[JHD]

I don't know know exactly what "myth" you're referring to, but I doubt anything I could say would "bust it". The 31 is the superior lens IMO. It's faster and has the better IQ. The 40 is more compact and has faster AF.

OTOH you did say, "I actually don't think you'd see a tremendous amount of difference between sample shots taken with identical setups and apertures between the two lenses." If a "superior lens" doesn't produce superior IQ to lens that sells for a third of the price, with similar build quality, in a much smaller package with faster focus, what pray tell is the point in spending all that extra cash?

[JHD]

You know what would be interesting is if you / somebody else who owns both lenses mounts a camera on a tripod and then take a series of pictures at various apertures with both lenses. The proof is in the pudding. Everything else is just talk.

Can somebody do it? Please, please, please...

Bring on the samples!

[germar]

Comparing the 31 and the DA 40 is like comparing a Chevrolet Corvette and a Chevy Malibu. They both function in a similar manner, they get you there, they have doors, seats and air conditioning. One costs 55k, the other 18k.

If you have to ask if the Corvette's really 2.8 times better than the Malibu, then get the Malibu.

I own both, love both and I appreciate the qualities each brings to the table (already well documented in this thread). Yes, the 31 is worth every cent.

[JHD]

Since you own both lenses, would you be willing mount a camera on a tripod and take a series of pictures at various apertures with both lenses?

[dgaies]

OTOH you did say, "I actually don't think you'd see a tremendous amount of difference between sample shots taken with identical setups and apertures between the two lenses." If a "superior lens" doesn't produce superior IQ to lens that sells for a third of the price, with similar build quality, in a much smaller package with faster focus, what pray tell is the point in spending all that extra cash?

Well, if you would reread what I wrote, I already explained the primary reasons why I prefer the 31; it's wider and over a stop faster. I also said the 31 had the better IQ. And while I said I didn't think there would be a tremendous difference in terms of the output of a controlled setup, that doesn't mean I think they're equal in terms of IQ.

But to answer you last question, the point of spending the extra cash is to shoot with the lens I prefer. I don't care if it's the better value. If you asked me which lens is the better value I'd probably choose the 40. If you asked me which lenses is the superior lens optically, and which lens I'd rather shoot with, I'd choose the 31. Simple as that.

[dgaies]

[/b]
Bring on the samples!

Since you own both lenses, would you be willing mount a camera on a tripod and take a series of pictures at various apertures with both lenses?

JHD, what kind of sample are you looking for? Of what type of subject?

Well, I was planning on ditching the 40 as I already bought a replacement (DAL35/2.4) for what was the DA40's intended purpose, but I suppose I could take some test shots before it goes. What kind of subject did you have in mind for this comparison?

edit: JHD, I forgot to ask, have you ever used the 31?

[Blue]

Comparing the 31 and the DA 40 is like comparing a Chevrolet Corvette and a Chevy Malibu. They both function in a similar manner, they get you there, they have doors, seats and air conditioning. One costs 55k, the other 18k.

If you have to ask if the Corvette's really 2.8 times better than the Malibu, then get the Malibu.

I own both, love both and I appreciate the qualities each brings to the table (already well documented in this thread). Yes, the 31 is worth every cent.

I guess it depends on the year of the Malibu.

[robgo2]

I'm fond of the FA 35mm f2 AL; For sharpness, the 31LTD score 2345, the FA 35 AL scores 2336 (photozone.de and personal experience). The FA35 AL is noticeably sharper in the corners than the 31mm LTD at all apertures. The FA31LTD has slightly smoother bokeh, but I don't find the FA35AL's bokeh unpleasant. If sharpness is your goal in a near-normal, the FA35 f2 AL is a great deal.

I think it is unwise to reduce a lens's value to sharpness and MTF values, especially since most lenses these days are more than sharp enough. Equally important are color accuracy and microcontrast as well as a number of intangible rendering qualities. I'm not saying that you were implying that in your post, but some readers may infer it.

Rob

[JHD]

dgaies

I have a DA40, but I haven’t tried an FA31, I might be interested if I see how good it is relative to something familiar. As for samples, with all things being equal lets go with whatever you think would highlight the difference between the two lenses. The OP stated he was looking for a walk around prime, he didn’t indicate that it was for anything specific.

[Wheatfield]

No, I don't know what does it mean.

It means that there is not a straight line between price and quality, but rather, at some point you pay large premiums for incrementally smaller improvements in quality.
FWIW, I think the 31 is more than 2.8 times better than the 40, but that's just me.

[dgaies]

dgaies

I have a DA40, but I haven’t tried an FA31, I might be interested if I see how good it is relative to something familiar. As for samples, with all things being equal lets go with whatever you think would highlight the difference between the two lenses. The OP stated he was looking for a walk around prime, he didn’t indicate that it was for anything specific.

Ok then, I'll see what I can come up with. Maybe I'll try to throw the 35/macro and 43 in there for good measure as they often pop up in the conversation when talking about either the 31 or 40.

[jstevewhite]

I think it is unwise to reduce a lens's value to sharpness and MTF values, especially since most lenses these days are more than sharp enough. Equally important are color accuracy and microcontrast as well as a number of intangible rendering qualities. I'm not saying that you were implying that in your post, but some readers may infer it.

Rob

As I said, I'm just adding objective, empirical measurements to support my perceptions, and was responding to a comment that included an observation about the sharpness of the 31mm. How about I say this: The FA 35 f2 AL is just as sharp as the 31mm in the center, sharper in the corners, and has excellent color saturation and microcontrast. The 31 has lower CA, and some people like the bokeh better.

Frankly, I love the rendering of the FA 35 f2 AL (I keep typing the whole thing because I don't want to confuse things with the DA 35 f2.4 AL ):




It's crisp and rich and razor sharp, and edge to edge superior to my 35mm 2.8 Macro LTD at anything less than 1:3 magnification.

Bokeh is certainly a personal preference. The 31 certainly feels better built than the FA 35 f2 AL, although I wouldn't characterize the latter as "plasticky". Again, preference. I'm not challenging anyone's right to prefer one lens over another - I'm just offering another piece of information/advice that's not couched in hushed, worshipful tones in regard to the 31, and the tendency to assert that those preferences are factual rather than preferential.

[krendel154]

OTOH you did say, "I actually don't think you'd see a tremendous amount of difference between sample shots taken with identical setups and apertures between the two lenses." If a "superior lens" doesn't produce superior IQ to lens that sells for a third of the price, with similar build quality, in a much smaller package with faster focus, what pray tell is the point in spending all that extra cash?

If pictures taken with FA31 would not prove its superiorness, then Pentax will bring FA31 price down to DA40. It would be nice job for future generations!
Or, will bring up price of DA40 to show its superiorness too

[krendel154]

Bring on the samples!

Samples, samples, samples.......!

[selar]

No quick-shift

I use quick shift with my FA 31, you just have to depress the lens release button halfway and hold.