Is Moving from an FA50 1.7 to FA 43 Ltd an upgrade?
Posted 22/10/2015 - 15:19 - Helpful Comment
Link
The FA 50mm f/1.7 is a very fine lens. The FA 43mm f/1.9 may well have a slight edge in performance and has a different level of construction, but it may be a subtle difference. Either of these lenses makes a much better approx. 50mm lens than any large zoom will, in terms of size, speed and optical quality.
I'm not sure that I'd bother changing the 50mm, but I'd be looking at replacing the Sigma 50-150mm with a Pentax lens, perhaps the 50-135mm.
I'm not sure that I'd bother changing the 50mm, but I'd be looking at replacing the Sigma 50-150mm with a Pentax lens, perhaps the 50-135mm.
Best regards, John
Posted 22/10/2015 - 15:20 - Helpful Comment
Link
the answer is of course....
...it depends !
They are both high quality optics, they are both considered to be in the "standard" lens range, they both have full functionality AF, data, Aperture rings, etc, so in many ways they are similar.
The differences are firstly in the build - the FA 43mm Limited is a beautifully made lens with a metal construction and beautifully engineered. It's also small and compact, with a little leather(ette) pouch, metal hood and cap too
Secondly the coatings are not just SMC, but they also incorporate the "ghostless" coatings - this is reportedly the first lens Pentax introduced that had these new (in 1997) coatings and it was only applied to "selected" lenses (generally the more expensive ones). [ http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/technology/SMC.html ]
The "look" of images produced by the FA43 is of course subjective - many owners claim it has something special ("pixie dust") and the bokeh is commented on quite often. I've owned several copies (still have one) and have been very happy with the results, I've also owned a couple of copies of the FA50/1.7 but never found them particularly inspiring.
If you can afford to go for it I would say "do it" - if you don't get on with it then you'll probably find it holds its value pretty well
...it depends !
They are both high quality optics, they are both considered to be in the "standard" lens range, they both have full functionality AF, data, Aperture rings, etc, so in many ways they are similar.
The differences are firstly in the build - the FA 43mm Limited is a beautifully made lens with a metal construction and beautifully engineered. It's also small and compact, with a little leather(ette) pouch, metal hood and cap too
Secondly the coatings are not just SMC, but they also incorporate the "ghostless" coatings - this is reportedly the first lens Pentax introduced that had these new (in 1997) coatings and it was only applied to "selected" lenses (generally the more expensive ones). [ http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/technology/SMC.html ]
The "look" of images produced by the FA43 is of course subjective - many owners claim it has something special ("pixie dust") and the bokeh is commented on quite often. I've owned several copies (still have one) and have been very happy with the results, I've also owned a couple of copies of the FA50/1.7 but never found them particularly inspiring.
If you can afford to go for it I would say "do it" - if you don't get on with it then you'll probably find it holds its value pretty well
LennyBloke
Posted 22/10/2015 - 15:37
Link
Thanks both, some useful insights.
I have to admit I do like the images the FA50 1.7 delivers, hence the agonising about whether its worth upgrading.
I guess the answer as always is "horses for courses" and although it looks like the only way to be sure is try one out, before making any permanent decisions.
Cheers
I have to admit I do like the images the FA50 1.7 delivers, hence the agonising about whether its worth upgrading.
I guess the answer as always is "horses for courses" and although it looks like the only way to be sure is try one out, before making any permanent decisions.
Cheers
Posted 23/10/2015 - 00:34 - Helpful Comment
Link
They are two different lenses, the FA43 is sharper and much better built - but for me it's magic is its focal length when used on an FF (film) body. On an APS-C body its just a 'wrong' focal length (at least a 50mm makes a good portrait lens). I've never used mine on my K-5 - on an MX or LX it's a dream though.
On film I feel it's a much better general focal length than a 50mm (on my K-5 I use an FA28/2.8 to get a similar equivalent focal length). On an FF DSLR - yes please!
John.
On film I feel it's a much better general focal length than a 50mm (on my K-5 I use an FA28/2.8 to get a similar equivalent focal length). On an FF DSLR - yes please!
John.
Posted 23/10/2015 - 08:18 - Helpful Comment
Link
I only have the FA 50/1.7 of these two and it's very good, though focusing is not the most reliable, when it does focus properly it's very sharp indeed with good colour and contrast.. Build quality is quite low and nowhere near as good as my DA limiteds (which I assume are similar in build to the FA limiteds).
Pentax hybrid user - Digital K3, film 645 and 35mm SLR and Pentax (&other) lenses adapted to Fuji X and Panasonic L digital
Fan of DA limited and old manual lenses
Fan of DA limited and old manual lenses
Posted 23/10/2015 - 11:08 - Helpful Comment
Link
I've had both the FA50 f1.7 and FA43 at the same time, once the FA43 came I sold the 50mm after a month or so as it got no use. The only reason I went for the FA50 f1.7 was it was cheap (Around £150) to use on my film MZ-S and MZ-5n.
On film/ff, the FA43 is just perfect, I love the focal length and sharpness. The FA50 f1.7 is good wide open, but my FA43 is super sharp in the centre wide open.
I do not really like either that much on APS-C, sort of odd focal lengths (65mm/75mm equivalent FOV) for me.
The FA50 f1.7 really needs a hood I found, the small but effective one on the FA43 is a great match for the small size of the FA43.
On film/ff, the FA43 is just perfect, I love the focal length and sharpness. The FA50 f1.7 is good wide open, but my FA43 is super sharp in the centre wide open.
I do not really like either that much on APS-C, sort of odd focal lengths (65mm/75mm equivalent FOV) for me.
The FA50 f1.7 really needs a hood I found, the small but effective one on the FA43 is a great match for the small size of the FA43.
D-FA28-105 | FA43 | K55 | DA100 Macro | DA*300
Pentax K1 | Pentax K-01 | Pentax MZ-S | Pentax MZ-5n
Flickr Photostream
Pentax K1 | Pentax K-01 | Pentax MZ-S | Pentax MZ-5n
Flickr Photostream
Posted 23/10/2015 - 11:13
Link
Thanks for the comments everyone.
I am keen on the build quality of the 43 (having just picked up a DA15 and loving the all metal construction with AF), but have to say I don't find the build of the FA50 that bad, my copy is certainly solid with a nice tight focus ring.
Interesting to note thoughts on focal length though. I might spend a day with a standard zoom trying to shoot in the 35-55 range just to see where my preferred focal length is.
Cheers
I am keen on the build quality of the 43 (having just picked up a DA15 and loving the all metal construction with AF), but have to say I don't find the build of the FA50 that bad, my copy is certainly solid with a nice tight focus ring.
Interesting to note thoughts on focal length though. I might spend a day with a standard zoom trying to shoot in the 35-55 range just to see where my preferred focal length is.
Cheers
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
17 posts
16 years
Just looking for some opinions and observations on whether the move from an FA 50 1.7 to an FA43 Ltd is much of an upgrade?
I've recently been rationalising my lens based on which get used and thinking about upgrading where I can and have finally settled with a kit I pretty much feel comfortable with including the FA50 1.7 and a Sigma 50-150 2.8. However I feel the FA50 1.7 is a bit of an overlap on the 50-150 and whilst it has the extra speed I tend to reach for the Sigma more often for flexibility. Thats what had me thinking about the slightly different focal length on the 43, which still gives me the low light advantage but was curious about whether it has much over the FA50 1.7.
Any thoughts about how they compare?
Cheers