[Papa_Joe]

My favorite of all my images ever is this one - it was taken with my cheap old K-r, the 10-17 and on flat out full auto mode while running back to the tour truck. Could it have been better? Sure, probably. But it makes me smile and remember the trip I took.

Nice one! I like it.

[Wheatfield]

Bella says the 43 is a fine lens because it makes her look bootiful.

[madison_wi_gal]

Bella says the 43 is a fine lens because it makes her look bootiful.

Bella is a cutie pie!

[Wheatfield]

Bella is a cutie pie!

For me, that was one of the few times the 43 was the right lens. It was shot in my living room which isn't huge, so the short telephotoness on the K5 was the perfect angle of view.

I don't know if you noticed, but I issued you a challenge. I will keep on you about it.

[madison_wi_gal]

For me, that was one of the few times the 43 was the right lens. It was shot in my living room which isn't huge, so the short telephotoness on the K5 was the perfect angle of view.

I don't know if you noticed, but I issued you a challenge. I will keep on you about it.

I have to get the K-1 II first. I do plan to take the 43 to the badlands this week though, if I have better weather I'll give it a whirl.

[Bbsteinle]

Looking forward to the Badlands photos!
Basil

[Sjak]

I was advised that Señor 43 can be a great lens WHEN YOU USE IT FOR SOMETHING IT IS GOOD AT, which clearly is not a spray and pray landscape series on a miserable cold day in La Crosse, WI using incorrect settings on an APS-C camera.

Not sure how much traction this will get, but for newbies like me (or even for oldbies like many on the PF) it would be nice to have a database of "what does this lens do well?" or at least "If you want to do THIS, get one of these".

I understand the reason for your question.

But you may also look at it from the opposite side:

When do you run into limitations because of the lens you are using? And which properties of the lens cause the limitation?

An obvious example would be shooting wildlife with a kit zoom. You would soon notice the lack of reach. So for a lens better suited for the purpose, you would start looking at longer lenses.

Asking yourself these questions will greatly help in making purchasing decisions.

But I also understand the fun of collecting lenses for the sake of it: I have over 25 50ies (from manufacture year 1936 to 2022) I just don't expect that many of them will improve my photography. It can be fun to explore a lens' properties, or simply searching for some vintage lens for the fun of the chase. The only 50 I specifically bought for the lens properties was the Voigtländer Nokton 50mm f/1.0.

[madison_wi_gal]

When do you run into limitations because of the lens you are using? And which properties of the lens cause the limitation?

Well, I have had the "ugh, I have the 18-135 on and I need a 55-300" (and the reverse, when I had to back WAY up to get a nice shot of a tree that the 18-135 would have gotten just fine). Señor 43 was fine for the view I had, it was just a "I am here" picture anyway, but I had the misguided notion because it was a Limited Amigo that it would be tack sharp at all distances, which I know is stupid.

[mikesbike]

I was advised that Señor 43 can be a great lens WHEN YOU USE IT FOR SOMETHING IT IS GOOD AT,

When you do finally get your K-1 II, you will find, the FA 43mm Ltd to be "good" for many scenes, compared to usig it on APS-C. Much more versatile. Then there is the matter of prespective. As you have experienced, with many scenes using a WA lens will make distant components look farther away behind the closer subjects compared to the realty you see in person. If there are some closer structures like a house or other building somewhat closer in the scene, it will appear elongated if in a three-quarter view position. Exaggerated 3-D. OTOH, if useing a 50mm "normal" lens on a FF body, or 35mm "normal" lens on APS-C, it is still not quite normal but a wee bit on the tele side, therefore a bit flat. At 28mm on APS-C you will get a similar prespective to 43mm on a FF body, which will give you a natural 3-D look as if you were there. Even more true if you have a main subject standing at some little distance in the foreground, then the background will appear at natural distance as you see it when standing there to take your shots. It is a true standard "normal" lens, and at the same time lets more into the frame than does a 50mm, for better versatility. A very natural 3-D look.

When I first started back when there was no auto anything, it was a Vivitar 35mm film SLR with a 50mm lens. That was all I had to shoot with for some 6 years, until it broke down, then I acquired a Pentax ME Super + M 50mm f/1.4, a 28mm f/2.8, and a moderate tele zoom lens- I think f/3.5 or so. I had become rather tired of the 50mm limitations and look, yet the 28mm was to me rather wide for all-around, and having exaggerated perspective. When I got the little M 40mm f/2.8 it was just the ticket, and wonderful as a compact-carrying all-around. When Later I got the FA 43mm Ltd with its brighter VF showing, and excellent imaging, I liked it even better. Also great for low light use, so I rarely went back to the 50mm.

For APS-C use, you'd need a good 28mm prime to get the same perspective- like the FA 28mm or "F" 28mm f/2.8 lenses. These are fine lenses, not expensive, and can produce edge-to-edge sharpness, even wide open.

My new HD 43mm Ltd is showing to be sharper than my old FA 43mm Ltd of many years. I've been getting great night scenes from it on my K-1 II, fine sharpness at all apertures, and of course super sharp even a little stopped down. Unlike some reports, this is not a tunnel-vision lens for sharpness! Any degradation at all is at the exreme edges/corners and wide open. I agree with northcoastgreg.