 14 and 11, then basically isn't practically *everything* in focus? I'm not seeing the "plane of focus" I was expecting; in the first one, maybe the line of trees and everything in front of it is in focus, but the far background is not? In the second one, similar, where everything up to the trees past the fence is in focus? In the third, presumably the plane of tree is in focus, but the pixellation makes it hard to tell. If you used f11 or 14 on the 43, I would think you could get the same effect as the rest two photos, but maybe you would have to focus on a slightly different spot?

Your second one I particularly like, but that isn't because of the focus, it's because of the moody, misty look.

Hi Lee, I only had the low res ones to hand, sorry.

Yes they are at f11, I tend to use between f8 and f11 for these types of landscapes, dropping to wider apertures if I want to emphasise the planes - these were not especially good examples of this. However, taking 1 and 2, when printed large, both with macro lenses, the trees on the edges are sharp. The distant path in the first is blurring as it recedes. In the third the background is blurring. Both have been focused at a mid-near point, to let the distance go a little. So my thoughts are that the 43, would naturally produce the same back to front sharpness in the centre, but the edges would also be a little blurred, because it seems to be set-up to give emphasise to a central subject. Thus the effects of a plane of slightly out-of-focus, moving to pin sharp across the frame, followed by planes becoming blurred, would not be possibly with the 43, at least to the same extent as the macro(s).

I need to experiment some more in a few days time, particularly looking at the edges and the transitions.

Thanks for keeping interested.