Originally posted by mconwxdr Hmmm, I haven’t thought about the DA35 limited since I’m not big into macro. It’s the only DA limited I haven’t tried. I wanted faster than 2.8 since I’m happy with the 16-50 results at 2.8 in the normal focal lengths. But maybe the sharpness gain is big enough to be worth it. I also want AF to be reasonably fast on this lens too, so that’s kept me away from that one, or am I not giving it enough credit there?
Regarding 35 vs 43 FL, I liked the DA40 FL on APS-C but I do see how 35 would be a little more useful overall. I mainly want this lens for low light interiors and all around people/general photography, and for when I don’t need anything wide and don’t want to lug the 16-50 around. Both the HD 35 and 43 would seem to work for that. If I could I’d get them both, but such is life.
Can I ask, how important is it that the lens you go for is truly compact?
I ask, because I have a curve-ball option to suggest - particularly since you mention "low-light interiors" and "all around people / general photography"...
That suggestion is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art. It's bigger, chunkier and heavier than the DA35/2.4, DA35/2.8 Macro Limited, (HD) FA35/2 and FA43/1.9 Limited options you're considering... but it's not "BIG" in the scheme of things. At 30mm, iIt's a little wider than your other considerations, too - but that's good for indoor work, and in fact the field of view is very close to what you'd see with the FA43 if you fitted it to a full frame camera. It's truly fast, and quite usable wide open, although it needs stopping down for really good border performance. And it renders beautifully, IMHO. AF is quick enough (if not lightning fast), and near silent. Plus, it's superbly built - very solid, very well finished, and just... lovely