[bdery]

77 mm is my absolute favorite for portraits

But at home, most of my pictures are shot with the 35 mm or 50 mm, since I live in a small apartment

These two sentences make me want to recommend the 43.

Pros of 55 mm as I understand are nicer bokeh, WR and larger aperture

I disagree about the bokeh, both are great.

43 mm has that unique ltd rendering, compact size and faster focus

Correct.

I do care about the bokeh but at the same time, I love my 77 rendering - which I hope 43 ltd will also provide.

Reading your post it seems you already made up your mind...

For me, 55 is a bit too close to 77, it would feel more like a duplicate than 43. Also, you mention that you like 35~50.

Both lenses are great. I did review both of them, the 43 on its own and the 55 alonside the DFA*50 and Samyang 50. Yuo might want to look at both reviews, since you can use them to fully compare the lenses.

[normhead]

For indoors in a small apartment... I'd say go for the 31 ltd. Also I think there might be a 35 1.4 on the roadmap though I could be wrong. I really like the DA* 55mm but I rarely use it on APS-c.

[UncleVanya]

I like my DA* 55, and my FA 50 1.4 and my F 50 1.7 all of these make good pictures. Indoors if the light is good enough, I really like my DA40 2.8.

[pres589]

Here are some options you might not have considered / I've not seen mentioned yet;

Pentax F or FA 50 1.7 - not available new, affordable, there's some debate about IQ vs. the Pentax 50 1.4's from the same era.
Pentax DA 40 XS - nice out of focus rendering, small, quick focusing
Pentax DA 35 Ltd Macro - all the contrast you need, excellent IQ
Tamron 28-75 - Fast aperture for a zoom, good IQ on crop, covers an excellent focal length range for portraits and general use on both crop and full frame.

[Papa_Joe]

To all those recommending 35 mm - I just want to point out, that the OP already has an DA 35/2.4 which is an other plastic fantastic on par with the 35 mm macro.

I would only support Normhead in his suggestion of the (excellent) 31 mm, if any.

To be honest, looking at the lenses of your equipment Gbhati01 I would only miss a 70 - 200 or something like that. You have very good gear.

[ChatMechant]

I preferred the bokeh and overall look of photos with the 43. And I can use it on film cameras and with extension tubes or reversed, which you can't really do with the 55.


If you like the 77, you will like the 43.

On crop though I would recommend the 31 to go with the 77. Throw in a 15 and you are golden.

[UncleVanya]

On crop though I would recommend the 31 to go with the 77. Throw in a 15 and you are golden.

That's actually what I have. I skipped the 43. I did also have the DA 40 and several 50's and the DA* 55.

[Gbhati01]

Thanks, everyone. To answer the question of crop vs. full frame, I use a Ks2.

I spent a couple of days experimenting with the 43 vs. 55 focal lengths on my 16-85. 55 seems too tight for indoor use, especially as my kid grows up and starts sitting upright, it would be impossible to use 55 for a waist up shot. So 43 appears to be a better focal length or maybe even 35 or 31. Thanks bdery for highlighting this.

Now 31 ltd is quite expensive; I am not sure if I have an appetite for it right now. My apartment can be dark - sometimes devoid of natural light so that rules out 35mm macro. So 43 mm with its wide aperture is a reasonable option.

The question now though is - How usable 43 mm is at wide apertures. Does it produces shots of acceptable quality wide open? Also overall is it a worthy upgrade over my nifty fifty - worth paying 4-5 times. With 55 at least I would have upgraded my aperture from 1.8 to 1.4.

Also, I plan to buy a used lens. Surprisingly in the used market, 43 mm and 55 mm are roughly equally priced. This means that 43 mm commands a premium over 55 - may the fear of SDM failure?

[ehrwien]

I spent a couple of days experimenting with the 43 vs. 55 focal lengths on my 16-85. 55 seems too tight for indoor use, especially as my kid grows up and starts sitting upright, it would be impossible to use 55 for a waist up shot. So 43 appears to be a better focal length or maybe even 35 or 31. Thanks bdery for highlighting this.

Now 31 ltd is quite expensive

I've got the K-S2 as well and when I got myself a (barely) used ( Sigma 30/1.4 (not the Art, but the older and much cheaper EX DC) I found that I really liked the focal length for indoor use. Focussing is a bit tricky at 1.4, but at 2.0 my keeper rate was much higher (perhaps some focus finetuning needed). I haven't got the DA35 myself, so I can't compare those, but if you're open for third party lenses, you could give this one a try?
If I should ever go full frame, the 43 will be one of my first new lenses after the body.

Surprisingly in the used market, 43 mm and 55 mm are roughly equally priced. This means that 43 mm commands a premium over 55 - may the fear of SDM failure?

I think there are two more factors at play: the 43 is a limited vs. the 55 "only" a * lens, and the 43 is officially a full frame (FA) lens, while the 55, even if very usable on full frame, is a crop (DA) lens.

[repaap]

Thanks, everyone. To answer the question of crop vs. full frame, I use a Ks2.

I spent a couple of days experimenting with the 43 vs. 55 focal lengths on my 16-85. 55 seems too tight for indoor use, especially as my kid grows up and starts sitting upright, it would be impossible to use 55 for a waist up shot. So 43 appears to be a better focal length or maybe even 35 or 31. Thanks bdery for highlighting this.

Now 31 ltd is quite expensive; I am not sure if I have an appetite for it right now. My apartment can be dark - sometimes devoid of natural light so that rules out 35mm macro. So 43 mm with its wide aperture is a reasonable option.

The question now though is - How usable 43 mm is at wide apertures. Does it produces shots of acceptable quality wide open? Also overall is it a worthy upgrade over my nifty fifty - worth paying 4-5 times. With 55 at least I would have upgraded my aperture from 1.8 to 1.4.

Also, I plan to buy a used lens. Surprisingly in the used market, 43 mm and 55 mm are roughly equally priced. This means that 43 mm commands a premium over 55 - may the fear of SDM failure?

FA limited is more special, I’d say. I’m not fearing of my DA*55 would break.

FA43 is faster focusing, especially inside. also snappier. it is sharp from wide open, small. Now I dont have DA50/1,8. but what you said about 55 being tight at inside, it is true. especially on crop camera. Good thing about both of your options is that you won’t propably loose much in process if you want to sell it. you might want to see some photos of these lenses wide open to see your self. I like both.

[bdery]

The question now though is - How usable 43 mm is at wide apertures. Does it produces shots of acceptable quality wide open? Also overall is it a worthy upgrade over my nifty fifty - worth paying 4-5 times. With 55 at least I would have upgraded my aperture from 1.8 to 1.4.

See here

SMC Pentax-FA 43mm F1.9 Limited Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Also, I plan to buy a used lens. Surprisingly in the used market, 43 mm and 55 mm are roughly equally priced. This means that 43 mm commands a premium over 55 - may the fear of SDM failure?

Full frame vs officially APS-C, metal build, perceived value, offer and demand.

[pepperberry farm]

Also, I plan to buy a used lens. Surprisingly in the used market, 43 mm and 55 mm are roughly equally priced. This means that 43 mm commands a premium over 55 - may the fear of SDM failure?

that fear of SDM failure, particularly in a used/older version of the lens, led me to purchase a Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX DG HSM...

[caliscouser]

I have an embarrassing abundance of portrait lenses: the DA*55, DA 50 1.8, DA 35/2.4, DA 70, Sigma 30 1.4 EX, Sigma 50 1.4EX.

For indoors I also find 50mm on crop a bit long. I prefer the DA 35/2.4 or the Sigma 30 1.4.
Given your budget and requirements I'd recommend the Sigma 30 1.4. It is decently sharp wide open at 1.4 and is very affordable on the used market.

[Gbhati01]

Thanks, everyone. I have ordered the 43 mm. I am hoping that 7 mm will make a difference -allowing me to take photos without running into the wall and or the dingy corners.