Choosing between DA 40 and FA 43

Duplo said:

Link to my original post:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=27681450

Gian Luca Patriarca said:

I have the 43 and if you want to say that the 43 is the best in terms
of rendering, bookeh, etc... fine with me.
What I don´t understand is people who say that it has a stop
advantage. I´m sorry, but either your copy is stellar or you
perfectly know that it is way too soft wide-open... and not only in
the borders. If you are used to crop, you should perfectly know that
it is not so usable if you care about IQ. If you disagree, than you
don´t need the 43 and every other lens in the same focal length will
work fine. I have all three FA limiteds and the 43 is by far the
softer when shooting wide open. So that I usually only consider
shooting f/2.8 forward. Only when I know I won´t be doing any
cropping and I´m doing a portrait, I consider shooting wide-open.
So, bottom line, it all depends what you will be using it for: for
portraits it is fine even wide-open, for everything else, especially
landscapes you should consider stopping it down and the best
performance being at f/4.
So, in my opinion it is not a question of just saying this is better
than this and period.
I bought it because I knew I would use it especially for portraits.
But if not, I would probably consider the 40 or even the 35 Macro.
Just my 2 cents.
--
At the moment I have 5 ladies in my life: My wife, my daughter and...
the three silver sisters!

Click to expand...

--
Thomas

Click to expand...

Kind Thomas,

I´m sorry if I gave the impression I was answering you. That was not the case. I wasn´t answering to anyone in particular. When I said "you" it meant everyone in general. I wanted to say "if a person".

Anyway, by pictures posted here wide-open, I must say I´m quite impressed by the sharpness of the photos. Mine is not like that.... wayyy softer. I thought it was normal because that is what I always read about. Now I see that mine is softer than normal, maybe. Now it is too late to have a refund or exchange. Well, I´m used to it already.

Duplo said:

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

Click to expand...

--

At the moment I have 5 ladies in my life: My wife, my daughter and... the three silver sisters!

I have this one, along with the 17-70 and they are my 2 most used lenses. I had the 43, but I found the macro feature on the 35 to be more useful to me than the bigger aperture opening. ProDigital also has the 35 for the best price anywhere:

http://cgi.ebay.com/PENTAX-DA-smc-35mm-f2-8-MACRO-LENS-f-K20d-K200d-FILTER_W0QQitemZ310060640415QQihZ021QQcategoryZ106874QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Another thing, with the crop factor, the 35 is about as close as you're going to get to the traditional 50mm "normal" lens length on a film camera.

Heather
--
http://www.pbase.com/heatherb/
Never mind the diamonds...LENSES are a girl's best friend!



FA43/1.9 Ltd + extension tubes

Gian Luca Patriarca said:

Anyway, by pictures posted here wide-open, I must say I´m quite
impressed by the sharpness of the photos. Mine is not like that....
wayyy softer. I thought it was normal because that is what I always
read about. Now I see that mine is softer than normal, maybe. Now it
is too late to have a refund or exchange. Well, I´m used to it
already.

Click to expand...

Don't dispair, it may not be your lens. Consider starting a new thread and posting some photo's with the details of how you took them, your distance to the subject, the settings, and equipment, etc. Use the lens hood, don't use a filter, and make sure the front and rear elements of the lens are clean first.

A long time ago I was looking at lens in a shop. I asked the clerk to see the lens and to put it on a body similar to mine. I handled it and liked it. I handed it back to the clerk and we were discussing prices. While doing so he couldn't help but nervously rub his finger on the front element of the lens. I decided I wouldn't buy from that store. As he was putting the lens back in it's original box I mentioned, "you really should clean that lens now that you've touched it." He asked, "why?" I never returned to that store.

--
Roger

... but then again that is what I own and was my clear choice as 2.8 is limiting in low natural light or indoors. The 43 is perfectly useable at f2-2.8, especially if your focusing technique is up to snuff either manually or in AF... I do it frequently and bought the lens for speed, pure image quality, build quality, and focal length. I'm sure the DA40/2.8 is a fine lens, and would probably be the better bet for you if you don't intend to shoot in low light. The build quality of the DA Limiteds is excellent, the FA Limiteds are even better - though slightly larger. I find the FA43 perfectly pocketable, but I don't wear tight pants and prefer a small bag for my DSLR and glass. Additionally, my thoughts were on building a set of three travel/street primes, and I preferred the 21-43-70 to the 21-40-70 in terms of speed and spread of focal lengths. i have never, nor do I particularly intend to shoot film with the FA43 in the future.

Also consider the FA35/2 and DA35/2.8 Limited. Aside from build quality of the FA35 I think they both have the DA40's number in every category but size, if small size appeals to you.

-Mouse

the_snark said:

I’m trying to choose between the DA40 and the FA43 for my K100D.

I am aware of the differences in specs – the the 40 wins on size,
weight, quick shift focusing, focus speed; the 43 on max aperture,
and probably image quality.

My main motivation is size and weight. I am quite happy with my Sigma
17-70 but there are times I don’t want to carry it around. So I am
hoping that one of these primes will end up staying on the camera a
lot of the time, especially when I’m walking around town with a
backpack, hiking, or taking family shots.

The problem for me is that I don’t think anyone local (Adelaide)
stocks either lens, so I can’t try before I buy. I want to try the
ergonomics, and see if the DA40 really is too small, as some say. The
43 is a bit bigger, but not too much.

Can anyone tell me how the quality of images from either lens is
likely to compare to my Sigma 17-70?

I am probably leaning slightly towards the FA43, because it’s F1.9,
and it seems to be better liked. I know I will appreciate the build
quality of either lens.

When it comes to buying, I may actually try to save a bit by using
ebay, as seller prodigital2000 has the best prices I’ve seen so far:
DA40 A$327 delivered, FA43 A$487 delivered. I can handle paying those
prices for either lens as long as I get good use out of it. I’l be
selling a nice, but little used, M50/1.4 to fund a small part of it.

Any advice appreciated, though I have already done a bit of research,
and think I’ll have to take a bit of a leap by buying without trying
first.

Click to expand...

--
Hardly education
All them books I didn't read
They just sat there on my shelf
Looking much smarter than me

My Pentax K100D Super + FA35mm Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20FA35/

My Pentax K100D Super + FA43mm Limited Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20FA43%20Limited/

My Pentax K100D Super + DA70mm Limited Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20DA70%20Limited/

the FA35/2 focuses surprisingly close itself and encourages you to 'fill the frame' and rewards you for your footwork. My only complaints were build quality and AF speed - I found it a bit sluggish, particularly compared to the DA Limiteds and even the FA43.

-Mouse

KL Matt said:

Sharpness and bokeh wise, it will be a totally different animal than
your Sigma. Very punchy, extremely sharp wide open.

Lightweight, excellent bayonnet hood, extremely fast AF, very
versatile lens. Less expensive than the FA 43.

-Matt

--



... interested in .... photographs? Heh? Know what a mean?
Photographs? (He asked him knowingly). Nudge nudge, snap snap, grin
grin, wink wink, say no more, say no more, know what a' mean? Know
what a' mean?

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=183820&subSubSection=0&language=EN

Click to expand...

--
Hardly education
All them books I didn't read
They just sat there on my shelf
Looking much smarter than me

My Pentax K100D Super + FA35mm Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20FA35/

My Pentax K100D Super + FA43mm Limited Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20FA43%20Limited/

My Pentax K100D Super + DA70mm Limited Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20DA70%20Limited/

The FA43 is by far the better choice. But consider the FA35f2, or the new DA35f2.8Macro.

Wow, so many responses since my post yesterday.

Re the two 35mm options, thanks for giving me even more options to choose from!

When I looked to see the price of the 35 macro and found it at almost $600, that ruled that option out for me, but prodigital200's price is actually affordable enough.

I've never owned a macro lens as such (I won't count the sigma 17-70). I did a quick search for reviews of the DA 35mm/2.8 macro, and found some conflicting opinions - no surprise. Someone said macro lenses are really not intended for distances over 15 feet...? Also, that 35mm is a bit short to be practical for a macro. I know that when doing "macro" with my 17-70, I zoom it to 70mm to avoid having to get the lens too close to the subject.

Is there any down side to using a macro lens as a general purpose lens for distant subjects?

BTW I don't intend to shoot film, so a DA is fine with me.

On a digital sensor, I also guess the alleged soft corners of the 43 are of slightly less concern than with film.

My main problem in all of this is that I am in Adelaide and can't get to see most of these lenses before buying

Heh mouse,

I don't doubt your claims, but my experience/opinion is opposite. Perhaps you have a bad sample?

Even on my istDS, the FA 35 focuses exceptionally fast and accurately. No hunting. Just bang on, instantly. The k10d works even better with it, much better than with my new FA 31. I would also rate the build quality as excellent and whatever trade off the plastics represent as far as solidness is concerned is easily made up for by the light weight. What do you dislike about the build? Is it the plastic hood? (I love the fact that on such a small lens, you can turn the hood around for storage. Really convenient.)

Did you get yours new or used?

-Matt

A Modest Mouse said:

-Mouse

KL Matt said:

Sharpness and bokeh wise, it will be a totally different animal than
your Sigma. Very punchy, extremely sharp wide open.

Lightweight, excellent bayonnet hood, extremely fast AF, very
versatile lens. Less expensive than the FA 43.

-Matt

--



... interested in .... photographs? Heh? Know what a mean?
Photographs? (He asked him knowingly). Nudge nudge, snap snap, grin
grin, wink wink, say no more, say no more, know what a' mean? Know
what a' mean?

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=183820&subSubSection=0&language=EN

Click to expand...

--
Hardly education
All them books I didn't read
They just sat there on my shelf
Looking much smarter than me

My Pentax K100D Super + FA35mm Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20FA35/

My Pentax K100D Super + FA43mm Limited Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20FA43%20Limited/

My Pentax K100D Super + DA70mm Limited Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20DA70%20Limited/

Click to expand...

--



... interested in .... photographs? Heh? Know what a mean? Photographs? (He asked him knowingly). Nudge nudge, snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, say no more, say no more, know what a' mean? Know what a' mean?

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=183820&subSubSection=0&language=EN

From what your requirements are sounding like, I'd reccomend the FA35/2.0 or DA40/2.8. You are paying a premium for the macro on the DA35, and there are no real tricks about it - you must use your feet and creativity with a macro that short, but remember you also get close focusing distance inside in general situations as well. There isn't anything particularly wrong with using a short macro like the DA35 as a walkaround lens, some will say its sharpness will inherently make it a less attractive lens for portraits but aside from that it should be a pretty flexible lens aside from not being notably fast. Good luck

-Mouse

the_snark said:

Wow, so many responses since my post yesterday.

Re the two 35mm options, thanks for giving me even more options to
choose from!

When I looked to see the price of the 35 macro and found it at almost
$600, that ruled that option out for me, but prodigital200's price is
actually affordable enough.

I've never owned a macro lens as such (I won't count the sigma
17-70). I did a quick search for reviews of the DA 35mm/2.8 macro,
and found some conflicting opinions - no surprise. Someone said macro
lenses are really not intended for distances over 15 feet...? Also,
that 35mm is a bit short to be practical for a macro. I know that
when doing "macro" with my 17-70, I zoom it to 70mm to avoid having
to get the lens too close to the subject.

Is there any down side to using a macro lens as a general purpose
lens for distant subjects?

BTW I don't intend to shoot film, so a DA is fine with me.

On a digital sensor, I also guess the alleged soft corners of the 43
are of slightly less concern than with film.

My main problem in all of this is that I am in Adelaide and can't get
to see most of these lenses before buying

Click to expand...

--
Hardly education
All them books I didn't read
They just sat there on my shelf
Looking much smarter than me

My Pentax K100D Super + FA35mm Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20FA35/

My Pentax K100D Super + FA43mm Limited Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20FA43%20Limited/

My Pentax K100D Super + DA70mm Limited Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20DA70%20Limited/

KL Matt said:

Heh mouse,

I don't doubt your claims, but my experience/opinion is opposite.
Perhaps you have a bad sample?

Click to expand...

I think we may shoot in different conditions as well - I was shooting primarily at f2 - 3.5 with the FA35 in low light; yes, I am a bit demanding on my lenses. It hunts more than the DA70 by quite a margin and at f2 I find the FA43 to be faster. Again, this is sort of the extreme end of low light focusing and accuracy but vital to taking advantage of the 'speed' of these primes.

KL Matt said:

Even on my istDS, the FA 35 focuses exceptionally fast and
accurately. No hunting. Just bang on, instantly. The k10d works even
better with it, much better than with my new FA 31. I would also rate
the build quality as excellent and whatever trade off the plastics
represent as far as solidness is concerned is easily made up for by
the light weight.

Click to expand...

The FA35 is 1.8" long and 7oz - the FA43 is 1.1" long and 5.5oz. Despite the plastic it is both a heavier and longer lens. As much as I respect the glass in the FA35, I can't get too excited about the build quality of the FA28/35/50 series of plastic primes. Great glass, so-so bodies.

KL Matt said:

What do you dislike about the build? Is it the
plastic hood? (I love the fact that on such a small lens, you can
turn the hood around for storage. Really convenient.)

Click to expand...

Plastic, slightly outdated design, and I'm not a big fan of the supplied lens hood though it is really just a matter of taste.

KL Matt said:

Did you get yours new or used?

Click to expand...

I bought mine new in late October and sold it in May in order to fund the FA43. Would have loved to keep it.

-Mouse

KL Matt said:

-Matt

A Modest Mouse said:

-Mouse

KL Matt said:

Sharpness and bokeh wise, it will be a totally different animal than
your Sigma. Very punchy, extremely sharp wide open.

Lightweight, excellent bayonnet hood, extremely fast AF, very
versatile lens. Less expensive than the FA 43.

-Matt

--



... interested in .... photographs? Heh? Know what a mean?
Photographs? (He asked him knowingly). Nudge nudge, snap snap, grin
grin, wink wink, say no more, say no more, know what a' mean? Know
what a' mean?

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=183820&subSubSection=0&language=EN

Click to expand...

--
Hardly education
All them books I didn't read
They just sat there on my shelf
Looking much smarter than me

My Pentax K100D Super + FA35mm Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20FA35/

My Pentax K100D Super + FA43mm Limited Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20FA43%20Limited/

My Pentax K100D Super + DA70mm Limited Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20DA70%20Limited/

Click to expand...

--



... interested in .... photographs? Heh? Know what a mean?
Photographs? (He asked him knowingly). Nudge nudge, snap snap, grin
grin, wink wink, say no more, say no more, know what a' mean? Know
what a' mean?

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=183820&subSubSection=0&language=EN

Click to expand...

--
Hardly education
All them books I didn't read
They just sat there on my shelf
Looking much smarter than me

My Pentax K100D Super + FA35mm Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20FA35/

My Pentax K100D Super + FA43mm Limited Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20FA43%20Limited/

My Pentax K100D Super + DA70mm Limited Gallery

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc130/AMMouse/Pentax%20K100D%20Super/Pentax%20DA70%20Limited/

That's a beautiful picture, DrugaRunda. (With the owl).

I got the 43mm, because I thought it was cool, that's about all. But I very seldom use it wide open. I have a K100D with a pokey little viewfinder, and can't see the focus point as well as I'd like to, so choose more noise or even a little blur over missed focus. So maybe I should have got the 40. Maybe I still will. Small and light is good.

improbable said:

I got the 43mm, because I thought it was cool, that's about all. But
I very seldom use it wide open. I have a K100D with a pokey little
viewfinder, and can't see the focus point as well as I'd like to, so
choose more noise or even a little blur over missed focus. So maybe I
should have got the 40. Maybe I still will. Small and light is good.

Click to expand...

That's a good point. The 40 is high on my list at the moment. Focusing difficulty at big apertures (on my K100D) was one of the reasons I sold my manual focus 50/1.4.

On another note, are there any 3rd party lenses that I should also be considering?

Just put in a LBA post for a DA40mm..

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&message=28399407

My reasons was more economics and opportunity than a decision between the two.

Saw a deal too good to pass up.

Cheers
Shang

A Modest Mouse said:

I think we may shoot in different conditions as well - I was shooting
primarily at f2 - 3.5 with the FA35 in low light;

Click to expand...

No, I do this regularly, too. The FA 35 is my low-light indoor lens. But in those conditions the FA 31 is much slower/worse - or maybe I should just say the FA 35 was without equal. But who knows, maybe my impressions are off, I'll have to test it again on the K10d. Most of my experience was with my ist DS. It was the only lens that camera ever focussed very reliably at all! I'll need to compare these two lenses on both bodies (have a k10d as well). I'm kind of thinking you had a bad copy.

A Modest Mouse said:

The FA35 is 1.8" long and 7oz - the FA43 is 1.1" long and 5.5oz.

Click to expand...

Wow, would have thought the 43 would be heavier. I really have to get me one of those.

A Modest Mouse said:

Despite the plastic it is both a heavier and longer lens.

Click to expand...

Can you really call 7 oz. heavy and 1.8 inches long? I think all the FA primes are amazingly compact and light.

As much as

A Modest Mouse said:

I respect the glass in the FA35, I can't get too excited about the
build quality of the FA28/35/50 series of plastic primes. Great
glass, so-so bodies.

Click to expand...

I really like my FA primes. Certainly much much better than the DA stuff I have seen so far. They may have plastic on the outside, but there is metal inside - a great and sturdy combination.

A Modest Mouse said:

Would have loved to keep it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm going to be forced to make some decisions here soon, too.

-Matt

the_snark said:

and found some conflicting opinions - no surprise. Someone said macro
lenses are really not intended for distances over 15 feet...?

Click to expand...

Hogwash.

the_snark said:

Also,
that 35mm is a bit short to be practical for a macro.

Click to expand...

Of course not, otherwise why did they even build this lens? It is a 50mm equivalent on a film camera. 50mm macros were extremely popular standard lenses for decades for an army of photographers for various reasons.

the_snark said:

I know that
when doing "macro" with my 17-70, I zoom it to 70mm to avoid having
to get the lens too close to the subject.

Click to expand...

If you're worried about things hitting the front element when you get too close, attach a UV filter when doing macro.

the_snark said:

Is there any down side to using a macro lens as a general purpose
lens for distant subjects?

Click to expand...

Yes, and this varies with the the macro lens model. Some macro lenses when confronted with an object too near or too far from where the focus is currently set or in low light conditions or with low contrast subjects will cycle through the entire range of focus one or more times, possibly locking focus or possibly missing completely and just hunting. I have this with my FA 50 occasionally. Macro lenses have extremely long-throw focus rings and a very wide range of focus distances, which can make autofocussing much slower than with other lenses. Often there will be a focus limiter installed on a macro lens so that when you are doing non-macro work and the lens cycles in AF it doesn't have to go all the way to full macro and back again. The DA 35 does not have such a switch. Here's a reveiw that describes the problem also:

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3454

On the upside, the lens has quick-shift focus, which means you can simply get the focus in the ballpark manually and then let the camera do the rest and the AF shouldn't hunt or cycle on you. Ask owners how this works in practice.

the_snark said:

On a digital sensor, I also guess the alleged soft corners of the 43
are of slightly less concern than with film.

Click to expand...

If anything at all like the other FA limiteds, the 43 will be one of those rare lenses where it's very slight imperfactions do not in any way detract, but instead even enhance the look and feel of its images.

the_snark said:

My main problem in all of this is that I am in Adelaide and can't get
to see most of these lenses before buying

Click to expand...

Don't worry. Perhaps with the exception of the DA 40, they're all holding their value extremely well. You can sometimes almost get new prices for them on the used market.

-Matt

--



... interested in .... photographs? Heh? Know what a mean? Photographs? (He asked him knowingly). Nudge nudge, snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, say no more, say no more, know what a' mean? Know what a' mean?

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=183820&subSubSection=0&language=EN

the_snark said:

I’m trying to choose between the DA40 and the FA43 for my K100D.

Click to expand...

For me it was the DA40, the small size and small prices won me over. The FA43 is fast, but if I really need something fast I'll grab my FA50 f1.4.

If we look Photozone tests, the FA43 has a higher resolution peak but is weaker in the border. So the FA43 would be better for portrait while the DA40 would get the edge (pun intented) for landscape and scenes work. And I think the DA in general are more optimized for digital (removing PF and CA as much as possible).

Ideally you would get both and make the decision on which one to keep and which one to sell but you may end up keeping both ;-)

--
Manu

*isteve said:

The 40 is a nice lens but the bokeh does not match the 43, and its
not a macro so its not as useful as the 35.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I've seen harsh bokeh from the 43 posted here, and the bokeh is one of the best things about the 40 next to across-the-frame resolution and miniaturization. I don't think it has superior rendering to the 43 overall from what I can tell, but the bokeh in particular is consistently exceptionally smooth and unobtrusive.

-Matt