DA 35 vs FA 43

Hi all

I have been considering replacing my 43mm with a DA35 to get the macro possibility. Will I loose much IQ wise shooting non-macro?

Best regards
Ryan

The DA35 has an extremely good reputation and although the FA 43 is part of the magic triad I don't think you'll loose much (?anything) IQ wise. You will loose an aperture ring and full-frame coverage if either of those things matter to you (i.e., you won't be able to use it on your ME Super).

K.

---

Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
My website

The IQ of the DA35 is stellar at non-macro distances, but you don't get that extra stop-and-a-bit of light that the FA43 gives.

I have both and I find the DA35 far more reliable when it comes to taking excellent shots. With the FA43 I find that a lot of the photos it takes are only so-so, but when it does get it right it is still the best lens I own bar none!

I wouldn't want to give up either of them to be honest, although the DA35 is the lens I keep on the camera as my "go-to" lens these days.

---

Joining the Q

I have the DA35 and I love it but it is a bit short if you are looking for a specific macro lens. I think one of the 100mm macros is far more versatile for macro work. I have the Samsung equivalent of the D-FA 100mm macro and I now virtually always use this over the DA35 for macro. However like Hefty I often use the DA35 as my walk-about lens.

Glyn

I had both and got rid of the DA35. It is a great lens, no doubt, with excellent sharpness and micro-contrast. It is the handiest single prime you can have on a digital camera. And it is possibly the best flower lens ever. If one day I have lots of money I'll buy another to keep permanently attached to my K100DS.

The problems I had with it? You cannot manually focus except at macro, since there is no travel in the focus ring. You cannot manually adjust aperture either, obviously. But I just found 35mm on digital too "in between". I found I wanted either wider or narrower. And f/2.8 is too slow for me.

I would never give up the FA43 as it has some incredible rendering powers and works just fine at f/2. I just wish it focused closer.

---

Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.

I will just echo what Kris and Robin wrote.
IQ wise I believe DA35 is great lens, but the main differences are somewhere else:
a) is f2.8 fast enough for you?
b) is FF coverage important to you?
c) is MF important to you?

I used to have DA40 and I loved it. But swapped it for FA43 simply because answer for a was NO and c was YES.

generaly FA &F series lenses don't have great MF feel to them but FAltds seem to be bright exception. They MF rings have great feel and good throw.

BR
Peter

---

my PBase --- PPG
K-7 + O-ME53, K-x blue, AF280T, AF240Z, AF160SA
SMC: FA*24 - FA31ltd - DA*55 - FA100/2.8

Hi all

Thanks for all your replies. I am very glad to get your inputs that make my head a bit clearer as to what I really need...
For now I believe the 43mm stays put in my bag as i simply love the pictures I get from it.
Also I very much like the speed and the MF possibility.

Best regards
Ryan

As a macro lens, 35mm is not a good focal length. I have the DFA 50 macro, and even with that I find myself uncomfortably close to the subject (from a scratching-the-front-element point of view). Thus the DA35 might better be viewed as a 'normal' lens (normal on APS-C is actually about 28mm) with no minimum focus distance, rather than as a lens for real macro work. One review did describe it as better than Zeiss though - if you don't need the speed of the FA43 then the DA35 could be a fabulous lens for you, and the slightly wider focal length is arguably more useful for walkaround.