Was the 43/1.9 really hyped?

Back in the days it was my dream lens (I picked up 40mm limited SMC). I used to read a lot of reviews of it. The last photozone reviews were so critical because of crappy resolution wide open on 16 Mp APS sensor. Many people praise its 3d pop.

My question is - if we take 43 mm on Pentax K-1 and compare it to low-cost Canon 50/1.8 STM on FF camera, will the limited masterpiese surpass a very cheap lens or will the difference not be noticed at all? What are we paying for (in addition to steel, brass and aluminum) in 22 year-old odd lens?

The 43mm was hyped, but not unwarranted. It seems like the best exemplar of the Pentax ethos of excellent (even if not perfect) image quality, balanced with moderate aperture to make a small lens that performs well. (Honestly, the new 50mm 1.4 from Pentax seems like a refutation of this approach.)

For me personally, the focal length is really important. I prefer a 40-ish field of view. No 50mm lens can replace the slightly-wider view for me, regardless of how expensive or how cheap.

The 43mm Limited was worth the extra price over the 40mm for me. I tried out the Pentax-M 40mm and found the f/2.8 aperture limiting, when I wanted to have a bit of isolation for subjects in the middle distance of a landscape. With the 43mm, combine the slightly wide field of view, the shallower depth of field, the ability to hold reasonable detail wide open, and excellent micro-contrast, and you get a bit of that "3D" feel that is talked about.

I shoot the 43mm almost exclusively on film, as I haven't jumped to a K-1 yet. I'm looking forward to trying the lens on a full frame digital.

I had one in the early 2000's and I really liked it. It was really good into the sun and dealt with highlights really well. It was what I would call a landscape photographer's standard lens, being slightly wider than a normal standard 50mm.

Having said that, the 43mm limited had unacceptable distortion - it was not a good lens to use for architectural photography. Any Pentax 50mm lens had much better performance there. I liked the 50mm FA 1.4 which was much better at isolating the subject matter - the 43mm was not so good at this. Having said that I found that a 50mm 1.4 A lens was even better than the autofocus FA version. The Pentax A 1.4 can give any Nikkor 1.4 (my current equipment) a run for its money especially with that 8 bladed aperture. I may end up getting another Pentax A 1.4 and a KX one day.

It was what I would call a landscape photographer's standard lens, being slightly wider than a normal standard 50mm.

But 43 does not have sharp borders and corners, if it is a landscape lens then it must be stopped down very much f8 or f11.

Now in 2018, a real landscape lens is Samyang 35/1.4 which is head and shoulders above that 43 optically. Zeiss 55/1.8 also... Canon 24-70/2.8 L ii too.

I think the main reason of 43 is its unique vintage drawing.... which is challenging to realize.

Where does come its high price - metal body?

But 43 does not have sharp borders and corners, if it is a landscape lens then it must be stopped down very much f8 or f11.

Now in 2018, a real landscape lens is Samyang 35/1.4 which is head and shoulders above that 43 optically. Zeiss 55/1.8 also... Canon 24-70/2.8 L ii too.

I think the main reason of 43 is its unique vintage drawing.... which is challenging to realize.

Where does come its high price - metal body?

Do you have any sample images taken with the Samyang 35/1.4? It sounds like an interesting option.

Do you have any sample images taken with the Samyang 35/1.4

Samyang is astonishing really.

Samyang 35mm f/1.4 AS UMC (Nikon FX) - Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict

Rokinon AF 35mm F1.4 FE: sample gallery and impressions

Samyang is astonishing really.

 

Samyang 35mm f/1.4 AS UMC (Nikon FX) - Review / Test Report - Sample Images & Verdict

 

Rokinon AF 35mm F1.4 FE: sample gallery and impressions

Thanks much for the links! Much appreciated.

Ruslan

I used the 43mm 1.9 Ltd at f8-f11 when taking landscapes just like I would with a wide angle. I very rarely used it as a short telephoto as you would with a 50mm lens as the performance at wide apertures (below f4) was not really convincing for me. It had bad distortion up close and was too wide to get separation in certain portrait subjects. Bokeh was not so good either. Also at F8-F11 its capacity to cope with bright light in the frame really came to the fore - it was superb in contre jour situations. But so was the Nikkor 45mm P 2.8 and any Nikkor 50mm 1.8 of F2 lens (not the 1.4).

That is why I got rid of the 43mm - it was well made and was very good but I think that it was not as flexible nor as good performer than many 50mm lenses throughout the aperture range. Having said that, I used my 43mm on an MZ5n - one of the best cameras in my view made by anyone in the 1990's. I used a 50mm Pentax A 1.4 lens on a KX and the 50mm 1.4 was pictorially a better lens than the 43mm - especially on B&W.

But the 43mm was definitely a high performer at F8-F11. BTW I only used it on film - not digital.

That is why I got rid of the 43mm

Mark, thanks, so really it was hyped. Or just its price corresponded to its metal construction (a-la old school lenses or Zeiss manual glass).

But the 43mm was definitely a high performer at F8-F11.

No doubt. But very cheap Canon 50 1.8 STM is also (I was shocked to see samples at f11 how razor-sharp it is).

Ruslan

As far as I am concerned the 43 mm Ltd had a specific use as a pictorial lens - landscapes - but it was not a good all rounder like a good old fashioned, well corrected 50mm. Remember however that the metal build of the 43mm went against the trend as it was at the time to produce lenses with plastic bodies. I would say that the 43 mm also had too much distortion for a modern lens. So it was over-hyped somewhat. But as a landscape lens (I must stress this) it was very impressive indeed. For street photography I found it less so. But it did open up the market for boutique lenses - Nikon's 45mm P2.8 for example and others.

The 43mm may not meet your needs. But I don't think it was "hyped." Hyped could mean two different things: 1) talked about glowingly, or 2) overpriced for what it is.

Yes the 43mm was talked about glowingly. Some people just really like this lens, for many reasons. Those are opinions, and you may not agree. No harm.

As for price, the 43mm is actually a really well-priced lens. The price is definitely not "hyped." Out of curiosity I looked at some prices at BH (so U.S. prices, at a respected dealer.)

• The Pentax FA Limited 43mm in silver is going for 596.95. In black it's on sale for 496.96.
  
• The Samyang 35mm 1.4 in K mount (it's cheapest mount) is $419. But.... that lens only has manual focus. As good as it is, I would only spend that much money on an autofocus lens.
  

Let's look at Nikon and Canon pricing:

• The Nikon 35mm 1.8 G is $526.06. If you want a half-stop faster, the Nikon 35mm 1.4 G is $1696.95.
  
• Canon is similar. The Canon EF 35mm f/2 is $599. The 35mm 1.4 is $1799.
  
• The new Sigma 40mm 1.4 for Canikon land is $1,399.
  

Once you compare across systems, the Pentax 43mm is one of the lowest priced options in this range. The nice metal construction is a bonus. And if that's too expensive, go for the Pentax 35mm f/2 which is also well liked and only $346.95.

The Pentax FA Limited 43mm in silver is going for 596.95. In black it's on sale for 496.96.

It seems Pentax provides discount prices in US.

In the place where I live, Pentax 43 mm costs 43000-45000 (680 USD) but Canon 35/2 IS goes for 31000 (477 USD).

Samyang is an optically perfect lens (better than L-series 1st version Canon). Consider this: Samyang is very sharp wide open and super clean and sharp at f2 across the frame.

Let's look at Nikon and Canon pricing:

43 is not 35 and not 1.4. 43/1.9 delivers image quality more comparable to 50/1.8 STM or so (if we really want to see real life samples from photozone/optical limits websites, we see this fact ).

43 is not 35 and not 1.4. 43/1.9 delivers image quality more comparable to 50/1.8 STM or so (if we really want to see real life samples from photozone/optical limits websites, we see this fact ).

Agreed. 50mm lenses are the image-quality bargains, super good IQ at the lowest price. But 43mm is a unique focal length. There aren't many options nearby. 50mm is too long for me, and 35mm is too wide ... but I can crop a 35mm shot.

If I had to shoot with one lens forever, it would be something close to 40mm. The rarity of the focal length means I am SUPER excited about the new Sigma 40mm. I also really like the Voigtlander Nokton 40mm 1.4 in M-mount.

The rarity of the focal length means I am SUPER excited about the new Sigma 40mm. I also really like the Voigtlander Nokton 40mm 1.4 in M-mount.

Agreed, the FL length is unique. And 43 mm makes some unique drawing on FF camera (wide-ish look with some old-time-near-to-medium-format-flavour).

Have a look at Voigtlander 40/1.2 for Sony E. :cool:

43mm is actual normal lens FOV. 50mm is called a normal lens but that's not accurate. Not precisely accurate anyway.

43mm like the rest of the FA limiteds isn't hyped, it's a nice metal lens with etched distance and DOF scales, an aperture ring (with A setting). It feels solid. It's different than most of what was available from Japanese camera manufacturers. Which was either plastic consumer lenses or very big heavy zooms, or heavy large aperture primes.

Optics: it's a nearly 30 old lens design for 35mm film. Does it need a refresh? probably. Did some folks buy a K-1 just to use these flawed FA Limiteds? You bet. The problem with the these new sensors is the cameras get smaller (mirrorless) but the lenses have to get bigger to keep up with sensor resolution. In a sense it defeats the purpose of miniaturization of cameras. A giant lens and a tiny camera. But that's entirely a different topic.

I actually got the K-1 to use my 43mm on. Well, that was one of the lenses I was most excited about. I don't shoot 35mm film so my FA 43 has mostly been languishing as a short telephoto, a focal lenght I don't use much.

The FA limiteds weren't ever designed to be the best optical design at 31, 43, and 77mm. They were designed to be the best optical designs that fit into those compact footprints. The 43 has a tiny 49mm front filter.

I'd like to close this thread out with an image from a flawed, distorted, almost useless lens that pentax still sells for around $500 USD to unsuspecting buyers. I must warn everyone, buyer beware. If you buy this lens you best be on your game because it's going to take every bit of skill you have to make a decent image from the FA 43mm. Engineers and measure-bators, don't bother. The resolution, distortion, and light gathering abilities of this lens are simply not worth the shutter click of your brick walls.

North Shore Panorama - Pittsburgh by Justin, on Flickr

Mountainvisions

If you are going to over-react to people's honest opinions about the 43mm LTD, then you best not read the thread!

The 43mm is an expensive lens and I think at that sort of expenditure point you should expect less distortion and better wide open performance - especially when you look at say what a bog standard 50mm 1.8 Nikkor AIS can do (or the wonderful Pentax 50mm A 1.4).

I have also used the 45mm Nikkor P 2.8 and can tell you that it has minimal distortion and at f4 has sweet spot for portraits, but it does not handle as well as the 43'.

I am quite open and honest above about what is good and bad about the 43'. It was and still is a landscape lens IMHO but so can any lens be used as a landscape lens and more besides. Potential users can make up their own minds, but if reading people's opinions makes you unhappy about your outlay then that is a risk you should accept and keep your sarcasm to yourself.

I just bought an used FA43 yesterday, (500 EUR in Finland) and here is a sample, I really like the bokeh it produces.[ATTACH=full]1302116[/ATTACH]

You are using the lens correctly then - keeping highlights out of the background because they produce ugly bokeh but I can tell you that the Pentax FA 50mm 1.4 can do exactly the same for a lot less outlay.

I'd like to close this thread out with an image from a flawed, distorted, almost useless lens that pentax still sells for around $500 USD to unsuspecting buyers. I must warn everyone, buyer beware. If you buy this lens you best be on your game because it's going to take every bit of skill you have to make a decent image from the FA 43mm. Engineers and measure-bators, don't bother. The resolution, distortion, and light gathering abilities of this lens are simply not worth the shutter click of your brick walls.

 

North Shore Panorama - Pittsburgh by Justin, on Flickr

Thank you for the picture nuff-said !