Standard lens - something should go

[paddy_macmahon1]

<p>I find myself with a surfeit of standard lenses - the question is, if I were to sell, which would get me a higher price? Or should I keep them all?<br>

My current Pentax equipment comprises: Battered (but beautiful) MX body, SMC M 28mm f3.5, SMC FA 43mm f1.9 Limited, SMC M 50mm f1.7, SMC K 50mm f1.2 and SMC A* 85mm f1.4.<br>

I shoot exclusively in black and white, and cannot see myself ever upgrading to digital, it being the devil's work. Since my MZ5n died I barely use the 43mm f1.9, but it does couple nicely with the MX and is a fine lens. So here's my quandary:<br>

Do I: i) sell the 50mm f1.2; ii) sell the 43mm f1.9; iii) sell them both and get a SMC A 50mm f1.4?<br>

Which of these options leaves me with the best combination of money in my pocket and quality 35mm outfit? I don't see any point in offloading the 50mm f1.7, as it will raise next to nothing, and I may well grab myself another MX body for it to live on as a 'take anywhere without worrying about loss or damage' camera.</p>

[markus maurer]

<p>I would sell the K 50mm 1.2 for a high price or keep them all.</p>

[jptreen]

<p>get the 50/1.4 and keep the others :-)<br>

I'd go <strong>ii)</strong> and sell the 43/1.9. Great lens, limited quality, but then you've already got an 50/1.7 (I also have the 'A' version, it is a lovely little lens) and the 1.2, I'm not sure the 43 is needed.<br>

In fact, thinking about it unless you use the 50/1.2 wide open then dump it for the 1.4, and unless you're going to go wide open a lot with that then don't get that either, sell the 43/1.9 and the 50/1.2 and keep the 1.7.<br>

You'll still have a great kit and you'll also have a lot of money back! If you're going to streamline then go the whole way!</p>

[snik75]

<p>I got rid of my A 50/1.4 in favor of my M 50/1.7 to use on MF film bodies. So if I were you I wouldn't be looking for one of those. But beyond that I can't contribute, having never had a 50/1.2 or the 43mm.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I'm probably the wrong person to ask too--because I'd say keep them and forget the 50/1.4. But you probably have a better sense as to what you actually use and like to use. No preference in focal length between 43 and 50? Either the 43/1.9 or 50/1.2 will likely pay for a 50/1.4 two, three or more times over. How often do you shoot wider than f/2? If you're only shooting MX, is there are reason you want 'A' rather than 'M'? </p>

[jptreen]

<p>you could also go hyper-recessionary and chuck the lot in, get an 'M' 50/2 and live happily ever after. Just ask yourself if your photography would get any worse...</p>

[monochromekx]

<p>Sell whichever of the lenses you do not use in the next three months.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>My first outfit nearly 35 years ago was an all-manual body (that's all there was) and a 50mm prime. I used it 6 years until the camera quit. Then I got the ME Super new, and kept using the 50mm focal length, adding a 28mm WA and a short tele zoom. A few years later, I finally did get my first 40mm lens, the "M" f/2.8 pancake, and after some time gaining experience with it, I found it to be more versatile than the 50mm, though not as fast. After that point, the 40mm became my general purpose prime, and the 50mm then mostly used for low-light situations. Just 3 years ago, I stepped up to the 43mm Limited, and it became a favorite both for film and digital. For film, it is also considered true normal focal length. It is truly an exceptionally fine lens.</p>

<p>I would say the 50mm f1.2 would probably bring in a good sum, because of its unusual speed. The 50mm f/1.7 should satisfy most light needs you might face for your use, and would not bring much so not worth it to sell. Very good wide open too, which the f/1.2 is not. Your lenses then would be well diversified, IMO for their uses.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>I would NOT sell the 43mm for a 50mm 1.4, the 43mm is a much better lens overall when both IQ and build are factored in. The 50mm is no dog, but I don't see it as an upgrade.<br>

<br /> To me it really doesn't seem like you have that many lenses in the same FL. 28 to 43mm is a decent FL change and a useful one, 85mm is a big jump from 50. Personally, I'd lose the 50mm 1.2, if you aren't greedy it will sell fast and bring you a fair return (assuming you didn't overpay for it).</p>

<p>I'd keep the 50mm 1.7 since it doesn't bring much return, and is excellent wide open and stopped down.</p>

<p>I guess the big problem is the difference between 43 and 50 isn't much, so why keep both. Perhaps sell it and pick up a 35mm f/3.5?</p>

<p>Or keep the 43mm, and use it on one MX and the 28 or 85mm on the other MX. Personally, I prefer the wider "Normal" aspect of 35/43mm over 50/55mm but you might be different and prefer the longer end of normal.</p>

 

[paddy_macmahon1]

<p>It hadn't crossed my mind to sell both the 43mm and the f1.2 and leave myself with the f1.7, but that would certainly be a financially attractive option (and would leave me a bit left over even after buying the Mamiya 6 I've been eyeing up).<br>

I do use the f1.2 wide open - simply setting the shutter to 1/30th and pushing Ilford Delta 3200 to 6400. I haven't had issues with sharpness, but then I haven't enlarged much beyond about 10 by 15. I love the feel of the lens - it's weighty and feels 'precise' when focusing and adjusting aperture (perhaps even more so than the 85mm A*).<br>

I used to use the 43mm on my MZ5n (RIP) almost to the exclusion of anything else and it was fantastic. It looks lovely (I have the silver version, by the by) and delivers great results. I'm not wild about the feel of the focusing on the manual bodies, but it's better than other FA lenses and is very nicely balanced with the MX. I do, I think, slightly prefer the wider aspect of the lens over the 50mm.<br>

Looking back to some older snaps taken on Ilford XP2 with an ME Super and the f1.7, I can't really find fault, and it too is a beautiful lens in use and has the huge advantage of being really cheap to replace. And that Mamiya 6...</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Another MZ/ZX5n should not be hard to come by in top shape at a reasonable cost. The silver 43mm Limited is very nice on it, and was designed with that in mind.</p>

[rparmar]

<p>Sell the FA43? You must be mad. Is that what comes of not doing the devil's work?</p>

[paddy_macmahon1]

<p>I have virtually ruled out the possibility of replacing the MZ5n (smashing camera though it is); indeed everything I seem to be enjoying about photography at the moment is heading backwards in time, from developing and printing to forcing myself to think about exposure and lighting. I even felt bad about running a <em>colour</em> film through my Olympus Trip 35 (the film was lying around and my Ulster presbyterian roots wouldn't allow me to bin it) as I had to take it to Snappy Snaps. I can see the convenience of modern bodies (analogue and digital), and I've even had to buy a digital point and shoot since Mrs M demanded snapshots for the family album, but my heart is with manual cameras. So the 43mm has to justify itself purely on its manual focus, B&W film performance.</p>

[dan_daniel2]

<p>A 43 on an MX? I don't know the feel of the focus on the 43, but everything else about that sounds like the perfect walk-about camera to me. If it can stay at a hyperfocus spot, not roll off it because of a loose autofocus mechanism, even focus feel becomes minor (a tab of duct tape can hold a ring in place and release easily).</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Paddy, the 43mm Limited is a superior lens, and has a very good MF feel for an AF lens. I have never had an issue with looseness of the focus ring. But IF you should decide to sell it, for reasons of going to all MF lenses, consider the older "M" 40mm f/2.8, which I still have as well. Metal body and built like a Limited, its MF is even more damped because it was designed as a MF lens. It really is a nice walkaround lens, and can produce very good images, though not up to the superb optical quality of the FA 43mm LTD. It is a little smaller than the 43mm Limited, and has no lens hood. As with the current 40mm Limited, it is so tiny that the focus ring is sometimes not easy to find quickly, and also like the DA 40mm Limited, its f/2.8 max aperture does not give as bright of viewing through the VF as the f/1.9 of the FA 43mm.</p>

<p>If I will be taking out a MF only body, and there will be plenty of light, I still often opt to take the little 40mm instead of the 43m Limited.</p>

[thomas_christensen]

<p>I don't own the 43, but I know I would never part with my K50 1.2.<br>

I also have an A50 1.4 and it's a beauty and is on the camera as often as the 1.2.<br>

Both takes very good pictures stopped down a step or too.<br>

If you want to sell the 85, just give me a nod ;-)</p>