Finally down to these 2 giants...40mm and 43mm, now which one to get

[moving_comfort]

Quickshift and Price are your major determining factors, and not IQ. Got it. I buy lenses for IQ - call me crazy.

Give me a break. I didn't say IQ has no place as a determining factor. I'm talking about the magnitude of the difference in IQ between these two specific lenses, and how that compares with the importance of the other factors. To my eyes - as someone who has seen many, many images from both - the difference in IQ is simply not big enough to outweigh the other factors I mentioned. The difference in speed is more significant to me, and would really be the only thing that could have caused me to go with the 43 despite the lack of QSF and the price difference, but the difference in IQ was pretty much a non-issue for me (in tis particular case*.

.

Very well put. As a former owner of both, I'd have to say that the real difference in IQ aside from the differences brought by speed (DOF effects) are pretty minimal. Some of the sharpest-looking large prints I've ever made came from the DA 40.

I slightly preferred the 43 because I generally really value speed, but I fully see the value of the DA 40, and frankly the 40 tended to annoy me less - focus hunting in low light was a bit of a problem with the 43. People like Mike Johnston value the DA 35ltd over the FA 31ltd for some of the same reasons people like the DA 40 over the 43.

.

 

[Chrichey]

See what I mean...it gets hard choosing between the Da 40 and fa 43

 

[Voe]

I can chime in as I also had both lenses. I have some of my favorite image taken with the 40mm Limited, and I appreciate it's IQ. But the thing is that the 43mm Limited came on top always when I was taking the same shot with both lenses. The 43mm Limited had better contrast and higher resolution and any similar aperture.

Before I did these comparison shots I was hoping for the 40mm Limited to win, because I could sell the 43mm Limited for more which would allow me to get other lenses, but it's just wasn't the case. I couldn't fault the 43mm Limited, it excelled no matter what.

To compare the 40mm with the 43mm Limited is like comparing the 70mm and 77mm Limited.

The DA Limited is an excellent lens, but the FA Limited brings many other qualities on top of that.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/voe/

 

[awaldram]

Having read all the pro's and cons both ways.

I find it interesting that in the pro 43 camp there is an inclination to jusify themselves by quoting photozone sharpness figures.
Or the fact that it goes to f1.9 (though soft low contrast and of limited use).

I wonder why nobdy in the 40 camp has found it nescesary to quote photozones conclusions re- the 43's harsh Bokeh and the fact it gets less marks for optical quality than the 40.

Maybe Klaus who got both for free was swayed by the price.?

are 40 owners more content with there lens?

--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/

 

[awaldram]

To compare the 40mm with the 43mm Limited is like comparing the 70mm and 77mm Limited.

Agreed another Vs where I think the da wins.

The DA Limited is an excellent lens, but the FA Limited brings many other qualities on top of that.

Optical fidelity not being one of them.

The FA's are a blast from the past when optical algorythms took man years to compute so compromises were made.

Designers got envious reputations because they could make lenses with this limited data that worked and produced nice images.

Todays lens DA and da lmiteds come from a different age where computaional power is cheap and lens designs are limited by cash not ability.

Hence the da limiteds are cheaper to make , Optically more accurate general better corrected (CA etc).

What they do miss is that bit of human design and so may be a little clinical for some.

It reminds me of the Valve Vs Transistor discussions over HiFi were valve gets the 'but it has a lovely smooth sound', and on the other side the answer chimes 'but it isnt real (the original didnt sound like that)'.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/voe/

--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/

 

[Marques Lamont]

I take people pictures at events, parties, weddings, naming ceremonies, wakes, funerals , birthdays, and occassionally other interesting stuff

There was a thread about someone wanting to be a funeral photographer. Was that you?

Talk about shooting in low light...

 

[Steve1307]

See what I mean...it gets hard choosing between the Da 40 and fa 43

Owning NONE of these I speak with absolutely no authority whatsoever when i say:

" I think you'd use and like the DA40, but I think you still lust over the FA43 and you'd end up buying it anyway. eventually."
Drawing upon an obscure reference to countries of assembly:

DA40 is like a traditional Vietnamese "Pork noodle soup" very consistent, delicious and excellent value.

FA43 is like "Tuna Sashimi with a side of Wasabi", something more exotic with some extra zing.

I have been watching your thread with interest, as i will have a similar dilemma.
I only have the DA15 at present & need a low light for indoors...... and ....

DA40 and FA77 ? 77 is the pick for portraits but I thinks its a bit too long for my indoor use. (15 - 35 - 77 would be simpler though)

FA43 and DA70 ? cost for me is about the same (100 less), 43 might be better for my indoor use as its wider. Then there the "magic" that everyone speaks of.

FA31 ? That would be better again. 15 - 43 is a huge gap? 15 - 31 better.

But then theres the cost? I can get a DA21 and DA35 macro for the same $ as the 31. I want a macro & that DA35 is brilliant according to everyone.

15 - 21 - 35 - 43 - 70 ? Is that excessive?

If i'm having this much trouble deciding what to buy, how am I going to decide which one to pull out of the bag?

 

[Voe]

Having read all the pro's and cons both ways.

I find it interesting that in the pro 43 camp there is an inclination to jusify themselves by quoting photozone sharpness figures.
Or the fact that it goes to f1.9 (though soft low contrast and of limited use).

Don't forget sample variation. My 43mm Limited is not soft wide open. Regarding contrast most lenses have lower contrast wide open (including DA 40mm). At f/2.8 there is a big difference between both lenses in contrast as well in resolution.

I wonder why nobdy in the 40 camp has found it nescesary to quote photozones conclusions re- the 43's harsh Bokeh and the fact it gets less marks for optical quality than the 40.

Most lenses can be made to have harsh bokeh. If bokeh is your priority DA 40mm Limited is not the best lens to pick mainly due to the slow for a prime f/2.8 maximum aperture.

Maybe Klaus who got both for free was swayed by the price.?

I believe Klaus point/marks are subjective and I would not read so much into it.

are 40 owners more content with there lens?

Maybe they are content because few of them had both 43mm and 40mm Limited at the same time.

--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/voe/

 

[Voe]

The FA's are a blast from the past when optical algorythms took man years to compute so compromises were made.

Designers got envious reputations because they could make lenses with this limited data that worked and produced nice images.

Many modern lenses are based on blast from the past optical design. And I wouldn't go that far to nullify lenses designed without the help of a computer.

Todays lens DA and da lmiteds come from a different age where computaional power is cheap and lens designs are limited by cash not ability.

Hence the da limiteds are cheaper to make , Optically more accurate general better corrected (CA etc).

They are cheap because of what they are. A f/2.8 maximum aperture lens is far from impressive for a prime lens. It's much harder to design an f/1.9 lens in such a small and light package than a f/2.8 lens. Also the DA 40mm uses the same optical diagram as the very old M 40mm f/2.8 pancake, so nothing new there except coating and autofocus.
Regarding "Optical accurate" I'm not sure what you mean.

What they do miss is that bit of human design and so may be a little clinical for some.

It reminds me of the Valve Vs Transistor discussions over HiFi were valve gets the 'but it has a lovely smooth sound', and on the other side the answer chimes 'but it isnt real (the original didnt sound like that)'.

There are other qualities than CA, MTF etc. looked for by lens connoisseurs.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/voe/

 

[Duplo]

Having read all the pro's and cons both ways.

I have not, i know where I would rate both from actual ownership and usage

I find it interesting that in the pro 43 camp there is an inclination to jusify themselves by quoting photozone sharpness figures.
Or the fact that it goes to f1.9 (though soft low contrast and of limited use).

I think i did neither

I wonder why nobdy in the 40 camp has found it nescesary to quote photozones conclusions re- the 43's harsh Bokeh and the fact it gets less marks for optical quality than the 40.

Because I would disagree with that comment and I own and like both btw
Just happens to prefer one over the other.

Maybe Klaus who got both for free was swayed by the price.?

They are business expenses, not investments and both are bargain priced given what they deliver.

Even if they were bought for my personal enjoyment, why would I need to justify that?

are 40 owners more content with there lens?

Hmm and that would put happy owners of both lenses where?

--
Thomas

Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
http://main.duplophotography.com/

 

[coleviolin]

Having read all the pro's and cons both ways.

I find it interesting that in the pro 43 camp there is an inclination to jusify themselves by quoting photozone sharpness figures.
Or the fact that it goes to f1.9 (though soft low contrast and of limited use).

I wonder why nobdy in the 40 camp has found it nescesary to quote photozones conclusions re- the 43's harsh Bokeh and the fact it gets less marks for optical quality than the 40.

Maybe Klaus who got both for free was swayed by the price.?

are 40 owners more content with there lens?

Only you can decide. I would be just as happy with either one, but I chose the 40, never handled the 43, to save some money and because I felt the DA is probably good for digital sensors in some ways. Also, 40 is slightly wider, and fits me as a general purpose lens very well. If I had the 31, I would not look at any other primes except much wider, or much longer (15mm. or 70-100 or so). In the telephoto range I prefer a zoom lens anyway. This is just another opinion, to be taken lightly. Cheers,

--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/

--
Lipo

 

[Marc Sabatella]

Also the DA 40mm uses the same optical diagram as the very old M 40mm f/2.8 pancake, so nothing new there except coating and autofocus.

This has more or less definitively been determined not to be true - while the simplified graphical diagram makes the designs look similar in terms of the element groupings, all evidence based on test results as well as statements from the lens designers suggests that there DA40 is not just the M40 in a different body, but a different optical design.

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/

 

[PentaxNick]

15 - 21 - 35 - 43 - 70 ? Is that excessive?

I think so. I have all these, although I tend to leave the 43mm at home as I find the lack of QS annoying. carrying the other 4 I tend to find that the 21mm doesn't get much use as I can always crop the 15mm a bit. so I'm down to a 3 lens kit.

If only they were weather sealed!

Nick

 

[PentaxNick]

I've had the 43mm since it first came out, and although I did use it with the *istD it hasn't been in action for a few years. I find the lack of quick-shift focussing annoying. I tend to decouple the AF from the shutter release, using the button on the back to focus, then adjust the focus manually. I often want to maximise DoF which you can't do with AF as it always focusses on the front of your subject rather than 1/3 in.

Of course this is very much dependent on the type of subjects you photograph and the effect you are after.

I also find the 43mm is a bit close to the 35mm which is in my prime kit.

Nick

 

[awaldram]

Also the DA 40mm uses the same optical diagram as the very old M 40mm f/2.8 pancake, so nothing new there except coating and autofocus.

This has more or less definitively been determined not to be true - while the simplified graphical diagram makes the designs look similar in terms of the element groupings, all evidence based on test results as well as statements from the lens designers suggests that there DA40 is not just the M40 in a different body, but a different optical design.

Thanks Marc saved me some typing ;-)

Having repaired both m40 and da40's they are different optical solutions.

given the fact the 43 and 40 both have the superior (to smc) ghostless coatings you could say the 40 has more design factors in common with the 43 than the old M40

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/

--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/

 

[awaldram]

Having read all the pro's and cons both ways.

I have not, i know where I would rate both from actual ownership and usage

And I rate them based on having strip them apart and put them back together again I know what makes them tick .

I find it interesting that in the pro 43 camp there is an inclination to jusify themselves by quoting photozone sharpness figures.
Or the fact that it goes to f1.9 (though soft low contrast and of limited use).

I think i did neither

Just my ungainly attempt to stir.

I wonder why nobdy in the 40 camp has found it nescesary to quote photozones conclusions re- the 43's harsh Bokeh and the fact it gets less marks for optical quality than the 40.

Because I would disagree with that comment and I own and like both btw
Just happens to prefer one over the other.

A valid reason.

Maybe Klaus who got both for free was swayed by the price.?

They are business expenses, not investments and both are bargain priced given what they deliver.

Even if they were bought for my personal enjoyment, why would I need to justify that?

Nope you don't need to justify anything, unless you make unfounded statements, Which I don't believe your guilty of.

are 40 owners more content with there lens?

Hmm and that would put happy owners of both lenses where?

Major happy campers

--
Thomas

Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
http://main.duplophotography.com/

--
My PPG

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1471087&subSubSection=0&language=EN
My Photo Stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awaldram/

 

[Irek J]

This thread reminds me of discussions comparing tube amplifiers to solid state

Both are very good lenses and I'm not sure why so many people are arguing which one is better. For the OP, just buy the one that suits the budget, or real need, and not just a want for better bokeh.
--
Irek J.

 

[Chrichey]

The FA's are a blast from the past when optical algorythms took man years to compute so compromises were made.

Todays lens DA and da lmiteds come from a different age where computaional power is cheap and lens designs are limited by cash not ability.

Hence the da limiteds are cheaper to make , Optically more accurate general better corrected (CA etc).*

This argument suggests that the Zeiss manual focus lenses for instance are somehow rubbish compared to Autofocus lenses. This is wrong. The Fa primes were made in the computer age, they were simply built like tanks....there will never be SDM failures for the life of them

 

[Michael de Ruijter]

I had both.

I now have only the 43.

The DA40 was technically very good.

But as a tool of artistic expression, for me the DA40 was just too... damn... sterile.

Kinda like a lens you'd buy for a cctv security camera.
--
-Mike

 

[glennmo]

I had both.

I now have only the 43.

The DA40 was technically very good.

But as a tool of artistic expression, for me the DA40 was just too... damn... sterile.

Kinda like a lens you'd buy for a cctv security camera.
--
-Mike

Yes, my DA 40 is just like a security camera... I mean no disrespect, but c'mon. Can you show us the same shot with each of the DA 40 and FA 43, same settings, etc., and show us how this sterility shows itself? This is getting to be like a DA 70 vs FA 77 comparison thread, where all FA 77 owners chime in about the "magic" and the "pixie dust" and how the DA 70 can't compare, and the DA 70 owners simply say that the DA 70 is an amazing lens.

For full disclosure, I own the DA 40 and DA 70, and no FA limited lenses, so I can't speak at all about their comparison. But on their own, the DA 40 and DA 70 are amazing, with the DA 70 being truly a special lens imho.