Originally posted by jstevewhite Well, a ff with a 35mm isn't anywhere close to the APS-c with 31...
And I think the 31 is an FA, not a DA, innit? Since you used the FA 35 f2 in your example, I'd have to say a more apt comparison would be the $2000 FF Pentax with the ~$200 FA 50mm 1.4.
But, if Pentax released a FF ~ the size of a K20D (They can integrate the BG, that's fine with me), for ~$2000, I'd buy it immediately (assuming that it's got more MP than the K-5, as for most of my work the K-5 isn't noise limited). All but one of my lenses are FF capable, I think. Over $2000, they'd have to convince me (I'd pay $500 for the viewfinder alone
) with more MP, better DR, lower high-iso noise, etc.
Right, I was sticking to comparing the two lenses being talked about in this thread, but if you want to keep the effective FOV the same, substitute maybe the $250 FA 50 1.7 in place of the 35. But that's a larger question that quickly gets out of scope from what I was asking. (would prefer to keep the general "FF vs aps-c" argument from breaking out
)
My question was more... Pentax's
best prime (arguably) on aps-c vs. a very, very close equivalent on FF,
for about the same price. You could shoot either FAs on FF, but a $1000 lens on a $2000, $2500 or $3000 body might be passing the 'affordable' threshold for a lot of folks.
At some point would you be willing to sacrifice some (maybe
very small) degree of lens IQ to make an affordable combo on FF?
(If you'd rather keep the FOV the same in the consideration, substitute the excellent FA 50 1.7 for the FA 35 f/2.)
.