| Author: | | Pentaxian Registered: April, 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,910
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 30, 2022 | Not Recommended | Price: $400.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Compact, compatible with film cameras as well as digital, decent performer | | Cons: | Not that fast, disappointing build quality, disappointing optical quality, MFD | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 5
Value: 3
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-3
| |
I bought this lens to replace the DA 40mm Limited as I wanted an AF standard prime for my film cameras which would also work well on digital. I've shot quite a bit of film on it but not scanned any of the results yet, so at this time this review is based solely on it's performance on my K-3.
I have the silver version because it's what was available used in my city. I would have much preferred black as the silver one looks ugly on my K-3.
Every Pentax fan knows the Limited series, DA and FA, of lenses, and their legendary reputation, and as an owner of all the DA Limited lenses I hankered after the FAs as they are faster and film/FF compatible. The DA 40mm is a nice lens, very handy with great image quality, but only f/2.8, and if you want something faster in that focal length and with AF then this is your only option.
I expected to be enthralled by the 43mm from the start, both in optical and build quality, but I have been disappointed by both. I would say the build quality is poorer than that of the DA Limited lenses, though that's possibly because of the aperture ring, which is light and a little loose when it should be firm. Perhaps the DA Limiteds have an advantage there in not having an aperture ring to let them down. Overall the 43mm feels too light, the metal too thin, and the tolerances too loose, leaving a feeling of fragility and sub-par assembly.
Optically the 43mm is sharp in the very centre wide open, but bear in mind that's on APS-C, so on full-frame the sharp part of the image will be a very small area indeed. It needs to be stopped down to f/2.5 to reliably get images that are decently sharp when focused outside of dead centre, and that leaves it with a paltry 1/3 of a stop advantage over the DA 40mm. Apertures larger than that are useable but be prepared for a little glow and AF mis-focusing. Bokeh and rendering are OK, but nothing special. I don't value lenses purely on sharpness as some do, I love a lens that adds a je-ne-se-quoi to it's images (perhaps the Limited pixie-dust), and the 43mm disappoints here, where I expected it to excel. There's no pixie-dust here. For just 7mm difference in focal length it seems much more difficult to get subject isolation out of the 43mm when compared to a good 50mm lens. The much, much cheaper DAL 50mm f/1.8 produces better results in this regard.
Minimum focusing distance is 45cm, which is typically what a 50mm lens has, but this is just 43mm, so magnification is lower and this results in being unable to get in as close as I would like.
All-in-all, it's very much missing the pixie dust that the FA Limited series are reputed to have. That's not to say it's a poor performer, it isn't, but it's merely adequate where it should be excellent, and as such comes nowhere near to deserving it's reputation. The DA 40mm is smaller, performs at least as well (albeit slower) and is half the price. F and FA 50mm f/1.7 lenses are also better.
If it weren't for the price I'd probably rate this as a seven or eight but the price can't be ignored - this is the most expensive Pentax lens I've owned and yet it's not in the top five (or probably ten) of performers. As such, it deserves nothing more than a lowly six at best.
I have now sold the 43mm and I don't miss it at all. I've got a pair of F 50/1.7s, which cost me €70 each, and they perform as well or better than the 43mm and are better built, despite being plastic on the outside.
Here's how it looks on my K-3:
K-3 and FA 43mm Limited by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Some sample images:
Flowers by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Pipo by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Building in the snow by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
Mara by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
IMG_4209 by Jonathan MacDonald, on Flickr
| | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: December, 2013 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 1,717
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 26, 2016 | Not Recommended
| Rating: 4 |
| Pros: | Compact, aesthetics, really nice at f/8 - f/11 | | Cons: | K-1 image quality, erratic focus | | Sharpness: 5
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 1
Handling: 10
Value: 3
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K-1
| |
Let me begin by saying that I *really* wanted to like this lens. I was excited to acquire it and use it on my K-1, having had such a great experience with my FA31 on the K-5IIs.
Wow, have I ever been disappointed. Let's go through the categories.
Sharpness:
I gave this a 5 because when it focuses, it's pretty good, especially at screen size. But a pixel peep reveals that the lens lacks the resolution of its FA31 and FA77 sisters. Perhaps the biggest problem with this lens is its poor contrast, even stopped down until you hit f/5.6 or so. Using flash helps a bit but compared to what other lenses can do on the K-1, the FA43 is a huge disappointment.
I'm not even commenting on wide open performance. I'm trying to shoot this at f/3.2 to f/4 and not seeing acceptable results. Flash helps a bit but the off-center performance is quite poor even stopped down a bit. A normal lens like this should really be accomplishing a lot more.
If you're a few feet away, then this lens does pretty well, but it's not capable of resolving fine details from afar. But given the short-ish focal length, perspective distortion begins to become a concern at short distances, so you have to choose between reality and acceptable resolution/sharpness.
Aberrations:
Purple fringing is more controlled with this lens than its FA sisters, at least from what I can tell. However, the lens displays a significant amount of field curvature, perhaps due to its focal length. The electronic levels in the K-1 show that I should be in-plane with flat objects yet there's still noticeable distortion. And if you're off by a slight amount, it's pretty rough.
Bokeh:
Bokeh is for the most part acceptable and pleasing, although the low number of straight aperture blades leads to hexagonal highlights. The trouble here is that the focal length requires you to focus closely to achieve the bokeh (where in distortion becomes a concern) and if you're moderately far away, you don't get strong blur unless you're at wide apertures and then...
Autofocus:
As bad as the Sigma 18-35 I had. Let me say that: every bit as poor, perhaps worse. At screen size, the images are ok, but even at 50% view, it's clear the focus is frequently lost. The Sigma generally worked well in Live View, but the FA43's performance in Live View is abysmal. In fact, it seems to miss almost all the time in live view. I attribute this to the lens's poor contrast below f/2.8, where it's not really all that usable. PDAF performance is...erratic but generally better. But I'm using this for wide-perspective portraits of people, when I want some environment in the photo and/or the FA77 is too long. For this purpose, it's utterly deplorable. I don't feel I can depend on this lens to focus below f/8.
It's possible I'm not focusing in a manner this lens needs. I use off-center focus points because I'm trying to nail focus on the eyes. It's possible that the lens is capable of reliable focus beyond its center points, simply because of poor resolution, poor contrast, or perhaps (mostly likely) field curvature and off-axis aberration. In any case, this doesn't help me much. My subjects have better things to do than wait around while I precisely focus and then do a perfect recompose because that's what the lens requires.
What I observe is that it tends to front focus from a distance but work well at short distances; if there were a consistent front focus, it would be obvious at the shallow DoF of close focus and I could calibrate it out. And then every now and then it will just miss entirely and on occasion back focus. Most troubling, however, is the failure in live view. Since Live View is an exhaustive search for maximum contrast, the lens properties really don't play much of a role. It indicates something is really crossed between the lens and the body. I'm not sure what. As I say in my review, I'm not sure whether it's the lens' poor contrast wide open (where focusing is done) or just the mediocre off-center sharpness or other distortion effects that make focus poor when non-center points are used. Still, if the latter, I would expect to see that spot in focus and the rest of the image messed up, but that's not what I see. Frequently, the subject's face is not in focus, despite my putting the focus point right over her eyes!
Handling:
Well, it's small and very light. That's a plus, right?
Value:
For significantly less money, you can have the less stylish F50, FA50, or DFA50, the first two of which can be had in f/1.4 or f/1.7 variants. The only appeal of this lens is its look. It gorgeous, simply put, but it's not worth what they're charging for it.
I guess I can say something good about the lens here: it looks really nice at f/8 to f/11. For shooting "stuff," it's ok in that regard and fills a gap between the FA31 and FA77 nicely. But any human subject you want in focus? Forget it.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: December, 2007 Location: Prague Posts: 1,199
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 28, 2016 | Not Recommended
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | compact size, the build quality | | Cons: | not really sharp until stopped down | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 6
Autofocus: 6
Handling: 8
Value: 4
New or Used: New
Camera Used: K-1
| |
I really liked this lens on the K10D and the film cameras. It was not so good on the K-5, but I was eager to try it on full frame, expecting the lens to improve the impression. It did not.
It is still small and beautifully crafted, but the sharpness is lacking. Especially in comparison to the excellent DFA50/2,8 macro the difference is striking. With the DFA wide open you can count the distinct hairs on the subject, while the FA43 stopped down to same aperture won't render even larger features sharp enough.
The K-1 left me not wanting to use the FA43 anymore. I will always go with either FA35 or DFA50, both being superior in my opinion.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2010 Location: Seattle Posts: 1,915
7 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 13, 2013 | Not Recommended
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | size, build quality, rendering (sometimes) | | Cons: | unreliable/unpredictable, rendering (sometimes) | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 6
Handling: 7
Value: 5
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K-7, K-5
| |
This is a lens that I've never really warmed up to. After spending some time with the FA77, I had pretty high expectations for the 43, but I have never found it to be quite up to snuff.
When this lens is good, it's really good. It is capable of capturing delicate tones and colors in a way the DAs often miss with their zealous vibrancy. It's bokeh -- under the right conditions -- produces the hallmark "FA Limited" look. It is also very good at rendering gritty textures. As many have said, it's also sharp, though nowhere close to the level of the FA77, especially at wider apertures.
But the lens has a lot of drawbacks that have made it the most awkward piece of glass in my kit. For one, its bokeh is only nice under certain, hard to divine situations -- the rest of the time is often looks quite harsh, especially with a textured background. Its rendering often has a certain rough 'sooty-ness' to it that I'm not sure I can describe otherwise. Its autofocus, though fast, is the least accurate and least precise of all my Pentax lenses. And, though I find it is much better controlled for chromatic aberration than its big brother the FA77, it is much more sensitive to the harshness in midday light -- the first week I had it I thought it was over exposing constantly, but I quickly learned that it likes to collapse tones unless fed something delicate.
Now despite all that, I have produced some of my favorite photos with the FA43, which puts me in the uncomfortable position of struggling to recommend a lens that has generated objectively good images. The underlying theme is that I find this lens requires certain conditions to bring out its best, and I've never been able to pin them down.
Although the FA43 reaches much higher highs, I find myself using the 35Ltd far more often now because it is a reliable and predictable performer.
I've attached some images that demonstrate this lens at its best (in my hands, anyway). It is a worthy purchase if you are willing to ride its learning curve, recognize its limitations, or if it fits your shooting style. Otherwise, I think there is more bang for your buck to be had elsewhere in this range.
| | | | | | | Junior Member Registered: December, 2018 Location: Vancouver Canada Posts: 37
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 4, 2023 | Recommended | Price: $175.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Incredibly sharp even at 100%, front and back depth of field | | Cons: | maybe cost? no quick shift | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 7
Value: 6
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K1
| |
I was very skeptical of this lens, given both the reviews here, and having the FA 35/2, DFA 50/2.8 macro, and the 77. Surely I couldn't justify keeping the 43, given how sharp the DFA 50 macro is.
But this AIV version is now the sharpest lens I have (out of 12)
Photographing subjects in low-light (f/2.8), and reviewing at 100% zoom magnification reveals individual strands of hair - extraordinary sharpness. Beautifully rendered front and rear depth of focus, producing photos I never achieved with the K1 before. The rendering is special, and I finally understand what "pixie dust" is.
No regrets at all buying this lens. Other than my copy is silver, and my body is black. Still have a lot of love for the 77, the handling is better, but the 43 is magnificent.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: May, 2014 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,047
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 27, 2022 | Recommended | Price: $350.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Extremely sharp, Nice contrast, fast AF | | Cons: | None so far | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: Pentax K5 IIs
| |
I never thought I would be saying this, but this is my favorite Limited lens. Actually, this is last of the "3 Amigo" lenses I purchased opting for the more famous 31mm, and 77mm. I'm not too crazy about pancake lenses becuse they look sort of 'dorky' on my camera(IMHO). This is another reason why I waited/procrastinated to purchase this lens for so long. I got this lens back during the COVID-19 epidemic (April/2020), so I had plenty of time to test it since then.
My first impression was like WOW ! This lens definately had the "wow" factor, especially since I didn't expect it. Right off the bat the images looked wonderful. Tack sharp, colorful with lots of contrast. My copy came straight from Japan and is the Silver version. Not sure how much difference this makes, but I didn't want to take any chances.
This lens as well my other '3 Amigos' are Screw Drive lenses. Meaning there is a motor inside the camera that turns the lens focusing ring until it focuses. Outdoors the noise these screw drive motors make is not really an issue. Actually, I kind of like the noise because it lets me know the camera/lens is Auto Focusing. However, indoors such as at a funeral or a museum it can get quite annoying.
The SDM/USM type lenses are much quieter, but they can be so quiet, that you are left wondering if the lens is working or not ? Sort of like driving an Electric car with zero-to-none engine noise, it can get quite eerie. Despite the noise, the 43mm is the quietest of the '3 Amigos' ( 31mm, 77mm) BTW. My guess is that since it was built later, the technology had improved somewhat ? But don't quote me on that.
To me, this lens performs, or is right up there with the much more expensive Zeiis, Voightlander and Leica lenses plus it got AF ! Not sure how Pentax pulled it off ? When I downloaded the images to my computer, I saw sharpness I have neer seen before in a lens. Even objects that were far, far away were relatively sharp. I think even the most radical pixel-peepers out there would have nothing to complain about in this regard. Then there was 3D-look/pop that people rave about. It didn't happen 'once in a blue moon' like with other lenses/brands I tried, but pretty consistently.
Some say they like the 35mm Macro, or the 50mm f1.7 better, but I tested this lens against both and it came out on top. To me, the 35mm Macro did not produce the natural colors that the 43mm did, or did it produce the 3D-look as often. It was a little too 'clinical' to me for normal scenes. To my surprise, the 43mm blew-out the 50mm f1.7 (which is one of my favorite lenses and highly rated on this forum and despite having a little longer reach) right out of the water when it came to sharpness ! Although, I like the Bokeh on the 50mm f1.7 a little better.
Is this lens better than the 31mm and the 77mm Limiteds ? Well 'Yes" and "No". For my type of shooting yes !!. It's small, relatively quiet and unobtrusive and produces extremely sharp images. As you know the 31mm and the 77mm are the highest rated lenses on this forum. However my version of the 31mm is subject to flare and busy/weird looking Bokeh caused by the flare at times. No such problem with the 43mm, this lens is virtually flare free. 
The 77mm is a great lens no doubt, but to me it doesn't have the 'WOW" factor that I expected. It could be that it sits in my bag more often than it should, due to the pretty long Telephoto Range which on a cropped-sensor camera is equivalent to 122mm. Unless you are shooting portraits, or need some distance when taking travel photos, there are just not that many subjects for this long range. Then again, I could be wrong...
| | | | | New Member Registered: July, 2022 Posts: 12
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 29, 2022 | Recommended | Price: $330.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | sharp, great colour and contrast, great build, small and light | | Cons: | could be cheaper if im nitpicking | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 8
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: Pentax Z-1p
| |
For film, this lens is what I'd consider to be the perfect street photography lens: Small, Light, Well built, Top shelf colour and clarity. Focal length is great too as I found my F50/1.7 on film makes me wanna take a step or two backwards more often than not. 43 is the step backward.
I haven't used it stopped down too much because I'm not obsessed with bokeh. But I have used it wide open for night shooting and you can see the results below. Really, really nice with a roll of Fuji 400 pushed to 800.
If inconspicuous night shooting, general documentation, and a sort of old school colour is your thing, and you keep having to step backwards on a fast 50, this is the one.
    | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: December, 2007 Location: In the most populated state... state of denial Posts: 1,853 | | Review Date: June 1, 2022 | Recommended | Price: $350.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Optics, good looks, small and well built | | Cons: | Some CA wide open - purple fringing | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 8
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K3-iii, K5-iis
| |
Got a silver one used,
while this is a 20 yr old lens, I wanted to give it a try
First impressions was the lens cap and pouch are very nicely made.
Lens feels solid and well made, even though the lettering in the DoF scale had faded
Ran a few quick tests, AF is fast and precise
Bokeh is neutral (below 4), after f/4 is a bit busy
Color rendition is on the bright side (warm)
Pictures are sharp and have good separation of foreground and background even at 1.9, optimal around 8
Basically no flare or ghosts
CA wide open is noticeable in the corners with APS, should be worse in 35mm. Mostly gone at f/5.6
PS. Took the lens on a trip and Purple fringing in the center is very noticeable below f/4, and that bothers me a lot
Center Crop  | | | | | New Member Registered: September, 2020 Location: Derbyshire Posts: 3 | | Review Date: October 17, 2020 | Recommended | Price: $250.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Build quality, flare resistance, very sharp when well stopped down | | Cons: | Unacceptable distortion, inflexible, poor bokeh, so-so wider aperture performance | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 4
Bokeh: 4
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 6
Value: 6
New or Used: New
Camera Used: MZ5n/MX
| |
OK - let's be honest. What this is, is your Dad's Pentax M 50mm 1.7 carcass with updated optics and autofocus
I agree with Camera Quest who were amazed that Pentax had the temerity to build a lens out of metal when poly carbonate was all the rage - it was a bold move. I read Amateur Photographer's review of the lens by Dr Stewart Bell, who was very impressed and I got one second hand.
Off I went to make use of it.
What I found was a lens that had some really interesting characteristics: it could deal with contra-jour light extremely well - highlights? No problem. Street lights at night? So what! This to me was the landscape photographer's lens - stopped down to F8-11 - wow! - the picture quality could not be argued with. It IS sharp across the frame.
But when I started using wider apertures - it just looked plain ordinary and lacked the punch and drawing of the faster Pentax 50's.
There was another problem - distortion. Those using this lens on digital may have images pre-processed and the distortion ironed out. On E6 the distortion was plain disappointing - I mean REALLY, REALLY bad. Any of the Pentax 50-55mm could knock this blue-blood into a cocked hat regarding distortion.
Another problem area was bokeh. It was hard to get separation at closer distances and the bokeh was very busy - distracting. I honestly think that any 50mm is frankly more useful performance wise.. I don't think that the 43 Limited is a good light gatherer either.
It's series name 'Limited' is quite apt given that to me it has a limited application - photographing nature where there is not a straight line in sight. I would not use it for architectural photography. It excels at landscapes - but then so could most of the Pentax 50's - including the f2 versions.
So, you are paying a lot of money for a lens that to me at least has a limited use. When I sold it I was left scratching my head in puzzlement 'What was that all about?' I asked.
I felt that I'd been had. This is not a lens for all seasons in my view. It has a niche application I think. Think hard before you buy is my advice.
My view is that this is an ideal standard lens for landscape/environmental photography - big vistas with bright light in the frame, mixed light. It does this superbly well, without peer in my view. Other than that, not much else - there are better and more flexible options.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: November, 2014 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 1,749
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 9, 2020 | Recommended | Price: $375.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | 3d-pop rendition; bright aperture; focal lenth; sharpness | | Cons: | CA; weak corners | |
This was the last lens I ever thought I'd get. It didn't really seem to fit a purpose for me, as I didn't particularly do portraiture, the focal length seemed a bit odd on aps-c, etc etc.
But then suddenly it made perfect send. I'd got the DA21 and then the DA15 limited, and rounding it out with the 43 1.9 would be a perfect solution to have a three-lens, small and compact kit would cover all bases. Low-light was covered, medium-telephoto was covered - perfect!
It really does have the 3-d pop that people describe. It's subtle at times, but other times it's fantastic. It makes photographs with large depths of field (f/5.6-f/11) have more pop to them. And that's how I like to shoot! The first thing that I found disappointing is I tried a vertical portrait wide open, and the subjects' heads were relatively close to the edge of the frame and looked out of focus. CA is more visible than in my other limiteds but it's never been a significant problem for me.
Great lens, very versatile. I end up using it far more than I'd expect! Wonderful for landscapes too, as it helps to simplify the subject and cut out extraneous features I might not want in the field of view. I would recommend it - it might surprise you!
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: February, 2013 Location: Canada Posts: 198
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 3, 2020 | Recommended | Price: $400.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | size, build quality, image quality | | Cons: | none | |
Had a HD DA40 LTD, and wavered on buying this. Found a store with old stock clearing out and picked it up.
MIJ version so really old.
That said compared to the DA 40 which was very good the pictures now just have more life to them.
Nothing wrong with image quality after fine tuning the focus.
Highly recommend if someone is thinking of getting this for the K1.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: June, 2011 Posts: 485
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 8, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $300.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | small, image quality, character, focal length | | Cons: | still a little too pricey (I think), hard to manual focus, far minimum focusing distance | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Autofocus: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 9
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: Pentax K-1
| |
I do have some negative things to say about this lens, but the fact that it has remained on my Pentax K-1 for months now as my primary lens really tells you how I feel.
This lens is a fantastic documenting tool on full-frame. I like the 35mm focal length best, but 43mm has grown on me as the pictures come out looking so natural. I know there's some thought and science behind why they picked that focal length for the sensor size, and being a true "standard" lens, and I don't know too much about how all that works but it does feel like a very natural what-you-see-is-what-you-get length.
If the fact that I left it on my K-1 isn't enough to show you how I value this lens, I also have done something I never thought I would do with a $1k+ setup - shoot in JPEG. The pictures come out so predictably good, and I was finding myself performing the exact same edits to the pictures. Mind you, these aren't pictures I'm trying to sell or anything, just documenting family life, so I wasn't worried about being heart broken if anything bad did happen. Just a very small contrast boost, and a little saturation and the pictures are beautiful. That's seriously impressive.
I think it's acceptably sharp for shooting people wide open center frame, and stopping down to even 2.8 seems great to me. I don't really see any sharpness issues.
Now for the cons.
I really do get bummed consistently about the minimum focusing distance. Seems like it might be one of those things that's physically impossible to deliver in their design and keep the other bonuses like size, but it hurts nonetheless. That being said, having to take a step back and reframe gets me to take more of the scene in anyway and that can be good. It's just those times where I wanted to be in closer.
I think it's overpriced. That's me being kinda cheap, because I am, but I think a somewhat close comparison could be made to the FA 50mm 1.4, which has gotten me similarly great images, and is way cheaper used. Maybe one day I would compare the lenses side by side and sell off the 43mm, but I have this illogical love with the 43mm already that probably means I won't. I bought my 43mm for what I consider a pretty good price at $300, and that felt like pushing it for me.
So, it's up to you. You definitely get a great lens that is uniquely different than the FA 50mm 1.4, but are they more aesthetically pleasing to you? Well, it's arguments like that that keep this forum open 
Hope this helped somehow, there are already really solid reviews on this lens, but wanted to offer maybe my unique perspective.
| | | | | Seeker of Knowledge Registered: August, 2016 Location: Topeka, Kansas Posts: 24,582 | | Review Date: November 5, 2019 | Recommended
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | build quality, reputation is lived up to | | Cons: | none I found | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: k 3 II
| |
this is the black model
interesting, the pouch has gold lettering which is something I hadn't seen before 
of course this is my first FA limited, my others are the SMC DA Limiteds
made in japan ( don't know if that matters )
purchased used from Adorama
| | | | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: December, 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Posts: 2,437
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 5, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $340.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Wonderful build, small, light, useful focal length on FF | | Cons: | Corners not as sharp and center wide open | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Autofocus: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 9
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K-1
| |
Some review sites are pretty harsh about this lens. It think mainly they focus so much on corner sharpness wide open (and also there seems to be a bit of sample variation coming into play too). Corners are not perfect wide open but not that bad either (at least on my copy). Stop down a bit and everything is sharp.
On the K-1 its a very useful focal length and now my default initial lens when I go walk about. Handling wise its a joy to use while also being very small, light and unobtrusive.
There is a bit of pixie dust in there too, but perhaps not as much as in the FA31.
Some sample images (I will add some more later):
1. At f4
2. At f2.8
 | | | | | amateur dirt farmer Registered: December, 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Posts: 41,766
8 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 2, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $350.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | color, clarity, sharpness, rendering, quality-feel | | Cons: | MFD, no quick-shift, occasional CA | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Autofocus: 10
Handling: 8
Value: 8
New or Used: Used
Camera Used: K-3
| |
I finally bought a copy (used from the Marketplace) of the venerated FA 43mm f1.9 Limited - slightly intimidating, given its status as one of the Three Princesses (or Amigos, or whatever you call this trinity), but here we go:
of course, there's the build quality of the FA Limited - all metal, tight tolerances, engraved markings, all the things we've come to know and love about these lenses - she's a beauty...
two shortcomings for me are immediately apparent from the get-go: MFD of just under 18" and no quick-shift, but this lens was designed in a different time, to a different spec so I'll just adjust...
beyond those two issues, however, all is a land of sweet bokeh, beautiful colors, and rendering that is just delectable...
witness:
 daisies by Pepperberry Farm, on Flickr
 spring storm by Pepperberry Farm, on Flickr
 chainmail by Pepperberry Farm, on Flickr
 snake in the box by Pepperberry Farm, on Flickr
there is one quirk I learned about the FA 43 Ltd during my month with her: do not force the lens; what I mean is, this lens has a definite, distinct style of shooting that gives you the opportunity to see why it's a legend....
I tried to force the lens into MFD, wide-open shots as I would any other close-focusing or macro lens I own and the results were not pleasing to the eye at all - flat, busy bokeh, uninspiring shots were the result...
but give the lens the chance to flow, to allow the Art to happen, and it's sooo rewarding...
my flickr album for the FA43 Limited:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/pepperberryfarm/albums/72157678017630147/page1 | | |
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
