[Pentaxor]

There would be a few of us around who have both, and would prefer to have both for the ability to capture closer-up portraits without the typical wide-angle distortions that can come out in a 31mm shot. Then there's the need at times to get a more full-body or 3/4 portrait, where the 31 is well-suited and the 43 is just too long. They're both so good, you could have either or both and be blissfully happy.

Yup. true enough. because I had struggled with the 50mm with indoor use. the 35mm kinda solved that problem a bit and a 31mm would certainly make it much more flexible. distortion with the 31 can be a bit of a problem with certain angles but not as much. 43 as you said is longer, so that makes me second guess it as well. I could had traded the FA50/1.7 and FA35/2 for it but I much would gladly go for the 31mm. also, you might find it suprising that I'm using a 28/3.5 for wide portraits. I only wished it were AF and faster at 1.8 just like the FA31. sadly, the Sigma 28 doesn't impress me that well, and the Sigma 30, shorthanded for other types of photography, although it excels for portrait use.

I'd have no doubt of this - my old FA 100/2.8 macro is amazingly sharp and can be used effectively as a portrait lens too. But there's more to it than that - I do prefer the FA ltd colour and contrast rendition, even if slightly more, than that of the FA 100.

my feelings for the FA100 is that it is an excellent portrait lens and should have a place of it's own. although it might get replaced by the Sigma 85.

[Ash]

sadly, the Sigma 28 doesn't impress me that well, and the Sigma 30, shorthanded for other types of photography, although it excels for portrait use.

.

Interesting comment. Tell us what makes the Sigma 30 less amenable to non-portrait work - It was touted as the better choice for its speed...

[Pentaxor]

Interesting comment. Tell us what makes the Sigma 30 less amenable to non-portrait work - It was touted as the better choice for its speed...

what I noticed is it was not as good as the K28/3.5 for general use, especially for architectures. even at middle or smaller apertures, it didn't do well. although it's very good at the center though, but I don't shoot centers only when it comes to general photography. the distortion is the other thing, and it clearly showed quite pronounced. the FA31 however was more equally balanced and can be used for general use.

[Ash]

Much appreciated for your observations - thank you.

[Pentaxor]

Much appreciated for your observations - thank you.

sorry, did a typo on my previous post. I meant it was "NOT" as good as the K28/3.5. hope that makes it clearer. edited the previous post now.

[Ash]

Oh, that doesn't bode too well for the Sigma. Then again I knew that faster doesn't always mean better.

[Pentaxor]

Oh, that doesn't bode too well for the Sigma. Then again I knew that faster doesn't always mean better.

sorry to disappoint you. although in fairness, it is very sharp wide open at the center compared to other fast lenses. but that's the only part it is strong at. so don't expect shooting something that needs consistent/balance sharpness all over the image.

[axl]

Interesting debate....
I'll chime in a bit, if I may

I'll have both 31 & 43 and 50 and now I got FA*24.
Crowded? Yes, until you look at it as two line ups!
Heavy: 10-20 + 31 + 50/1.2 + 77 = all you want. Superwide, fast normal, ultrafast portrait/short tele, fast long portrait/mid tele. All in all, heavy and you need to rotate 4 lenses but you are covered for just about all people/vista/street/architecture/indoor shots...
On the move: FA24 + 43 + 77 (if you want) = compact, light weight. fast moderate wide, long fast normal, and fast mid tele.

Of course you can mix and match as you wish. But: I'll agree that 31 & 43 are too close. I'd never see 43 as cheaper option or downgrade to 31. They are both different and both have a lot going for them! 43 & 50? again, very close for comfort but far enough to keep both for different purposes IMO.
43 soft wide open? What a load of..... excuse my french... 43 is probably the sharpest out of all of these wide open (at least my copy is). Yes, it is bit softer in corners, but still OK. And stopped down it spanks everything else, almighty 31 and K50/1.2 including.
OOF? Well, down to personal taste IMO. I'd say it's good if you are careful what is in your background. On this occasion both 31 & 50/1.2 fare better, I'd even say quite a bit better...
A lot of folks miss one point though: hold your 31, your 50/1.2 or *55/1.4 and then grab 43! That lens is small, light, portable and delivers! And that is quite a winning combination IMO....

my 2p

[axl]

Oh, and I'll agree on the fast Sigma primes.... I have tried 24/1.8, 28/1.8, and seen many samples from 30/1.4 & 50/1.4 and never felt really inspired by them... they are technically nice lenses but just don't have the Pentax's famous pixie dust in them

[Ash]

Thanks to you also Peter for your insight.
Pixie dust is something very difficult to quantitate and thus trying to prove to measurebators how much Tinkerbell has made the FA ltds produce stunning results ahead of all other third party lenses in their focal range is quite a challenge.

But seriously, I too quickly became convinced how much better the FA 43 rendered colours, textures and detail over the FA 50/1.4 - as much as I regarded that lens highly.

[Pentaxor]

Interesting debate....
I'll chime in a bit, if I may

I'll have both 31 & 43 and 50 and now I got FA*24.
Crowded? Yes, until you look at it as two line ups!
Heavy: 10-20 + 31 + 50/1.2 + 77 = all you want. Superwide, fast normal, ultrafast portrait/short tele, fast long portrait/mid tele. All in all, heavy and you need to rotate 4 lenses but you are covered for just about all people/vista/street/architecture/indoor shots...
On the move: FA24 + 43 + 77 (if you want) = compact, light weight. fast moderate wide, long fast normal, and fast mid tele.

Of course you can mix and match as you wish. But: I'll agree that 31 & 43 are too close. I'd never see 43 as cheaper option or downgrade to 31. They are both different and both have a lot going for them! 43 & 50? again, very close for comfort but far enough to keep both for different purposes IMO.
43 soft wide open? What a load of..... excuse my french... 43 is probably the sharpest out of all of these wide open (at least my copy is). Yes, it is bit softer in corners, but still OK. And stopped down it spanks everything else, almighty 31 and K50/1.2 including.
OOF? Well, down to personal taste IMO. I'd say it's good if you are careful what is in your background. On this occasion both 31 & 50/1.2 fare better, I'd even say quite a bit better...
A lot of folks miss one point though: hold your 31, your 50/1.2 or *55/1.4 and then grab 43! That lens is small, light, portable and delivers! And that is quite a winning combination IMO....

my 2p

Peter, I dunno exactly where the soft at wide open came from, but the images show the exact opposite of it. probably they were referring to the poor corners at wide open. however, it would had helped if the explanation was clear enough to point out the center resolution as very good rather than concentrate immediately at the corners which I find odd. lenses at these focal lengths or even with all focal lengths should not forget to mention center resolution.

that is the other downside of the FA43 is that it could be picky or choosy with it's background in a few occassions unlike the 31 and 50 where it doesn't matter what the background is.

I'm really hard pressed between the FA43 and FA31 myself, and I can't own both as I can certainly tell that one of which would be left behind at home and seldom used.

[Pentaxor]

Thanks to you also Peter for your insight.
Pixie dust is something very difficult to quantitate and thus trying to prove to measurebators how much Tinkerbell has made the FA ltds produce stunning results ahead of all other third party lenses in their focal range is quite a challenge.

But seriously, I too quickly became convinced how much better the FA 43 rendered colours, textures and detail over the FA 50/1.4 - as much as I regarded that lens highly.

Ash, I was never impressed by the FA50/1.4. although it got the speed advantage, even the DA40 has much better rendering IMO. I was thinking if Pentax made the DA40 an f2, I would guess the FA43 might had a serious competition in it's hand.

[Ash]

Well as for the 40 vs 43 discussion, that too has been and gone a few times here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/73525-40mm-da-vs-43mm-fa.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/85123-da-40-fa-43-a.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/94851-i-have-s...n-fa-43-a.html

Probably equal between those who prefer the 40 over the 43 and vice versa...
I think it's a smart move for Pentax to have made the 40 a pancake and f/2.8 to avoid Pentaxian meltdown trying to choose between the two...
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/52304-pentax-c...miserable.html

[axl]

Pentaxor, go for both! You won't regret. 43 will stay at bay everytime you take your 50ish option along as 31 pairs up much easier. But as small, portable one lens line up 43 is very hard to beat

[axl]

40 vs 43?
If 40 would be f2 it would be better lens technically than 43 but the FA has little something that DA just lacks... And I can't exactly put my finger on it...