> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * From: David A. Mann
> * Subject: 43mm Limited, 1st impressions
> * Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 01:01:47 -0800
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Hi David,
I recently got a 43/1.9 limited as well (to replace my stolen
FA50/1.4). I am still in the testing as well and don't like to comment on its
performance, however I like to do some comments on your posting.
> Sweeet... the camera shop had my 43mm Limited today (S/N 00053**). I
> have it on loan for 7 days to play with it as much as I like. If I'm home from
> work tomorrow (I have a cold in the middle of summer! ugh!) I'll take it out for
> a good test-drive. Since the Pentax TTL adaptor for my Sunpak flash arrived
> yesterday, I'm going to have lots of fun.
>
> This lens is small, I find it almost too short for comfortable manual
> focussing. My long fingers naturally rest on the lens hood so I have to bend
> them back a little to focus.
>
I use it with a MZ-5n. When holding the camera with both hands, I can
MF the lens with my index finger. This works amasingly well. I am sure
it is meant to be used like that. This was not possible with my 50/1.4.
> The field of view is good, slightly wider than 50mm (as you might expect:).
> 43mm works out roughly the same as 90mm for 6x7 which is a focal length I
> have found to be incredibly versatile (aside from the fact that it was the only
> 6x7 lens I had for a year or more).
>
I also like the extremely neutral perspective of the 43. It definitely
makes a difference in my view. However I also miss the speed of the
FA50/1.4. I still stand by my comments, I did on the frequent 50/1.7
vs 50/1.4 lens. This makes a difference in low light and applies even
more on the speed difference 1.9 vs 1.4. I might get a inexpensive M
or K 50/1.4 at some point to fill the gap.
> It is also incredibly light. My "new" 50/1.2 feels like a brick in comparison.
> This lens would suit an M- or MZ-/ZX- series body pretty well for a really nice,
> lightweight combo. I think Pentax would do well to release a compact,
> lightweight "limited" body to suit the lenses.
>
I agree on that. Handling of a MZ-5n with 43/1.9 or a FA50/1.4 is
quite different. The 43 is better balance in my view without the 50
handling badly.
> I'll repeat my earlier statements that I think the lens hood is too small. I like
> my hoods to provide as much shade as possible (for example, I use a 50mm
> square hood on my 35mm lens) but with the ghostless SMC coating I'm
> probably just being a bit paranoid.
>
It is always a trade off. I don't want an humungous item and I think
it is doing a good job. My camera lens combination is very unintrusive
which I prefer. Holding it right into the sun, I get flare which is
clearly visible in the finder. This could improve when stopping
down. (I use HOYA SHMC UV if that matters)
> The manual focussing feel is really nice. I don't mind the whirring of the
> gears and I definitely like the knurled metal focussing ring (which I would
> have preferred to be a little longer). I don't think there's any plastic in this
> lens - it's just metal and glass, all that a lens should be :) I am surprised
> that there is no lens-mount index like every other Pentax lens has :( How
> are we supposed to mount it in the dark?
>
I guess there was just no place on this short lens to place a lens
mount index. I think of it as a pancake.
> The AF (on a Z-1p) is pretty fast but not as fast as I expected it to be.
I guess that goes with the damping. They have to use a slow set of
gears to overcome the friction of the damping without putting to much
strain on the AF motor. I perceive my lens as very responsive with
respect to AF. Clearely less hunting than my 50/1.4. I expect the AF
is less fuzzy with a 1.9 lens than a 1.4. My Tamron 28-80/3.5-5.6
still beats them all.
> However, the only other AF glass I have is the FA 100/2.8 macro and the
> FA*24/2.0, both of which don't have to move very much to focus at "normal"
> distances (the macro lens is _really_ fast to AF at non-macro distances).
>
> This lens just looks too weird on the Z-1p but it suits my chrome K2 pretty
> well. I've seen a 75th anniversary chrome Z-1 and I'm wondering how it'd look
> on that, or even on an MZ-5n (no, please don't make me buy any more
> bodies!). Adding filters makes it look even stranger (my filters have black
> rims). Then again, as far as I'm concerned, the view from behind the camera
> is more important :)
You get used to this black rim. It becomes part of the look of the
lens very quickly.
>
> I've only taken a couple of photos with it and won't have anything developed
> until next week, so impressions of the optics will have to wait a while. I have
> noticed that the "brick-wall" distortion is about the same as the 50/1.2 I
> compared it with (in other words, pretty good).
>
You judged that in the finder? I would be careful if so. The finder
optics usually adds a lot to the distortion. I would call the results
I got so far as acceptable with respect to distortion. It didn't pop
into my eye. Still have to do some testing for myself however.
> I'm feeling enabled already. I've been quoted NZ$1230 which works out to
> roughly US$530. Comparing with B&H it's a little more expensive, but
> considering how NZ prices normally compare to B&H its pretty good.
>
> This might be the first brand new piece of Pentax gear I buy! Pentax might
> actually make money off me at last, which pleases me because it's about
> time I directly gave them something back for all their efforts.
>
I don't think this is correct. A camera company should also value
those who buy their produces used. This builds up the confidence of
those who buy their stuff new, that they can sell it for a reasonable
price after some years. You often read as an argument against Pentax
that selling used stuff is not easy enough in comparison especially to
N****.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
