[Ben-G]

the FA 43 Limited is not absolutely comparable to FA 35.

FA 43 LIMITED "hasn't brothers"... rendering has a particular, if not unique, atmosphere. Perhaps near to Leica ...

[kiwi_jono]

I have the FA35 (not HD) and FA 43.

I have not tried the 43 on APS-C yet but I certainly like it on FF. The FA 35 used to be my go to lens for APS-C - a useful focal length for sure and I was pleasantly surprised with the performance of the FA 35 - often using it as f2 (so definitely very usable there).

It also depends on what you shoot and your style but for me 35mm suited me better on APS-C than 40mm did (have DA 40xs) and personally I found the difference in field of view significant. From what I know now, if I had had a FA31 at the time I was shooting APS-C that would have suited me even more because now on FF I really love the 43mm focal length.

I can see why most (I think) people really like the FA 43 but a still sizable group are not so fussed with it. The 43 is optimised for a certain rendering that, while I like it, some don't like. Also it gets a hard time about corner sharpness with some reviews but I think this is partially sample variation (as the one I have is not bad wide open on FF and would be very good on APS-C) - and partially the rendering is not clinically perfect (but well liked - its all subjective in the end).
As far as build goes the FA43 is a significant step up from HD / FA 35 and is actually smaller and slightly faster to boot!

I also don't think there is that much different with between HD and non HD versions of FA35. I'm not 100% convinced on the HD being sharper due to coatings (it may even have been explained by sample variation) but from images I have seen the HD seems to have a little better contrast over the bigger apertures in particular. I think the HD build looks a bit better than FAs too.

In the end though don't disregard the difference in focal length though as 43mm not equal to 35mm - it depends what suits you best.

[Madaboutpix]

DA35mm f2.8 Macro Limited should be on your short list also...

DA35/f2.8 Ltd Macro gets another vote here. My son has the HD version and the results are excellent.

Gotta agree. I know you said you were looking for something faster than F2.8. But have you considered that the DA35 Limited gives you a nice macro option too? That makes it pretty versatile.

[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.

[pres589]

The way that the FA 43 handles potentially busy out of focus area, by making them crazy busy, is a turn-off. DA 40 XS would be my preference over the 43. The DA 35 f2.4 is quite sharp wide open but I found most of the images from it boring and almost flat. The HD FA 35 seems very interesting; I wish there were more reviews of it online. I would like to see how it acts with film.

[BigMackCam]

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

[aslyfox]

The way that the FA 43 handles potentially busy out of focus area, by making them crazy busy, is a turn-off. DA 40 XS would be my preference over the 43. The DA 35 f2.4 is quite sharp wide open but I found most of the images from it boring and almost flat. The HD FA 35 seems very interesting; I wish there were more reviews of it online. I would like to see how it acts with film.

there is a chance to view photos taken by the Pentax 40mm and FA 43mm limited if you want to do so:

the Pentax 40mm and 43mm Lens Club - PentaxForums.com

[vector]

I recently acquired the HD FA 35mm f2 and so far I quite like it. I had the DA 35mm f2.4 before that and while I found it sharp enough, even on my K1, I just could never love that lens. I found that AF would sometimes be really hit and miss, and other times work fine which I found odd. I also never liked that it was f2.4 even though I'm pretty sure that to look at comparison images I could not tell you the difference between the f2 and f2.4. So far, and this is just anecdotal, I don't seem to have the same AF frustration as I had with the DA, and I vastly prefer its build and look over the DA.

I have never shot with the DA 35mm limited but I know I can tell the difference between f2 and f2.8 and one of the big selling points for me is being able to shoot it wide open for indoors shots with no flash. If I was going to do that with f2.8 I may as well use one of my zooms and get more flexibility, but the zooms I have can't do f2.

I am happy with the HD FA 35mm f2 and I expect that my regular kit will now be that lens plus the FA 50mm f1.4 and my K1.

[luftfluss]

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.

I like my HD DA35 a lot, but the AF can be fairly slow and loud if you are using Contrast Detect (Live View). Otherwise, the lens' AF performance seems fine to me when shooting with Phase Detect AF.

But from what you've posted, it really does seem the like the 35/2 or 43 would be a better choice.

[johnha]

The FA43 id a fabulous lens on film or FF but for me is too much of an awkward focal length on APS-C. I'd prefer an FA35/2 (SMC or HD) as a standard lens or FA50/1.4 for portraits on APS-C - for the price of the FA43 you can get both.

[mconwxdr]

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

I’m definitely tempted by it. The rendering is probably as good or better than the 35 in the samples I’ve seen. But the 430g is keeping me away (for now). I’m hoping to get both compactness and fastness with one lens for now.

---------- Post added 12-07-19 at 07:02 PM ----------

I can tell the difference between f2 and f2.8 and one of the big selling points for me is being able to shoot it wide open for indoors shots with no flash. If I was going to do that with f2.8 I may as well use one of my zooms and get more flexibility, but the zooms I have can't do f2.

Exactly. I loved the compactness and rendering of the DA40, and the compactness of the DA21, but once I got the 16-50 and saw better results than I expected at 2.8, it was hard for me to justify keeping them. I definitely want a compact & light lens again, but can’t see getting another 2.8+ one.

---------- Post added 12-07-19 at 07:05 PM ----------

DA35mm f2.8 Macro Limited should be on your short list also...

as well as the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f2 SL II....

And your Voigtlander 40/2 shots are making me reconsider how much I needed AF. Beautiful.

[pepperberry farm]

And your Voigtlander 40/2 shots are making me reconsider how much I needed AF. Beautiful.

thank you...

[dcpropilot]

Apparently the 35 limited wasn't intended to be macro originally, but ended up being a macro.

[Madaboutpix]

Apparently the 35 limited wasn't intended to be macro originally, but ended up being a macro.

That's what I read too, probably thanks to our diligent chronicler JPT. Of course, the short working distance can be a problem with living subjects and can make lighting a bit difficult, but the optics deliver critically sharp 1:1 macros. Not a mean feat for a compact lens that, as long as speed is not the chief concern, beautifully doubles as a capable standard lens. Never had any regrets about adding it to my kit.

[mikesbike]

The FA43 id a fabulous lens on film or FF but for me is too much of an awkward focal length on APS-C. I'd prefer an FA35/2 (SMC or HD) as a standard lens or FA50/1.4 for portraits on APS-C - for the price of the FA43 you can get both.

Definitely. When you need a fast lens, you need it. Then the FA 35mm has a greater FOV angle compared to the FA 43mm, making it more versatile, along with fine border performance wide open. Then a fine 50mm for the portrait range.