> A clean SMC-A 50mm F2 lens can easily be had for, say, US$ 50. ...or even less.
> The 43mm Limited lens is a little wider, a tiny bit faster, and > about eight times more expensive. Can anyone with real-world > experience comment on how much better it really is optically? I'd > consider sharpness, contrast, bokeh, and any other visible effects > fair game. The 43/1.9 is not as sharp, I would say, at wider apertures. (I no longer own any 43/1.9's, so, admittedly, I am doing this from memory.) The 43/1.9 has some barrel distortion (very annoying and not terribly forgivable in such an expensive and such a not-so-wide lens). The 43/1.9 does not have the most pleasing bokeh (although it is better than the similar-FL M 40/2.8 in this regard) (and I can't remember what the bokeh of the A 50/2 is like, so that was not a statement specifically comparative to your question). I noticed that you mentioned an A lens, so I'm assuming that you are considering manual focus feel. I personally do not like the "whirring" focus feel of many of the autofocus lenses, including that of the 43/1.9. I also personally do not like the tiny focus rings of many of the autofocus lenses, such as the 43/1.9. (Some of the larger autofocus lenses that have a focus clutch to disengage the focusing gear train are thankfully a lot closer to decent manual focus feel.) However, I did use the word "personally" here - some PDML-ers disagree with this. The overall build quality of the 43/1.9 (focus feel notwithstanding) is much nicer than that of the A 50/2 (which is obviously a "budget" lens). I suspect that the sample-to-sample variations may also be smaller with the 43/1.9, too. > Don't know about the M/A 50/2, but if you want a good standard > lens (optically), go for the A/F/FA 50/1.4, F/FA 50/1.7, or even > the FA 50/2.8 Macro. The M 50/2 and the A 50/2 seem to me to be significantly different lenses - the A is more than a wee bit better optically (but not mechanically), in my opinion. For those that pay attention to Photodo ratings (and a lot of PDML-ers cringe when discussing Photodo - <g>), the A 50/2 gets a "4.0" from Photodo, which is a pretty high rating, especially for such an "economy" lens. (The Photodo rating for the 43/1.9 is 3.6, in comparison.) However, I really think you might want to consider, say, the A 50/1.4 or even the A 50/1.7. Both are quite good optically (and the 50/1.4 is at least pretty good mechanically, although the 50/1.7 has a weak spot with its aperture ring, some PDML-ers feel). (My personal preference is for the 50/1.4, but there are many PDML-ers who do love their 50/1.7's.) The F and the FA 50/2.8 Macros are razor-sharp, but not too nice to use for manual focusing (in my opinion), and, of course, they are starting to get closer to the 43/1.9 in price. I much prefer the A 50/2.8 Macro, a most delightful lens to use, even if it's not quite as bitingly sharp as are the F and FA 50/2.8 Macros. Not everyone likes the A 50/2 (and some might say that spending this many bytes on such a "cheap" lens is overkill, but the question ~was~ asked). However, although the 43/1.9 is indeed a "special" lens, it is not a lens that is liked by everyone, either... Fred
