----- Original Message ----- From: "AlexG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:23 AM Subject: About to pull the trigger on the FA43 Limited...... Some thoughts?
> Hi guys, > > Some more stupidnewbie questions, I hope you don't mind. > > When I bought the k100d, I also got an FA50/1.4 The FA50/1.4 is a good, decent lens. I like it, though I still use my A50/1.2 quite a bit out there in the middle of the night. > and DA40/2.8 ltd. Got > the DA40 because it had a good rep, was nice and compact and > relatively affordable.... aw hell, who am I kidding, it was a pure > impulse buy. > > A few weeks later and I am seriously dissatisfied with it. I love the > build and size, but for every 'wow' pic it makes, there are 3-5 blah > pics. It's to the point that I prefer the kit lens, I seemed to have > generated far more keepers with it. I am unfamiliar with the "D" series lenses. I will only buy lenses designed for full 24x36 format. > Focal length is useful. A bit more in the frame than the 50. But f/2.8 > and the "meh, whatever" shots it's produced have me wanting to unload > it. I remember posting here how the shots I had seen never really > wowed me, and they still don't. F/2.8 is the real killer though. > Anything shot past 6pm is a noisy, blurry mess, even with SR. I prefer fast glass. Anything for 35mm that's slower than f/2 and shorter than 85mm doesn't get my money. > ... However, almost every shot I've ever seen taken with the 43 really > pops. Color is RidicuNice(tm), it's decently fast - meaning I'll never > be SOL if I bring it only with me on an outing, and i've even seen the > elusive 3d effect on a few of the pics. I love this lens. In fact, I own and love all the limiteds. > At 500 canuckbucks, That's 'bout $400USD, eh? > it doesn't come cheap, and costs as much as the > K100d itself. Never compare the cost of the glass to the cost of the body. It's the glass that does the work. If you ever need more definition, you can always put the lens on an old film body, pop in a roll of Royal Gold 25... Ah, that's right, I'm probably the only guy that still has more than a 300 rolls of RG25 in air tight baggies in the fridge at 34 deg. F. > The question is... is it really that big a step up over > the FA50, which, at $220 US, was a steal? > Now, assuming I make some money back off the DA40, it would slightly > undo the financial damage. I am also going to sell some computer stuff > I have lying around, this will make for extra fundage too Like I said, the FA50/1.4 is a very good lens. I personally think the 43 limited is better, but is it worth the money? Well, If we were talking business, I'd say no. But we're not talking business are we. We're talkin' 'bout what makes your heart sing and that's a whole 'nother story. Only you can make that call. > I went back to the April where I asked a similar question. General > consensus was that the 43 produced some excellent results. Godfrey > dumped his 50 for it and had no regrets. I will never sell the 50. > It's RidicuFast(tm). Only thing better is that Zeiss Noctilux at > f/1.0, but that's just being silly. No it's not. > I was asking previously afout 70 vs 77 but I haven't spend enough time > in that focal range to know if I care about it enough to put a sucking > chest wound into my bank account. Especially when old super-taks in > that ballpark are plentiful. > Bottom line: > I'd unloading the DA40... I'm 96% convinced it's the right move. > I'm keeping the FA50, 100% confidence > > Now given this situation, is the 43 worth the 500 bones? Is it... 2.2X > better than the 50? As with all things, as you approach the cream of the crop, the cost goes up astronomically to obtain even a small improvement. I just drooped about $850USD on a 31/1.8 and the lens and I are currently on a honeymoon. I love it. You'll need it some day too. Welcome to the world of empty pockets. Regards, Bob Blakely -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
