[gp1806]

I use an FA 35mm f/2.0. Sharp and fast.

[Egg Salad]

The Sigma 28/1.8 EX Macro focuses closer than the Pentax 31/1.8.
Seriously, I like the versatility a close focusing lens like this gives me. And its bokeh is not shabby at all.

If strong-armed, I might trade a 31mm Ltd for it but it has a lot going for it as well.

P.S.: "Normal" is not what you want it to be. You can say a lens corresponds to how you look but that is not the definition of "normal" for a lens. Pentax is hopeless regarding its use of "normal". The Pentax FA 50/1.4 is described as being a normal lens. The times when this has been true have long gone for Pentax...

Not owning the 31 Ltd. I have to say that I find the Sigma 28's bokeh/rendition/whatever absolutely awesome. I would rate its bokeh as a 9. On my lens it is completely circular and smooth. Almost as good as on my Sigma 50 F1.4.

I'm not even sure if I would trade the Sigma for the Pentax (probably yes) - 18cm MFT as opposed to 30cm is a huge difference.
Just wished the Sigma had HSM as well.

Far better value on the Sigma!

[robgo2]

Back in the day, a "normal" lens was one that supposedly provided approximately the same field of view as one's own eyes. A focal length of 45-50mm in 35mm format was considered to meet that criterion, although some argued in favor of 35mm. In any event, one should use that focal length which looks best to oneself. My "normal" lens is unquestionably the 31 Limited, which is the equivalent of a 46mm focal length in 35mm format. It just looks right to me--not too wide and not too long.

Rob

[vizjerei]

+1 for FA35, Still remember the good days where it was just around $300 new.

[mika.]

From my experience, the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f2 is the lens you want. I've tried the Pentax-M, Takumars, Leicas, Nikkors, various old Russian and German vintage lenses, the 40mm Ultron beats them all.

[vrrattko]

+2 for FA35, great little lens....