Limiteds: 35/2.8 vs 43/1.9

paolojackson · 09-30-2008, 04:51 PM

Anyone directly compared these two? Both are highly regarded in both build quality as well as optical quality. They also are priced similarly. Having never used a limited, I am dying to get one. I do have the 50/1.4 so it would make sense to get the 35. Is there any reason why I should opt for the 43 instead? On paper its easy to pick out the differences. One is wider, one is faster, one has macro, one is FF compatible (does that even matter?). Any hands-on experiences??

As far as macro goes, I do have a dedicated macro lens which I am happy with except that it does not have "A" setting for aperture.

Hows the 43 on film? I want to buy a film body but would I ever really use it? Anyways, that's a whole different thread altogether.

-Paolo

k100d · 09-30-2008, 07:15 PM

the 43 is supposed to be excellent for film, that's what it's designed for
i just got a film body and the 43 looks awesome on it

i think because you have the speed coevered, you should go for the macro to leave a larger gap. on digital, the macro is just about walkabout length, whereas the
however, this macro lens doesn't really take the place of a real one because you have to get extremely close. it is extremely versatile. very respected photographer Mike Johnston thinks it's one of the best Mike Johnston to Write Weekly Column for P-Net! - Photo.net Pentax Forum

paolojackson · 09-30-2008, 07:33 PM

Thanks for your input k100d. I know this subject has been discussed several times perhaps with slight variations including 40/43/35 macro. I know you can't go wrong with any of the lenses, but for some reason the FA limiteds stands out more than the the others.

I noticed you might feel the same way??

k100d · 09-30-2008, 08:08 PM

yes

... the FA Limiteds are absolute quality, i wanted the whole set

the FA43 is a strange beast. it is much hated and loved. from what i've read, it initally was knocked against for being soft wide open (which it is) and having rough bokeh (which it does too in the wrong situations. but it's very sharp by f4 and there is something of a "pop" to images from the contrast.

here's a recent post by roentarre to demonstrate
Fa 43 ltd - 3D effects on flowers [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

jsherman999 · 09-30-2008, 08:46 PM

.

The FA 43ltd is legendary, but I'd have to vote for the DA 35ltd macro.

Its further away from your 50mm, and it's a true 1:1 macro.

09-30-2008, 04:51 PM	#1
paolojackson Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 379	Limiteds: 35/2.8 vs 43/1.9 Anyone directly compared these two? Both are highly regarded in both build quality as well as optical quality. They also are priced similarly. Having never used a limited, I am dying to get one. I do have the 50/1.4 so it would make sense to get the 35. Is there any reason why I should opt for the 43 instead? On paper its easy to pick out the differences. One is wider, one is faster, one has macro, one is FF compatible (does that even matter?). Any hands-on experiences?? As far as macro goes, I do have a dedicated macro lens which I am happy with except that it does not have "A" setting for aperture. Hows the 43 on film? I want to buy a film body but would I ever really use it? Anyways, that's a whole different thread altogether. -Paolo

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Price of limiteds	samski_1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	58	06-04-2010 10:11 AM
DA or FA limiteds?	coloseu	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	02-24-2009 10:18 AM
How small are the DA limiteds?	paolojackson	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	02-13-2009 10:37 PM
FA* or FA limiteds	Harmonica	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	10-09-2008 09:53 PM
DA Limiteds	jzamora	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	07-02-2008 06:48 AM

09-30-2008, 07:15 PM	#2
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	the 43 is supposed to be excellent for film, that's what it's designed for i just got a film body and the 43 looks awesome on it i think because you have the speed coevered, you should go for the macro to leave a larger gap. on digital, the macro is just about walkabout length, whereas the however, this macro lens doesn't really take the place of a real one because you have to get extremely close. it is extremely versatile. very respected photographer Mike Johnston thinks it's one of the best Mike Johnston to Write Weekly Column for P-Net! - Photo.net Pentax Forum

09-30-2008, 07:33 PM	#3
paolojackson Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 379 Original Poster	Thanks for your input k100d. I know this subject has been discussed several times perhaps with slight variations including 40/43/35 macro. I know you can't go wrong with any of the lenses, but for some reason the FA limiteds stands out more than the the others. I noticed you might feel the same way??

09-30-2008, 08:08 PM	#4
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	yes ... the FA Limiteds are absolute quality, i wanted the whole set the FA43 is a strange beast. it is much hated and loved. from what i've read, it initally was knocked against for being soft wide open (which it is) and having rough bokeh (which it does too in the wrong situations. but it's very sharp by f4 and there is something of a "pop" to images from the contrast. here's a recent post by roentarre to demonstrate Fa 43 ltd - 3D effects on flowers [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

09-30-2008, 08:46 PM	#5
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	. The FA 43ltd is legendary, but I'd have to vote for the DA 35ltd macro. Its further away from your 50mm, and it's a true 1:1 macro.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search