Originally posted by les3547
Here's where we might not be able to agree . . . I'd trust what I see over any figures or chart; but let me attempt to describe differences in resolution I see between Selar's two pictures. Look at them in the "Windows Live" link where the quality is much better, and compare the FA31 and the FA35 at f4 (the third and sixth pictures).
Using the above crops for quick reference, I see more detail in the picture on the left, more depth (as on the surface of the lowest leaf), better color separation, better representation of shadows and highlights . . . overall it is more viscerally pleasing than the picture on the right, which in the past I've described as "flat looking." I might not be able prove it is more pleasing with figures, but I do know that I've had this reaction to other lenses, such as Leica and Voightlander.
I also accept that others don't think the difference is worth fussing about, or paying for. But if the FA31 consistently produced such differences, I'd want it even for a premium price.
Oh, yeah, I completely agree with you, looking at
those crops. But like I said before, that's not representative of *my* FA35, nor the work i've seen from FA35s on the forum, on flickr, or on pixel-peeper.com. I don't have selar's FA35, so I can't say any more than "mine doesn't look like that" - feel free to compare the images I posted with the FA; I know they're not the same subject, but I don't live with selar either

I think the images I posted illustrate that there is a difference between my FA35 and selar's; I can't even
begin to guess which is more representative of the breed, though. Considering photozone's results, I'd
guess his is probably the outlier, but there's no way to prove that.