[joostdh]

I'm sorry to hear your FA43 wasn't meeting your expectations. Purely from reading your story -- I haven't had the opportunity to look at your photos -- I expect your copy isn't good. My 43 is great on the K-1 and comes even more into its own than on crop.

Bad copies happen; I once ordered a FA31 direct from Ricoh and it was truly horrific under f/4.0, not at all living up to its expectation. The good news is it killed my lust for that (pricey) lens.

Here is a casual wide-open shot wide on the K-1 that I made which IMO has none of the sharpness or contrast issues you describe:

[repaap]

I would agree, my first copy, an older MIJ version in silver was OK wide open in the centre, but not great. My brand new copy however, bought last year in black is excellent

[/COLOR]Oh, and the perfect 8-point sun starts are lovely for landscape work IMO

My FA 43 is old MIJ silver version and I'm lucky to have it sharp W/O and stopped down those nice starbursts.

[Digitalis]

My experience with the FA43mm f/1.9 special lens on the Leica monochrom has been nothing but positive - even at f/2.8 I can get images with high contrast and pleasing sharpness, though I will admit I use a separate Voigtlander hood on my FA43 - the standard hood doesn't shield the lens properly IMO. The monochrom having a 18Mp monochrome sensor doesn't reveal the faults that colour sensors do - also I use a wratten 28 dark red on most of my lenses which increases image contrast.

P.S: If I have a lens that isn't performing as well as it should, I'm not shy about making my displeasure with the lens known.

[bxf]

On a K-5, I had issues that I took to be due to strong field curvature, which made it difficult to get everything looking sharp even when stopped down some.

To make things worse, our ability to so easily pixel-peep sometimes results in unrealistic expectations.

---

Last edited by bxf; 06-29-2016 at 05:04 AM.

[normhead]

I am looking at the first image at ƒ4 and ƒ2.8, I'm retired and i still don't have time to look at so many images. At the resolution required, I have no idea what is wrong with the photo.

Maybe it would be clear with a pixel peeper, but it's not clear from what's posted. All I can suggest is post a pixel peeper of the part you feel is inadequate.

I lifted a couple of crops from your ƒ4 chair photo... I'm mystified trying to understand the objection.

Centre of the frame.


Edge of the frame


So to continue this conversation, we need a clear example of what's wrong, surely you can do at least as much work as I did and highlight a problem area. To me this is just showing a representation of a chair that shows way more detail than it needs to.

[chuck_c]

Thanks, if you liked the FA31 on APS-C, then the FA43 on the K-1 is perfect.

I agree totally. Two of my favorite lenses on APS-C are the FA 31 (black) and the F 28. I shot with the FA 43 (silver,AIV) on the K-1 for the first time last friday and was just as pleased with how comfortable that lens/camera combo felt, as well as with the images that I got.

[lennyl]

I got silver for 550euro like new, I am surprise, 43/1,9 is sharper on f1,9 like FA31 and FA77, wau

JPGs from K-1
f1,9
http://www.imagehosting.cz/images/imgp5374.jpg
f1,9
http://www.imagehosting.cz/images/imgp5379.jpg
f1,9
http://www.imagehosting.cz/images/imgp5382.jpg
f1,9
http://www.imagehosting.cz/images/imgp5404.jpg
f14
http://www.imagehosting.cz/images/imgp5407.jpg
f2
http://www.imagehosting.cz/images/imgp5412.jpg
f11
http://www.imagehosting.cz/images/imgp5414.jpg
f1,9
imgp5431.jpg at ImageHosting.cz - Hosting pro tvoje fotky a obrazky
f1,9
http://www.imagehosting.cz/images/imgp5432.jpg
f1,9
http://www.imagehosting.cz/images/imgp5437.jpg
f1,9
http://www.imagehosting.cz/images/imgp5446.jpg
f2
imgp5448.jpg at ImageHosting.cz - Hosting pro tvoje fotky a obrazky
f2
http://www.imagehosting.cz/images/imgp5455.jpg
f2
imgp5468.jpg at ImageHosting.cz - Hosting pro tvoje fotky a obrazky
f2, ISO 1600
http://www.imagehosting.cz/images/imgp5487.jpg

[redpit]

I also use the FA 43 on my K-1 and I love the results. In fact I was quite hesitant due to some reviews, but I'm glad I bought it! It is sharp even wide open and the AF works a lot better than on my FA 31! The rendering and the bokeh can be a bit strange under circumstances but I like the special character this lens has. I believe that your copy has an issue if you find this lens not sharp when stopped down a bit. I ended up using it more than the 31!

[noelpolar]

Generally..... when you are significantly out of step with the broader experience of a larger sample base then you most likely have an issue. In this case it's your copy of the 43 I'd say. Makes your review somewhat misleading for those that will follow. I'd send my 43 off for repair, delete my review and redo it when you get your lens back. Or alter my user name from Madmathmind to madlensreviewer.

Of note.... average autofocus score for the 43 is a 9..... you give it a 1?

[i83N]

The only problem I have with 43mm that if you shoot it wide open against sun, imagine gets soft/unfocused. It's coused by light reflecting from sensor on reare element creating flair which if makes AF inaccurate.
But if you shoot on manual you can avoid this problem
Here is sample straight out of camera

[Class A]

I just checked my FA 43/1.9 on my K-1. It focuses well with PDFAF and LV, even with backlit subjects.

Unsurprisingly, the lens can also focus on a face.

As for the problems of the OP, I'm not sure what the real problem is. It seems that his copy has some focusing issues. I don't think that these nor the test shots justify the bad scores in the review.

I think the F43/1.9 is a wonderful lens, even though it is the most temperamental of the FA Ltds. It is interesting to use some of its quirks to produce non-standard images.

BTW, of course it is possible to objectively determine whether the lens design is flawed or not: From the photozone review of the 43mm f/1.9 Limited:

"The FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited produced stellar resolution figures in the MTF lab except at wide-open aperture.

[venzi3]

I find the K-1 with the FA 43 1.9 a very good portrait lens. The skin tones are very accurate. Photograph shot wide open

[btnapa]

I find the K-1 with the FA 43 1.9 a very good portrait lens. The skin tones are very accurate. Photograph shot wide open

Really nice pic.

[MadMathMind]

Mine is up for sale at a below-market price in the marketplace. The consensus on this thread from those who've examined the sample images is that it seems to be within specification and I'm asking too much of it.

[Class A]

The consensus on this thread from those who've examined the sample images is that it seems to be within specification and I'm asking too much of it.

That may or may not be true, but in your sales thread you write

"The consensus on the thread I started seems to be that my expectations are too high for the lens and that there isn't an issue with this copy.

I feel that is a misrepresentation of this thread.

There are a number of people who suspected your copy may have issues. Your reports about AF difficulties and the trouble taking photographs of faces do not rhyme with what other people experience. This thread also features photographs of people (e.g., here); do you find these also not "to your liking" or is it just your own shots that you don't find convincing? It is also a bit of a mismatch that the lens, on the one hand, is measured to have "stellar resolution figures in the MTF lab except at wide-open aperture" but, on the other hand, you are "asking too much of it".

Your copy may be fine, but I don't think a consensus has developed supporting that notion.

In your sales thread you are pretty upfront about almost everything and even offer a very generous 10 day return policy. Therefore, I think you should not misrepresent this thread.