[MadMathMind]

How has everyone's experience been? Here's mine:

FA31 - Not used it tremendously since I mostly shoot models. When I have it's been to get high DoF because I'm shooting a couple girls at once in staggered planes or just want a wide perspective. The few times I've used it...well, there's a reason why I call it 'legendary' and why it's my favorite lens.

FA77 - Like....this is ridiculous. The resolving power of this lens is far beyond anything I thought possible. It is utterly absurd. Just gorgeous, sharp, crisp. I was in the FA31 camp but this is probably most deserving of its recent crowing as best Pentax lens ever.

FA43 - So far my weak link and I really need it not to be since I will use it most. I'm having trouble with the focus. Even when I do get it to focus perfectly, it's pretty obvious the FA43's resolution is not up to the level of it's two sisters...or amigos. Partly I've been shooting below f/4. I am also not satisfied with my focus calibration but not been able to get it where I need to.

Images with the FA43 look great at screen size (2MP) and up to...say, 40% zoom? But after that they're mushy. Pixel peeping is a bit of an exercise in foolishness, but I think this lens can do better.

Anyone got tips on calibrating the FA43? I remember in one thread someone said calibrating it at portrait distance (~6-7 feet) seems to work best with a certain kind of chart. But I can't remember which thread this appeared in.

[Digitalis]

Partly I've been shooting below f/4

On the Leica monochrom the FA43 needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 or higher to really shine, IMO the corners are its weakest area. My test bench reveals that the FA43 is slightly better at closer focus distances than distant ones, so there is evidence in favor of calibrating to closer distances*. Though field curvature becomes pronounced at MFD. The FA43 produces central resolution that goes through the roof when stopped down to f/4**, however by contrast the corners look worse. Harmonious resolution between center/corners is best seen at f/7.1~f/9 - beyond which diffraction takes its toll. The SMCP-A/K 50mm f/1.2 is a better normal lens, but it has issues with transverse chromatic aberration. But it is quite sharp at f/2.8 and up. The SMCP 50mm f/1.2 is better at distant focus, and worse at closer focus.


*Using the tried-and-tested USAF1951 laser cut test target.
** 7 samples tested, however two of them had centering faults that affected contrast and resolution.

[dfp771]

On the Leica monochrom the FA43 needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 or higher to really shine, IMO the corners are its weakest area. My test bench reveals that the FA43 is slightly better at closer focus distances than distant ones, so there is evidence in favor of calibrating to closer distances*. Though field curvature becomes pronounced at MFD. The FA43 produces central resolution that goes through the roof when stopped down to f/4**, however by contrast the corners look worse. Harmonious resolution between center/corners is best seen at f/7.1~f/9 - beyond which diffraction takes its toll. The SMCP-A/K 50mm f/1.2 is a better normal lens, but it has issues with transverse chromatic aberration. But it is quite sharp at f/2.8 and up. The SMCP 50mm f/1.2 is better at distant focus, and worse at closer focus.


*Using the tried-and-tested USAF1951 laser cut test target.
** 7 samples tested, however two of them had centering faults that affected contrast and resolution.

The DA 50mm 1.8 lens seems to work fine on the K-1 from f2.8 and higher, Very sharp, crisp, contrasty images.

[Digitalis]

The DA 50mm 1.8 lens seems to work fine on the K-1

Though the build quality is frankly...rather disappointing. the DA*55mm f/1.4 is considered to be usable on the K-1, however that lens has inherently high contrast which affects the quality of its bokeh... not in a good way.

[robjmitchell]

Just use the 43ltd as nature intended it.
f1.9 smooth and low contrast rendering
f2.8-f5.6 Subject isolation with 3d pop
f8 landscapes.

Flat field pixel peeping at fast apertures is only going to disappoint! Don't even think about astro!

As for AF calibration, I just focus on a nail stuck in a fence 2m away and fiddle till its in focus. not very scientific but it seems to work.

[snpsht]

On the Leica monochrom the FA43 needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 or higher to really shine, IMO the corners are its weakest area. My test bench reveals that the FA43 is slightly better at closer focus distances than distant ones, so there is evidence in favor of calibrating to closer distances*. Though field curvature becomes pronounced at MFD. The FA43 produces central resolution that goes through the roof when stopped down to f/4**, however by contrast the corners look worse. Harmonious resolution between center/corners is best seen at f/7.1~f/9 - beyond which diffraction takes its toll. The SMCP-A/K 50mm f/1.2 is a better normal lens, but it has issues with transverse chromatic aberration. But it is quite sharp at f/2.8 and up. The SMCP 50mm f/1.2 is better at distant focus, and worse at closer focus.


*Using the tried-and-tested USAF1951 laser cut test target.
** 7 samples tested, however two of them had centering faults that affected contrast and resolution.

Since putting my 43 on the K-1, I suspect it has a problem....didn't really show up on the K-3 and laptop monitor combo I have, but with the RAW K-1 file (and same laptop monitor), it is noticeably softer on the LHS. ....will check it out with a chart pr something later - it is out of warranty.

[Sandy Hancock]

The DA*55mm f/1.4 is considered to be usable on the K-1, however that lens has inherently high contrast which affects the quality of its bokeh... not in a good way.

It is more than usable. I have been using the DA*55 every day this month on the K-1 and the results are excellent. Every now and then a minuscule bit of vignetting occurs (whether the hood is on or off), which can be either ignored or dealt with by minor PP or cropping.

My album so far (with a few with A50/1.2 before the K-1 arrived) is HERE

I agree about the bokeh though. Like the FA43 it is a little temperamental, but in a different way.

[MadMathMind]

Just use the 43ltd as nature intended it.
f1.9 smooth and low contrast rendering
f2.8-f5.6 Subject isolation with 3d pop
f8 landscapes.

Flat field pixel peeping at fast apertures is only going to disappoint!

I'm sorry but for the kind of shooting I do, this isn't going to cut it. I need sharpness and resolution from f/2.8 to f/4. Ok, "need" is too strong. If I can't get it, I want to find another solution.

I may regret selling my FA50 f/1.7 but I think if I can get the FA43's focus pinpointed, it may get it there for me. It's shown some promise.

---------- Post added 05-21-16 at 10:05 PM ----------

On the Leica monochrom the FA43 needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 or higher to really shine, IMO the corners are its weakest area. My test bench reveals that the FA43 is slightly better at closer focus distances than distant ones, so there is evidence in favor of calibrating to closer distances*. Though field curvature becomes pronounced at MFD. The FA43 produces central resolution that goes through the roof when stopped down to f/4**, however by contrast the corners look worse. Harmonious resolution between center/corners is best seen at f/7.1~f/9 - beyond which diffraction takes its toll. The SMCP-A/K 50mm f/1.2 is a better normal lens, but it has issues with transverse chromatic aberration. But it is quite sharp at f/2.8 and up. The SMCP 50mm f/1.2 is better at distant focus, and worse at closer focus.


*Using the tried-and-tested USAF1951 laser cut test target.
** 7 samples tested, however two of them had centering faults that affected contrast and resolution.

I have noticed that it looks great in close. Weak corners I can deal with since I'm doing portraits (or something resembling it). f/4 isn't bad for me since I usually use flash but I'd like to be able to do f/2.8 or f/3.2 to get some better blur. Hmmm.

[ybo1]

Anyone tried a F50 1.7 on his K1?
I have one .,,,but not the K1 ( yet )

[Digitalis]

I may regret selling my FA50 f/1.7

Well that is perhaps one of the only suitable AF alternatives to the FA43 that exist, though the Pentax 50mm f/1.7 lenses are closer to 53mm in FL.

you can hope Sigma releases their 50mm f/1.4 ART in Pentax K mount.

---------- Post added 2016-05-22 at 03:30 PM ----------

It is more than usable. I have been using the DA*55 every day this month on the K-1 and the results are excellent. Every now and then a minuscule bit of vignetting occurs

The vignetting is mostly likely to appear at close focus distances at wide aperture settings - that always puts a strain on lenses.

[Davidparis]

How has everyone's experience been? Here's mine:

FA31 - Not used it tremendously since I mostly shoot models. When I have it's been to get high DoF because I'm shooting a couple girls at once in staggered planes or just want a wide perspective. The few times I've used it...well, there's a reason why I call it 'legendary' and why it's my favorite lens.

FA77 - Like....this is ridiculous. The resolving power of this lens is far beyond anything I thought possible. It is utterly absurd. Just gorgeous, sharp, crisp. I was in the FA31 camp but this is probably most deserving of its recent crowing as best Pentax lens ever.

FA43 - So far my weak link and I really need it not to be since I will use it most. I'm having trouble with the focus. Even when I do get it to focus perfectly, it's pretty obvious the FA43's resolution is not up to the level of it's two sisters...or amigos. Partly I've been shooting below f/4. I am also not satisfied with my focus calibration but not been able to get it where I need to.

Images with the FA43 look great at screen size (2MP) and up to...say, 40% zoom? But after that they're mushy. Pixel peeping is a bit of an exercise in foolishness, but I think this lens can do better.

Anyone got tips on calibrating the FA43? I remember in one thread someone said calibrating it at portrait distance (~6-7 feet) seems to work best with a certain kind of chart. But I can't remember which thread this appeared in.

Pixel peeping is a bit of an exercise in foolishness

That is pure photographic wisdom...We all love sharp lenses, but creating art and telling a story is what it's all about for me.

[Sandy Hancock]

The vignetting is mostly likely to appear at close focus distances at wide aperture settings - that always puts a strain on lenses.

Taken yesterday. f/2.0 at MFD. Hood on. No crop or attempt to fix vignetting. Apologies for the subject.



Wide open a little further back. The vignetting is not too bad. A more appealing subject.

[robjmitchell]

My copy has excellent sharpness on the K3 at f2.8. For portraiture I wouldn't expect a problem if you can get the AF to work properly(assuming your copy is ok) You certainly get mush if the focus is off. There Is also the DFA 50/2.8 macro although I'm not so sure how flattering it would be for the models.
Here is a heavily cropped shot from yesterday at 2.8, pretty close to 1:1 when view on flickr. Obviously the K1 is a slightly different beast due to its larger image circle. I haven't noticed a lack corner sharpness either on my copy (when the focus point was in the corner to account for field curvature)

[MadMathMind]

Somehow I got derailed in this thread looking for a new lens. Let's go back to my original question for the FA43: what is the best way to calibrate this thing?

Some shots from yesterday with it. I shot without flash for once as part of an experiment to see how the camera would do; I love my fill flash but the third girl in the group became suddenly ill this morning so we had to cook up a new idea on the spot since we couldn't continue without her. Anyway, here's one shot, taken at maybe 5 feet away:



Looks great! And here's a 100% of her face:



Marvelous detail! This even rivals the FA77. Seems to verify the lens itself is not defective, decentered, or otherwise busted.

Here's another:



It's hard to tell from this but it looks to have backfocused (focus point is eyes or face or the closest focus point to that), even though the lens is calibrated to correct for that. Here's a 100%:


It's mushy. Focus is clearly off. I was probably about 7 feet away here? Something like that.

I have Lens Align but I can't use it to calibrate the FA43 from 6-7 feet away--target is too small! Any suggestions on what I might use?

[btnapa]

How has everyone's experience been? Here's mine:

FA31 - Not used it tremendously since I mostly shoot models. When I have it's been to get high DoF because I'm shooting a couple girls at once in staggered planes or just want a wide perspective. The few times I've used it...well, there's a reason why I call it 'legendary' and why it's my favorite lens.

FA77 - Like....this is ridiculous. The resolving power of this lens is far beyond anything I thought possible. It is utterly absurd. Just gorgeous, sharp, crisp. I was in the FA31 camp but this is probably most deserving of its recent crowing as best Pentax lens ever.

FA43 - So far my weak link and I really need it not to be since I will use it most. I'm having trouble with the focus. Even when I do get it to focus perfectly, it's pretty obvious the FA43's resolution is not up to the level of it's two sisters...or amigos. Partly I've been shooting below f/4. I am also not satisfied with my focus calibration but not been able to get it where I need to.

Images with the FA43 look great at screen size (2MP) and up to...say, 40% zoom? But after that they're mushy. Pixel peeping is a bit of an exercise in foolishness, but I think this lens can do better.

Anyone got tips on calibrating the FA43? I remember in one thread someone said calibrating it at portrait distance (~6-7 feet) seems to work best with a certain kind of chart. But I can't remember which thread this appeared in.

There must be sample variations on the FA43. At least on my K3 it is just as good as the 31 and 77. In fact the 31 was the worst of the bunch on the K3. I shot lots of studio product work on the 43. Initially, I thought 77 would be the lens but given its field of coverage, I used the 43 almost exclusively.

Granted most of the studio work was shot at f9 or so, until I had to do some shallow depth of field images to isolate the products. I ended up shooting a series of images at f2.8. The results were excellent. The parts of the frame that were supposed to be in focus were tack sharp and the rest had a beautiful out of focus rendering.

Fast forward to the K1. I only got to shoot a bunch of images on my 31 before my loaner had to go back. On K1 the FA31 has been flawless. Fast and accurate focus with sharpness across the frame and aperture range. I will have to wait for my own K1 to arrive before trying the 43 and the 77.

Just my two cents.