[axl]

Problem is, I now have the FA 50 1.4, the DA 35, and the DA 40.

nothing wrong with that. I have 31ltd, 40ltd and 50/1.7, makes for great kit...

I agree it seems more likely on the surface, but the only way to know for sure is to do the test. At this point, do we even know if the center focus point was selected?

that's true...

[benjikan]

I just keep telling myself the resale market is strong.

Especially today. The pricing are going up and Limited lenses are always easy to sell. The 40 Limited IMHO is one of the sharpest of the lot. It is so versatile. Can be used for portraits, full shots and even medium product shot photography. Highly recommended.

[Ben_Edict]

As to the 40 Ltd not being as sharp as the FA 50. I own pretty well all of the Ltd lenses and although the 50 (which is not a Ltd) is a sweet lens and can be used wide open which I do on occasion, I don't think it comes close to the 40 Ltd in across the board sharpness and contrast. Wouldn't it be wonderful if Pentax could accomplish the same feat in a 40mm f1.8 Lens? A f1.4 would probably be asking too much as the trade offs would be pretty obvious in weight, price etc. None the less, this quirky funny looking anomaly is quite the little gem. It is funny when shooting with this lens and the crew look at the camera and often say WTF is that???

Can you compare the 43mm versus the 40mm? That would be interesting, as I am currently contemplating buying one of these two (I have the 31mm, FA 35mm and FA 50mm).

Ben (the other one)

[benjikan]

Can you compare the 43mm versus the 40mm? That would be interesting, as I am currently contemplating buying one of these two (I have the 31mm, FA 35mm and FA 50mm).

Ben (the other one)

Wow..That is a tough call as I have both. I would say that the 43 is about on par with the 40 in the center at optimal aperture of f5.6-8.0, but the 40 is more consistent across the entire spectrum from 2.8-16.0. The difference in optimal sharpness is minimal however. But the 43 needs to be stopped down 1.5-2 stops to match the 40's performance at wide open f2.8.

Here is a graph from Chasseur d'Images Magazine in France.

Attached Images

   

---

Last edited by benjikan; 04-01-2009 at 05:18 AM.

[farfisa]

Wow..That is a tough call as I have both. I would say that the 43 is about on par with the 40 in the center at optimal aperture of f5.6-8.0, but the 40 is more consistent across the entire spectrum from 2.8-16.0. The difference in optimal sharpness is minimal however. But the 43 needs to be stopped down 1.5-2 stops to match the 40's performance at wide open f2.8.

Here is a graph from Chasseur d'Images Magazine in France.

Hmm, the German results are a little different, but they always are

The 43 appears to be quite a bit ahead at both the center and borders until f/8, when things start to go to the 40. The 40 is definitely more even across the frame.

The 43 also peaks at f/4, which is nice. I personally find the 43 to be very useable for casual portraits wide open--I'm surprised to see the center performance is that low at 1.9!

Maybe sample variation?

photozone 43mm analysis

photozone 40mm analysis

[Ben_Edict]

Thanks for the Chasseur d'Image results. I rarely read that mag... (every couple of years, I guess), as my French is under par. As far as I understood, the test is quite similar in outcome to Photozone, though thewre might be some differences. I don't doubt the quality of both lenses. I was more interested in having your first hand experience and comparisson, than just measurements. Would be great, if you'ld find the time to write a few musements.

Ben