[gatorguy]

(the color version is nice, but this really spoke to me)

You're doing so well with this lens I'm surprised you have it for sale.
Nice shots!

[Erictator]

You're doing so well with this lens I'm surprised you have it for sale.
Nice shots!

Ditto what gatorguy said +1 ! (Especially after nearly convincing me I needed one to keep my 77 company...)
Eric

[pepperberry farm]

You're doing so well with this lens I'm surprised you have it for sale.
Nice shots!

thank you...

as for selling the FA43, everything it does, the DA40 Limited does as well or better...

[BruceBanner]

thank you...

as for selling the FA43, everything it does, the DA40 Limited does as well or better...

I would strongly disagree with that, as someone who owned the DA40 it is not in the same league and simply cannot produce certain pictures due to f2.8.

F1.9


Look at the way the bokeh is presented, the way it resolves. It is layered, textured and dreamy. The empty wine glasses are a joy to look at, the bokeh becomes as important to the image as the subject. 2.8 can't get you this, but even if you stopped both lenses down to f2.8 the FA43 will wipe the floor with the DA40 for bokeh quality.

F2.0


Again bokeh and background becomes as enjoyable to look at as well as the focused subject.

F1.9

The transition from focus to out of focus is delightful.

What about stopped down?

f5.6


It becomes a seriously sharp thing.



And lastly, to try and illustrate my point, this next shot is a comparison between the FA43 @f4 and HD DA 20-40 set at 40mm and F4. Ok, it's not the DA 40 but the DA40 and HD DA 20-40 do not resolve too differently. Compare how the bokeh differs between the two shots;



The DA40 is going to resolve the more like the DA 20-40, not the FA43.

So whilst i respect the opinion that the FA43 is not for someone, that perhaps they don't need that bokeh quality or as dramatic as it can be, nor need the low light and fast aperture it has over the 2.8, it's not fair at all to say the DA40 can do everything it does and better, that's just outright misleading!

---

Last edited by BruceBanner; 06-05-2019 at 02:22 PM.

[pepperberry farm]

...ok, just my opinion... but I disagree with you...

[BruceBanner]

...ok, just my opinion... but I disagree with you...

The difference is I provided evidence to the back up my opinion. F1.9-2.8 allows a lens to have certain advantages over a lens that cannot manage those apertures, that's not opinion, that's fact. Better low light capability and more dramatic subject isolation. Now it's very fair to say that these things are not what interest the shooter, perhaps the shooter is not using a FA43 or DA40 at those wider apertures and the majority of images that interest the shooter are taken around f5.6-11 (landscape for example), then if that is the case things become a little more equal, in fact the DA40 might take the lead by providing less CA! I'm not hating on the DA40, I'm just simply meaning to make sure other forum users are not being misguided. It's ok to retract your statement and word it differently. I have no issue with someone saying they find the cost to benefit ratio of the FA43 not worth it to them for the photography style they do. The same could be said for the DFA50/1.4. There is no other lens for Pentax that can take a group shot at f1.4 and keep that edge sharpness across the entire screen;



@1.4 everyone is sharp, even the people on the edges. Nothing else for Pentax can manage this currently other than that lens*. But does it matter to you? Perhaps not. And it's a heck of a price to pay for that advantage. When stopping down and comparing among other lenses the battle evens out.

So disagree all you like, but you're arguing with physics not me. The FA43 just simply has an advantage over the DA40 in this regard (faster apertures leading to more photographic possibilities).

* Sigma Art 35/1.4 might manage this feat decently as well... maybe...

[pepperberry farm]

So disagree all you like, but you're arguing with physics not me. The FA43 just simply has an advantage over the DA40 in this regard (faster apertures leading to more photographic possibilities).

no argument for me - either with you or physics; all I meant was that the DA 40 is better for me...

I found three shortcomings of the FA 43 when I shot with it for a month in May's SIC: MFD, no quick shift, and CA in strong lighting situations....

all of those issues are better with the DA 40...


that's it - all of my argument is right there...

[BruceBanner]

no argument for me - either with you or physics; all I meant was that the DA 40 is better for me...

I found three shortcomings of the FA 43 when I shot with it for a month in May's SIC: MFD, no quick shift, and CA in strong lighting situations....

all of those issues are better with the DA 40...


that's it - all of my argument is right there...

And that's all you had to say

[pepperberry farm]

And that's all you had to say

I'd hate to think that you weren't satisfied with my opinion...

[BruceBanner]

I'd hate to think that you weren't satisfied with my opinion...

Hahaha

[Coiseam]

FA 43 lim, f8, Pentax K-1

[repaap]

I’d say that FA limited’s do make most sense with K-1. I did love my FA 77 and 43 on my K-3 too, but with K-1 it is different. For crop sensor these DA limiteds make much sense.

[BruceBanner]

I'd hate to think that you weren't satisfied with my opinion...

I’d say that FA limited’s do make most sense with K-1. I did love my FA 77 and 43 on my K-3 too, but with K-1 it is different. For crop sensor these DA limiteds make much sense.

Completely agree.

[BruceBanner]

FA77

[Coiseam]

I’d say that FA limited’s do make most sense with K-1. I did love my FA 77 and 43 on my K-3 too, but with K-1 it is different. For crop sensor these DA limiteds make much sense.

FA lims' unique rendering is evident on crop sensors, too. Wide open the results on crop look better in respect to corner sharpness because there sharpness loss is not as pronounced as on full frame (though look not as epic as on full frame). On the other hand, if 40 lim could possess adequate corner sharpness on full frame at least from f5.6 (my version can't boast that even at f8), I would prefer it to 43 lim in most cases, it's much easier to use and more predictable.