On 27/05/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now given this situation, is the 43 worth the 500 bones? Is it... 2.2X > better than the 50?
None of this stuff is magic, don't expect X times more keeepers from a 43 and don't be disillusioned if you don't see the much touted "3D effect" (one of the the most idiotic phrases coined here). With the right light, subject, plane of focus and aperture settings most primes will satisfy the most discerning photographer. I had the 43LTD for a couple of years but I ended up selling it as it was just too much cash for the return and in all reality the 50/1.4 does just as nice a job (though if you specifically need the wider FL it could be less useful). Without trying to sound like I'm taking the Mickey I really don't know whether the extra cost of the 43mm somehow encourages people to imagine it has magical photographic powers but I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to differentiate a well crafted image shot with either the 43 or the 50. Just my opinion of course, the decision is up to you but if you do go the 43LTD route I'd be interested to hear what you honestly think of it after the fact. Cheers, -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
