43mm/1.9 ltd vs 50mm/1.4 SMC Takumar

d.bradley · 02-13-2010, 08:57 AM

I've always thought that my 50/1.4 SMC Takumar is one of the best lenses I've ever used. Amazing sharpness (if a little blooming) wide open, wonderous bokeh, perfect build quality.

I have a chance to pick up a 43/1.9 at a great price, but I just don't see the need for it, aside from the AF.

Are the focal lengths that different in practice? Aside from AF is there any reason why I should consider the 43mm?

Cheers!
Damian

Andrew Faires · 02-13-2010, 09:08 AM

The 43mm is my all-time favourite lens for the great sharpness and bokeh as well. Having said that, if you love using your 50mm Tak. then keep going with it....part of the fun is actually using the gear.

And to answer your question, I've never considered needing both a 50 & 43mm....others may, but just the 43mm is good enough for me.

Nachodog · 02-13-2010, 10:42 AM

I personally never got into the 43mm. I have an excellent copy and replaced my FA 50mm 1.4 with it. However, I find myself reaching for the 31mm much more often.

I don't have any plans to get rid of it and I'm resolved to using it more come spring time.

Nesster · 02-13-2010, 11:17 AM

I have both. And I won't let either go out of my hands. I do end up using the 43 more, it is a fantastic lens indeed. But I use the 50 quite a bit also, on the Spotmatics. They are different lenses with different character... the 43 especially on film gives a touch of space due to it being slightly wider - I prefer 43 to 35mm in view. Manual focus feel of course is no contest - the Takumar is made for it.

jsherman999 · 02-13-2010, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Nachodog

I personally never got into the 43mm. I have an excellent copy and replaced my FA 50mm 1.4 with it. However, I find myself reaching for the 31mm much more often.

I don't have any plans to get rid of it and I'm resolved to using it more come spring time.

.

Oddly enough, I was the same way. My 43 was incredibly sharp, a wonderful lens, but my F/FA 50 1.7s just seemed to make it almost unnecessary. I guess 43mm is just too close in FL to a fast-50 for me, and Pentax has wonderful fast 50s.

axl · 02-13-2010, 03:36 PM

43ltd is superb lens.
It's sharper than my 31ltd and I consider it's nice people lens.
It's visibly shorter than 50. That's why (unlike Jay) I sold F50/1.7 and got K55 (and I'm thinking of getting DA*55).
just my 2p

estudleon · 02-13-2010, 03:56 PM

If you will add a new lens to your equipment, I think that it will be destined to do the thinks easy to you. But if the new lens will complicate to you (which lens will I use? or so), not so good to have it.

You "drive" your equipment and not in the inverse way. It's my optic.

Rino.

ll_coffee_lP · 02-13-2010, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by d.bradley

I've always thought that my 50/1.4 SMC Takumar is one of the best lenses I've ever used. Amazing sharpness (if a little blooming) wide open, wonderous bokeh, perfect build quality.

I have a chance to pick up a 43/1.9 at a great price, but I just don't see the need for it, aside from the AF.

Are the focal lengths that different in practice? Aside from AF is there any reason why I should consider the 43mm?

Cheers!
Damian

I'm in Ontario too and looking for a 43mm - so if you aren't going to be picking it up feel free to drop me a line. I'd love to get one.

c[_]

02-13-2010, 08:57 AM	#1
d.bradley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 631	43mm/1.9 ltd vs 50mm/1.4 SMC Takumar I've always thought that my 50/1.4 SMC Takumar is one of the best lenses I've ever used. Amazing sharpness (if a little blooming) wide open, wonderous bokeh, perfect build quality. I have a chance to pick up a 43/1.9 at a great price, but I just don't see the need for it, aside from the AF. Are the focal lengths that different in practice? Aside from AF is there any reason why I should consider the 43mm? Cheers! Damian

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SMC Takumar 55mm 1.8 vs Smc Pentax M 50mm 1.4	sznajder	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	12-16-2009 10:53 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax SMC-A 70-210mm/4 Macro, SMC-A 50mm/2, Takumar Bayonet 135mm/2.5	wallyb	Sold Items	10	03-12-2009 12:46 PM
SMC Pentax-F 1:1.7 50mm vs. SMC Takumar 1:2 55mm	carpents	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	06-18-2007 04:44 AM

02-13-2010, 09:08 AM	#2
Andrew Faires Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ontario Posts: 744	The 43mm is my all-time favourite lens for the great sharpness and bokeh as well. Having said that, if you love using your 50mm Tak. then keep going with it....part of the fun is actually using the gear. And to answer your question, I've never considered needing both a 50 & 43mm....others may, but just the 43mm is good enough for me.

02-13-2010, 10:42 AM	#3
Nachodog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal, Qc Posts: 472	I personally never got into the 43mm. I have an excellent copy and replaced my FA 50mm 1.4 with it. However, I find myself reaching for the 31mm much more often. I don't have any plans to get rid of it and I'm resolved to using it more come spring time.

02-13-2010, 11:17 AM	#4
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	I have both. And I won't let either go out of my hands. I do end up using the 43 more, it is a fantastic lens indeed. But I use the 50 quite a bit also, on the Spotmatics. They are different lenses with different character... the 43 especially on film gives a touch of space due to it being slightly wider - I prefer 43 to 35mm in view. Manual focus feel of course is no contest - the Takumar is made for it.

02-13-2010, 11:19 AM	#5
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Nachodog I personally never got into the 43mm. I have an excellent copy and replaced my FA 50mm 1.4 with it. However, I find myself reaching for the 31mm much more often. I don't have any plans to get rid of it and I'm resolved to using it more come spring time. . Oddly enough, I was the same way. My 43 was incredibly sharp, a wonderful lens, but my F/FA 50 1.7s just seemed to make it almost unnecessary. I guess 43mm is just too close in FL to a fast-50 for me, and Pentax has wonderful fast 50s.

02-13-2010, 03:36 PM	#6
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	43ltd is superb lens. It's sharper than my 31ltd and I consider it's nice people lens. It's visibly shorter than 50. That's why (unlike Jay) I sold F50/1.7 and got K55 (and I'm thinking of getting DA*55). just my 2p

02-13-2010, 03:56 PM	#7
estudleon Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 228	If you will add a new lens to your equipment, I think that it will be destined to do the thinks easy to you. But if the new lens will complicate to you (which lens will I use? or so), not so good to have it. You "drive" your equipment and not in the inverse way. It's my optic. Rino.

02-13-2010, 04:03 PM	#8
ll_coffee_lP Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,972	Originally posted by d.bradley I've always thought that my 50/1.4 SMC Takumar is one of the best lenses I've ever used. Amazing sharpness (if a little blooming) wide open, wonderous bokeh, perfect build quality. I have a chance to pick up a 43/1.9 at a great price, but I just don't see the need for it, aside from the AF. Are the focal lengths that different in practice? Aside from AF is there any reason why I should consider the 43mm? Cheers! Damian I'm in Ontario too and looking for a 43mm - so if you aren't going to be picking it up feel free to drop me a line. I'd love to get one. c[_]