[BarryE]

I've just a had play with a FA 43mm limited on a K-1. After a minor AF adjustment and conformation that the lens was uniform, I ran a few tests against my D-FA 50mm f2.8 macro.

First off the colours of the 50mm were much duller, but that was easily resolved in post to look very similar to the FA 43mm.

Then a check for image sharpness. In the centre, the 50mm shaded it from f 2.8 to f 11 but then after as diffraction started to occur the 50mm got better and better in comparison. On the edges the difference was significant. The 50mm is sharp from f2.8 and the 43mm only got close at about f8, but only close.

So to the supposed 3D effect of the limited ... Well I'm not so far convinced the 43mm is any better than the 50mm. Because the 50mm is so sharp across the frame this gives a nice 3D effect, especially with foliage, as there is a clear distinction between the plane in focus and the planes out of focus. With the 43mm it's less distinct as it's not as sharp.

I haven't pushed the comparisons with especially tricky lighting, yet.

Bokeh ? Early days, but yes the 43mm may be better, as the 50mm is a little clinical.

The 43mm is obviously a nicer lens to handle and look at, and focusing is quicker (though it does seem to miss quite a lot). The 43mm is probably a lot more robust, which might be handy.

Robustness is important to me as my 50mm is an essential lens for my studio work and I don't like risking it outside, so I thought I'd compare it with a 43mm. Maybe, for the price I'll end up with two 50s, one for indoor work and one for more general stuff if the 43mm doesn't raise its game.

So where might I see better IQ from the FA 43 than the D-FA 50 macro - I'm obviously ignoring the availability of wider apertures with the 43mm ? Anyone got the two lenses and feels the 43mm may better the 50mm in IQ ? Or is the 50mm just a better performing, though ugly (I actually like it as it looks so old fashioned and clunky) lens ?

EDIT> perhaps I should add I was expecting to see the 43 behaving not that dissimilar to the 50 between f8 and f13 as this is where it's most important to me. The wider apertures are where I expect to work harder for a shot and where compromises and more creativity is required and I can work with that. Between f8 and f13 it's more about the composition and getting as good an image as I can to work with in post. Roughly speaking ;-)

Any views ?

---

Last edited by BarryE; 08-30-2018 at 02:45 PM.

[pid]

Do not judge the FA 43 for sharpness or edge resolution. It follows another principle that objects have a three-dimensional shape. Take a portrait for example with both lenses and judge which looks more appealing. Only then can one recognize the strength of the FA43 Ltd. and the FA77 Ltd.

[BarryE]

Do not judge the FA 43 for sharpness or edge resolution. It follows another principle that objects have a three-dimensional shape. Take a portrait for example with both lenses and judge which looks more appealing. Only then can one recognize the strength of the FA43 Ltd. and the FA77 Ltd.

Maybe. I do appreciate the intended philosophy, as I have the 31 & 77. However, for me the 43 has to work a little harder than the occasional portrait lens. So maybe as I continue to compare the two lenses, the 43mm will throw up a few specials that I could not get with the 50. Maybe. But how often, I wonder ? And if it does, will it be worth it for the frustrations I suspect I would feel knowing that I had a more 'accurate' image from the 50mm to work with in post

I do like small primes, so the new 50 mm monster is a non-starter.

[kernos]

I only have the FA43. It took me awhile to appreciate it. It doesn't have the luscious bokeh of the FA77, but the color rendering seem equal to the 77 and better to me than what I get from either the DA 50mm or the DA*55mm. Not great art, but a simple dinner in the PNW with friends, no flash and an overhead chandelier for illumination.

[tvdtvdtvd]

Macro lenses are designed to render a flat, even sharpness across the field of view. Such a rendering is not
conducive to 3d pop. The FA Limiteds, on the other hand, have a rendering that is sharp in the center and
gradually softens towards the edges. This graduation is what can give that 3d pop effect, particularly with
subjects centered in the frame. The effect can be elusive. Strictly speaking, any lens can generate a 3d pop
if the composition is just right, but the FA Limiteds are particularly noted for generating the effect.

[Pål Jensen]

My 43mm is ultra sharp from F:4.

The Limited lens have some abberation deliberately to help create 3D effect. Macro lenses are generally the most corrected lenses there is...

[BarryE]

Macro lenses are designed to render a flat, even sharpness across the field of view. Such a rendering is not
conducive to 3d pop. The FA Limiteds, on the other hand, have a rendering that is sharp in the center and
gradually softens towards the edges. This graduation is what can give that 3d pop effect, particularly with
subjects centered in the frame. The effect can be elusive. Strictly speaking, any lens can generate a 3d pop
if the composition is just right, but the FA Limiteds are particularly noted for generating the effect.

There's my point in this. The 50mm, being sharp, can be used to render the plane in focus as distinct to the out-of focus planes. I'm thinking front to back planes here. Whereas the 43mm may have a fairy's ability to pop a shot so it looks 3D without thinking about focal the planes. (I wonder if my Illustrator background is getting in the way here as I'm conditioned to thinking in visual planes.)

[aaacb]

I don't have the 50mm macro, but as far as I understand from the reviews here on PF, it's one of the best sharpest normal lenses Pentax makes, despite the not-as-cool-as-metal construction. My point is, you're comparing two very good lenses.

[twilhelm]

From my experience, (the 43 was my second Limited, after the 77 many years ago), macro lenses are designed to be sharp across the plane, as you've mentioned. Comparing a macro lens to a "general" lens will show many differences. The FA Limiteds were designed with a different philosophy, the visual pleasure of viewing a photo. As mentioned, they are a little soft on the edges, sharp in the center, and will have some aberrations, which you can see usually in the bokeh, which helps to create the "pop" effect.

The 43 Limited will take more practice to find it's sweet spot than any of the other Limiteds, but once found, it becomes an amazing portrait lens in the 50 range. I tend to use my 43 wide open, but I find it best from 2.8 to 5.6.

As far as hunting for focus, it's not an issue I've experienced with mine, so there might be some sort of other issue going on?

[mikesbike]

There's my point in this. The 50mm, being sharp, can be used to render the plane in focus as distinct to the out-of focus planes. I'm thinking front to back planes here. Whereas the 43mm may have a fairy's ability to pop a shot so it looks 3D without thinking about focal the planes. (I wonder if my Illustrator background is getting in the way here as I'm conditioned to thinking in visual planes.)

Good. In the process of becoming acquainted with the FA 43mm LTD, thinking in terms of visual plains is a very important aspect- especially since you are using it in its original FF FOV. Its FL of 43mm is not an accident, in its particular case. Yes, as has been pointed out, the 50mm macro lens is deliberately corrected for edge-to-edge uniformity, and will not provide the kind of 3-D effect of the 43mm LTD lens. But there is also another dynamic here regarding that. 43mm in the FF FOV is considered "true" normal, 50mm being slightly tele, so it will slightly compress the perspective of a typical scene shot at a typical distance and flatten it out somewhat, while the moderately WA of the fine FA 35mm f/2 will render a somewhat exaggerated 3-D effect. The 43mm LTD will capture a "true" front-to-back perspective ratio, which will consciously or unconsciously give the resulting image of the scene a very realistic look- as viewing it through a large open window. Like- "wow, this is reality!" I like the 43mm LTD with my APS-C bodies, but I originally bought it while still shooting film, and always have liked it best in this use. It is one of my motivations for considering a FF DSLR. I can get a similar result with APS-C from my FA 28mm f/2.8, which is very good even wide open- but it is still just f/2.8 capable. And it is not a Limited, with the other attending attributes!

[clickclick]

They're really different creatures for the many reasons others have stated. It's a lens with tremendous character, but that doesn't mean it's best for your purpose or style.

[leekil]

It is one of my motivations for considering a FF DSLR. I can get a similar result with APS-C from my FA 28mm f/2.8, which is very good even wide open- but it is still just f/2.8 capable. And it is not a Limited, with the other attending attributes!

For APS-C you need the FA31...

---------- Post added 08-30-18 at 08:26 PM ----------

There's my point in this. The 50mm, being sharp, can be used to render the plane in focus as distinct to the out-of focus planes. I'm thinking front to back planes here. Whereas the 43mm may have a fairy's ability to pop a shot so it looks 3D without thinking about focal the planes. (I wonder if my Illustrator background is getting in the way here as I'm conditioned to thinking in visual planes.)

Isn't this just the depth-of-field effect? Even if the 43 doesn't have the same flat focus plane, the main subject still should be distinct from the background. It's not *that*curved, I don't think.

[BarryE]

For APS-C you need the FA31...

---------- Post added 08-30-18 at 08:26 PM ----------



Isn't this just the depth-of-field effect? Even if the 43 doesn't have the same flat focus plane, the main subject still should be distinct from the background. It's not *that*curved, I don't think.

I wonder if the 3D of the 43 is for a number of reasons, not least that it's designed to 'pop' an image with a central subject. Faced with a landscape, say, with the subject across the frame, with intended out-of-focus planes at front and back, not an unusual composition for me, then the 50 nails it wonderfully. I'm thinking trees, with unimportant foreground grasses and distant, indistinct features.

So far the 43 isn't. If a landscape has, say a subject in the centre and intended out-of focus areas to the side, and front and back, my guess is that the 43 would be fine. However, the later arrangement is not a typical landscape composition, for me. I was expecting that the 43 would come closer to the 50 around f8- f11 and what I perceive as it's strong central bias would have dissipated by then. Anyway, it's early days so I'll keep on experimenting ...

Thanks for your feedback

[leekil]

Can you post examples of your good photos with the 50 macro and the bad photos with the 43?

[BarryE]

Can you post examples of your good photos with the 50 macro and the bad photos with the 43?

Will do, but I'm working over the next couple of days, so it will be later ...