Originally posted by bossa I knew there were reasons I just couldn't bring myself to buy that lens.
Are you sure it's not because you have the DA*55?
The combination of the FA43 and the K50/1.2 is the only reason I didn't buy
it!
EDIT: Silly me - I should have read the review first! I'm familiar enough with the lens that I just didn't bother before commenting. There's nothing to get worked up about in the review. It just describes the lens as it is.
Anyone who owns one quickly discovers that you don't shoot with it wide-open. You only do that with a few lenses, like an FA31 or FA77. You also might do it with a 50/1.2 or DA*55 (which is why the DA*55 is actually worth what it costs). I never shoot the FA43 wider that f/2.2 because there's too much loss of IQ otherwise, and often go for f/2.5, 2.8, or narrower. But since it's still better than any of the 50s (besides the 50/1.2s) at those apertures that doesn't bother me. The article is saying what we already know - that it's usable from f/2.2 to f/2.8 and isn't truly optimal until it reaches at least f/4. I've seen this fact discussed many times before by owners - that it begins to really come into its own somewhere between f/2.8 and f/4.
It's OK that the FA43 shouldn't be shot wide open, because the few lenses that can cost even more than the FA43, and it has other outstanding characteristics. For example, nothing but perhaps the DA15 can touch it in color rendering. (Exception: the inexpensive DA35/2.4 is really a crippled FA35/2 which now starts at just the right aperture and can be shot wide open).
Big deal - the two best AF "50s" are still the FA43 and the DA*55. You just pick the one that better suits you (unless you get both).