I hope I am not the only one to catch the film reference in the title of this thread.

You choose it using a different mechanism, namely an LCD display. That doesn't help you when shooting, however.

FWIW this oversight has been corrected on the K-r.

People also managed OK with oil and canvas.

But it does not take much perception to realise that if automatic features are provided, suitable feedback should also be provided to allow the user interactive control over these features. It's a basic premise of UI design. Those interested can read the Ten Interface Design Principles.

Actually, if by "modern" standards you actually mean "contemporary" then f/2.4 is plenty fast, since it bests all the DA Limiteds and a good few other primes as well. In this day and age we have ISO up the yin-yang and so a lot of the need for fast apertures (which often look like junk anyway) is gone. Anything faster than f/2 tends to have unusably thin DOF and is useful for trick shots at best.

I should know -- I love fast lenses and have two at f/1.2.

And as to your other question, Nikon can do things Pentax can't because it has more market share. If that is your main criterion then get a Nikon and be happy!

Ha ha!

Since it is too long to post here, my Pentax K-r Viewpoint is on my blog.

I have two you can check out above: a throwback black and silver number to match the FA Limiteds and an oh-so-bling gold number.

Not only that, the FA43 is the sharpest Pentax lens Photozone have tested from f/2.8 through to f/5.6. Yes, sharper than the macros. It is sharper than the FA31 throughout its entire aperture range (except at the edges wide open). It is sharper wide open than the DA40 is at f/2.8. At f/2.0 the centre sharpness bests the FA50/1.4.

The only lens that is likely better on this measure is the FA 50/2.8 macro, but then only at f/2.8 and f/4. Photozone has not tested that one, but Yoshihiko has.

Sharpness is not everything, but for those who want sharpness there is no way to be disappointed in the FA 43 Limited.

But it is not for this reason I consider it the best lens Pentax has made. Rather, for its unique rendering and incredible build and feel (shared with the other FA Limiteds).

The only possible weakness is that the manual focus feel is a compromise to allow for auto-focus. The Taks have a smoother feeling, as do Zeiss and (presumably) Voigtlander lenses. But, heck, no lens is perfect.

Anvh, you responded to me on three points and I must say I do not understand any of them. I believe we are having some communication issues. I am not sure why. After this attempt I will cease and desist, not because I don't relish a conversation, but because it is becoming too difficult for me. And I don't think the thread needs to be littered with semantic confusions.

ONE
You wrote: "The FA43 is not as sharp lens wide open either but for the rest I don't really know".

I replied: "The FA43 is plenty sharp wide open". And so on, discussing that one lens.

And then your response was: "And this doesn't apply to th [sic] DA*55 f/1.4 because?"

But I wasn't referring to the DA*55. I was writing about another lens, in explicit response to your statement. Perhaps everything I wrote does apply to the FA*55; I don't know.

TWO

You wrote: "This just a feeling though but I've the idea that FA lenses worked better on film than on digital, do you think that's true?"

I responded: "Sensors are more revealing of flaws than film. APS-C is not the same as FF..."

So you find fault and say "Was not talking about just the FA43 but all FA and film lenses."

Well, um, so was I, so what's the problem?

THREE

I wrote: "But the Limited lenses retain small amounts of field curvature so that they may completely correct astigmatic difference in both meridional and sagittal subject planes."

And you reply: "And meridional plane are you sure about that, don't you mean sagittal?"

I cannot make sense of this unless you mean that I should have said "in both sagittal and sagittal subject planes", which is obviously nonsense.

There is a document somewhere that discusses this. In short, lenses are typically designed to have no field curvature at the focal plane. But the Limited lenses retain small amounts of field curvature so that they may completely correct astigmatic difference in both meridional and sagittal subject planes.

If you don't get what that means, don't worry. It wrecks my head too. But it is reassuring to know that I have not been imagining the differences between my FA43 and FA77 and other lenses I have used.

The FA43 is plenty sharp wide open. I have more than one thread on this matter over at Pentax Forums. The problem is usually in focusing at f/1.9. And of course it is not a flat field lens so don't expect to shoot a brick wall and have it sharp in the corners. But who does that wide open? In all reasonable situations in which one would actually shoot wide open the FA43 rocks.

But I regularly shoot walls with it as fast as f/4 with no qualms at all about the resulting resolution and contrast.

Sensors are more revealing of flaws than film. APS-C is not the same as FF. These two factors may have something to do with a person's interpretation of lens performance, but this would not be restricted to consideration of the FA43.

I am trying to reconcile these statements. Basically FA Limiteds > DA Limiteds since they have magic, but DA*55 > FA43 Limited. So for you the DA*55 is the best prime of all?

This is intriguing given the design philosophies of the different lens lines. Only the FA Limiteds were made to optimise rendering ability over absolute measurements.

Though I have not used it myself, I have yet to see a single shot from the DA*55 that shows "magic". It does acquit itself in a workmanlike manner, perhaps as good as the K 50/1.2 and A50/1.2, though I'm not even sure I'd go that far.

This has been done to death but apparently there is still a factual misunderstanding. When the camera is choosing the focus points you have no idea which one it has chosen, since it does not show you.

If you, as photographer, choose the focus point then this is not an issue.