[barthovis]

I recently came over to Pentax, getting a K-1, and so far my only lens is the 100mm macro. I want to add a wider lens for landscape and general nature use. I may get a 31 ltd eventually, but it will be a while before I can afford it. I could swing a 43 ltd sooner, or get the 35mm f2. I've read all the reviews I can find, and have looked at many photos taken with these lenses (Flickr, etc.). For all it's attributes (I admit I'm intrigued by the pixie dust), my concern with the 43 is the alleged poor edge sharpness. This could be a show stopper for pano stitching. Can anyone reassure me (or confirm my concerns) regarding the 43 as a landscape lens including panorama use?

Or, does anyone love the 35 f2 and believe it a preferable choice over the 43 for landscape?

Or, bear with me, a 50mm macro for it's edge-edge sharpness for panoramas, and the 43 for shots where that isn't an issue?

Thanks very much for sharing any experience with these lenses!

[adwait]

The 43mm is fantastic for landscapes. It’s smaller design and sharp optics do justice to the full frame sensor. Check out these photos...
Adwait Kulkarni on Instagram: ?Sunset south of Melbourne #landscapephotography #sunset #visitmelbourne #tourismaustralia #sunset #photography #reflection_shotz #earthpix?
Adwait Kulkarni on Instagram: ?Bechaump falls One of the many beautiful waterfalls in Victoria #melbourne #australia #waterfall #landscape #pentax #ricoh #bushwalking??

[twilhelm]

The 43 is one of my favorite lenses, but it was designed with a lower edge performance for that 3D pop. Stopped down, it is a very sharp lens, which makes it quite versatile. I think it’s better with portraits and read recently that part of the design philosophy was journalism. The 35 (almost any version) is going to be sharper edge to edge, and likely easier to stitch for a pano.

[aaacb]

I like my fa 43 very much, at larger apertures it renders very nice. On another thread I said this would be the lens I'd have permanently stuck to my k1, if I had a k1 (I use mine on apsc and film).

But if you stop it down for landscapes, many lenses are very good. If size isn't an issue, or you don't have a strong preference for primes, I'd suggest something more general purpose like the 28-105 for about the same money. For less money than the fa 43, the fa 35/2 is also great, although it's more neutral in the way it renders.

[Sandy Hancock]

Stopped down to f/5.6 or beyond, the FA43 is more than sharp enough for landscape use. It has good resolution, lovely colour rendering, and it produces nice eight point starbursts.

For stitching, I prefer the FA31 or DA*55 because of their lower linear distortion. The DFA50 macro might also be a good option as you suggest, but I haven't used it.

[UncleVanya]

35 f2 is sharp edge to edge I've seen film era comparisons rate it more evenly sharp than the 31 which isn't a knock on the 31. The 35 is very even and wider than the 43. The fa 28 f2.8 isn't a bad lens either and is not crazy expensive.

[pakinjapan]

.. my concern with the 43 is the alleged poor edge sharpness. This could be a show stopper for pano stitching. Can anyone reassure me (or confirm my concerns) regarding the 43 as a landscape lens including panorama use?

Or, does anyone love the 35 f2 and believe it a preferable choice over the 43 for landscape?

Or, bear with me, a 50mm macro for it's edge-edge sharpness for panoramas, and the 43 for shots where that isn't an issue?

Thanks very much for sharing any experience with these lenses!

first of all, keep in mind that;
I am a K3 user and I don't have a 43.
I used to have a 35 f2, FA50 macro and I was very interested in 43 before I get the 50 macros.


Before I get the 50 macros, I went to test 43, 40ltd, DFA50 macro, FA50 macro in store on both K3II and K1 body. I like 40 on K1 a lot. Its autofocus is faster than 43.
43 rendering is somewhat special and I like it starburst shape, and for landscape, I usually stop down to f8 - 16 anyway. The sharpness of 43 at the smaller aperture is not a problem at all. (Again, This from my test on K1 body back when I was interested in 43mm.)
But when I see the sharpness and rendering from DFA50 maco. I know I want the 50 macros. It super sharp and very nice rendering overall. My goal was to get something close to 100wr for sharpness and rendering. I can say that 50 macro was not a disappointment when pixel peeping side by side with the 100wr.
Finally, I ended up with FA50 macro. It looks like F50 Marco, FA50 Marco and DFA50 Marco are using the same lens design. The F and FA versions are mostly Metal built and heavy while DFA version is lighter but you get a lot of plastic in there.

35 f2 was a very good lens. it sharps from f2.2, and at f4 it bleeding sharp. Sharpness shouldn't be a subject of concern for this little guy.

I do city landscape 99% of the time. the 100wr macro and 50 macros spoiled me big time. The macro lens seems to do landscape photography really well for me. I will post a few examples from both lense after this.

IMHO, If you ask:
43 or 50 macro for landscape? I would go with the 50 macro.
35 or 43? I think it is a matter of what focal length you like. and If you go with 50 macro, I think 43 is a bit too close to the 50.
If I am going to get FA31, I would skip 35 and save for the 31 (then perhaps get the 43 and 77)

Samples:
FA35
FA50 macro-img1
FA50 macro-img2
FA50 macro-img3
FA50 macro-img4
FA50 macro-img5

Now I replace 50 macro with DA*55 f1.4 for my night cityscape, below are a few samples If you are interested to check it out. It is a WR lens which is the main reason I switch to this lens.
DA*55-img1
DA*55-img2

---

Last edited by pakinjapan; 09-08-2018 at 07:48 PM.

[Kozlok]

The 43 is only poor on the edges at large apertures. Do your Panos at F8 and all will be fine.

[mattb123]

Great landscape lens!

[Billk]

My favourite landscape lens for wider views, especially on the K1.

Very light (unlike the Sigma 35mm) so first choice when cycling and hiking. When I head to my local island getaway (French Island), the 43mm and 300mm are always in the bag.

[aslyfox]

Since the OP is from St. Louis, here in the United States, I would suggest a different approach

see what it would cost to rent various lenses from one of the rental companies. I have used LensRental.com with good success.

LensRentals.com - Rent Lenses and Cameras from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, Leica, and more

if renting, I recommend getting the maximum protection plan available

the OP can do trials and determine what lens might be best before buying one

[BarryE]

Personally I'm far from convinced with the 43, certainly compared with the 50 f2.8 macro.

I've recently bought the 43 and have been comparing it with the 50 in the field - the edge differences are significant. Yes I know, macros are flat across the frame. Yes I know about the pixie dust, but here's the thing: the 50 is really very close in all the aspects that the 43 is supposed to shine in and it's much sharper across the frame - noticeably, even at f8 to f11. Plus the 43 is more prone to flare. Where the 43 does nudge ahead of the 43, is where there's a central subject, here there -may- be a little more separation/3d. The 43's colours are slightly more interesting (subjective).

I will keep the 43, though I suspect I will use the 50 more for landscapes, especially where I want the in-focus plane to be that, ie in focus.

The 43 is of course a lovely lens. It looks good. Build is lovely, but I like the 77 and the 31 more. I do expect it to grow on me, and yes I did get a few test shots where I thought where did that come from - maybe that was a pixie moment. However, for reliability and consistency the 50 macro is much, much more to my liking.

[PentAxt]

I agree. As heretical as this may sound, I've found the 35/2 overall to be sharper than the two copies each of the 31 Ltd and 43 Ltd I've owned and returned/sold.

35 f2 is sharp edge to edge I've seen film era comparisons rate it more evenly sharp than the 31 which isn't a knock on the 31. The 35 is very even and wider than the 43. The fa 28 f2.8 isn't a bad lens either and is not crazy expensive.

[barthovis]

Thanks so much to everyone for taking the time to share your experience and advice. It's invaluable to get actual user experience - you all have provided exactly the information I was looking for. I have considered the 28-105mm since it covers all the bases - it's an exceptional lens, but I gravitate toward primes and there are times when I want the large apertures. Also, I will look into renting. Bottom line, I think there's a case for owning both the 43 ltd. and the 50 macro. I will likely get the 50 first due to its' utility and affordability, and add the 31 ltd. and 43 ltd. when I can, but still considering the 35 f2.

[mikesbike]

The FA 43mm LTD was designed for 35mm film use (FF) with the idea of providing true "normal" perspective for landscape and other shots of mid-to-long distance. Buildings and other objects shot at an angle will have a front-to-back look of their actual length. There is no compression and no exaggeration (elongation) as seen with WA lenses. Distant objects are at correct size compared to closer objects. So overall you get a more realistic representation of the scene. If stitched for a pano, you will get something otherwise not possible, a realistic wide angle photograph.

The FA 35mm f/2 is a great lens. It is even more versatile then the 43mm LTD for having even more in the frame than 43mm compared to a 50mm lens. Of course its perspective is not as accurate as the 43mm, but also not as exaggerated as from a lens of wider angle. So you get a slightly exaggerated 3-D effect without being too much so. Distant objects are still not too small and appearing too far away. And it is sharp even wide open. Good edges too.

For 6 years I shot with only a 50mm lens, and then occasionally with a 135mm tele when I first started with a 35m film SLR, back when nothing was "auto". Then I got a few more lenses for my first Pentax, the ME Super. One of those was the M 40mm f/2.8, which I loved. I rarely went back to 50mm unless I needed the wider aperture. Much later after getting my second AF body, I bought the FA 43mm LTD, and along with the FA 35mm f/2 they became my most used primes. But it depends on what you are looking for- the last word in flat-field edge sharpness, or overall accuracy of the scene, for which the FA 43mm LTD can also deliver excellent sharpness, especially at apertures generally used for landscapes. And also for versatility in a walk-around prime lens, plus accuracy.