Dear Boz, I looked at your newly updated Pentax pages. With respect to the primes I hold this is a clear improvement. I spotted a typo in your description of the FA43/1.9. You write: "..., the AF somwhat low." I guess you meant the AF is slow. The "is" is missing as well. Since my FA50/1.4 got stolen I own this lens. I would like to comment a bit from my experience. I leave it up to you what you do with it. I wouldn't call the focusing mechanism stiff. I can focus it with a single finger, holding the body (MZ-5n) with both hands and using one finger of the left hand. We dicussed that some time ago on PDML, other users reported this as well. This I can't do with an MF lens. (I own M135/3.5 at this time). In comparison to a cheap Tamron 28-80 zoom the focus is slow as was my 50/1.4. I think this is more the slower transmission for the faster lens. The AF transmission shaft has to do many more rotations to focus the lens to a given distance than on the zoom. I expect this is due to the DOF being more shallow and therfore one had to increase precision on the expense of AF-speed. I recall my FA50/1.4 to be even more slow and fuzzy in AF then the 43/1.9. Please note that this is a HIGHLY subjective comment, since I changed body together with the lens (stolen together with my lens) and I can't perform side by side comparisons. I had two shots with my 43/1.9 which show evidence of flare. Something I never had with my 50/1.4. Wide open with both lenses I get (got) double structures in the background, so I wouldn't give high marks for Bokeh to either lens, when fully open. Distortion of the 43 is clearly not as good at the 50/1.4. I am not convinced the 43/1.9 is optically better than the 50/1.4. With respect to the AP article you quote, they clearly point out, a 43mm is harder to do than a 50mm lens. So this is a typical `apples and oranges' issue I raise here. For me the 43 shines with respect to handling, quality of build and being 43mm. Because of being shorter and more light weight it balances better on a MZ-5n than the FA50/1.4 did. Also I have a strong preference for the slightly wider angle. It makes more difference than I ever thought. My advise here would be: `Don't buy a 43 if you want a 50 and vice versa.' While typing, I realised this might be interesting to cross post to PDML, to get you some comments of otheres on the issue. I hope you don't mind. Joachim - 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 .
