[Chex]

I will be following this thread closely to hear from owners of both the 31 & 43.

Currently i have the 15/43/77. 77 is too tight for majority of my use and there are times where i wish the 43 is a little wide.

Older SMC Takumar 55mm f1.8's are a good fill in for that

[DogLover]

Older SMC Takumar 55mm f1.8's are a good fill in for that

DA*55's are even better!

[paperbag846]

DA*55's are even better!

50 dollars vs. 800 dollars.

[DogLover]

50 dollars vs. 800 dollars.

Where do you shop? B&H has 'em for $640. Plus, I didn't say they're cheaper, I said better.

[robgo2]

So, the FA43 was your "gateway drug" to the FA Limiteds. I have all three, and I would not part with any of them. I believe that the 31 and 43mm focal lengths are sufficiently distinct to justify owning and using both: One is wide normal and the other is short telephoto. If you love the FA43, I guarantee that you will love the FA31 as well. They, along with the FA77, are unique in how they render images. You have already seen this with your own eyes, so there is no need for me to elaborate any further, except to warn you about how addictive these three lenses are for some people.

Rob

[tommyx]

Lots of focal lengths in the title...but it says it all.

My latest lens acquisition was the 43mm, which I absolutely love. When I want a prime on my camera, I always think of the 43mm. So the FA 50mm and FA 35mm aren't feeling any love. Should I sell them both and get the FA 31mm?

i formerly owned the 35 limited and F50mm 1.7. I sold off both after getting the FA43 at a good deal. No regrets still.

Good luck in your decision

[RioRico]

50 dollars vs. 800 dollars.

My ST55/1.8 was US$8 shipped. Nyah nyah nyah.
(Earlier, I'd overpaid US$20 for the ST55/2. Duh.)
Hmmm... 8 bucks vs 800 (or 640) bucks. Nice deal.

I'll compare another couple lenses, of somewhat similar taste:
Pentax K50/1.2 (slightly modded for m4/3) for US$250 shipped.
Sears-Tomioka 55/1.4 (M42, slightly dented) for US$2.25 shipped.

Are the costlier lenses really worth 40-80-100-110 times the cheaper?
Of course I'm comparing a new autofocus vs a very old manual focus.
And a superb mainstream flagship with a merely great 3rd-party item.

And I'm gloating over great deals that don't happen every day.
Still, we pay huge premiums for incremental advances in quality.
So, is ANY US$1k lens really worth 500x the Tomioka-made 55/1.4?

[TOUGEFC]

Despite the FL's being relatively close, the 31 and 43 are sufficiently different lenses that owning both is by no means superfluous. I would indeed get the 31 since you have two lenses to sell and offset the cost somewhat. If you turn out to have a clear favorite between the 31 and 43 you can sell the other and move on to the 77 or the 55. All are wonderful.

Each of the three amigos has fans that consider it the best of the bunch, no matter what papersack says. The 55 was designed by Pentax's most accomplished lens designer, so there should be no surprise that it too is a top-notch lens, though it does have a bit different personality than the FA Ltds.

There's a good used market for all of these lenses so you're really not risking much by trying them out. Enjoy the journey!

I dont own the 55(yet) but from photos ive seen taken with it, I thought it renders images very similar to the fa43, and produces a very strong "3d" feel just like the 43.

[JHD]

Still, we pay huge premiums for incremental advances in quality.

A fundamental fact not many are willing to entertain. People need to feel good about their over priced purchases so it's important for them to try to convince others that their expensive lenses are more than just incrementally better. When more than a few people buy into this false line of reasoning I call that phenomena the Sarah Palin effect.

[Rondec]

My ST55/1.8 was US$8 shipped. Nyah nyah nyah.
(Earlier, I'd overpaid US$20 for the ST55/2. Duh.)
Hmmm... 8 bucks vs 800 (or 640) bucks. Nice deal.

I'll compare another couple lenses, of somewhat similar taste:
Pentax K50/1.2 (slightly modded for m4/3) for US$250 shipped.
Sears-Tomioka 55/1.4 (M42, slightly dented) for US$2.25 shipped.

Are the costlier lenses really worth 40-80-100-110 times the cheaper?
Of course I'm comparing a new autofocus vs a very old manual focus.
And a superb mainstream flagship with a merely great 3rd-party item.

And I'm gloating over great deals that don't happen every day.
Still, we pay huge premiums for incremental advances in quality.
So, is ANY US$1k lens really worth 500x the Tomioka-made 55/1.4?

We pay a lot for auto focus, full stop. We also pay a lot for automatic metering and aperture control. I have contemplated manual focus lenses many times, but I know that I wouldn't use them much (particularly when chasing my kids around trying to make a shot) and so I have gone purely the auto focus route.

I would rather pay 600 dollars for a lens I will use (a lot) then buy 100 6 dollar lenses that will sit in a closet somewhere that I won't use because they don't have the functionality I expect.

To each his own.

[Class A]

However i'm considering selling my 77 for the 31.

Consider selling it to me. I don't have any of the FA Ltds yet. I think they are all special but the FA 77 would be my favourite.

[DogLover]

A fundamental fact not many are willing to entertain. People need to feel good about their over priced purchases so it's important for them to try to convince others that their expensive lenses are more than just incrementally better. When more than a few people buy into this false line of reasoning I call that phenomena the Sarah Palin effect.

Who's not willing to entertain? Anyone that doesn't know about the laws of diminishing returns is extremely naive. All high-end lenses are only incrementally better than lesser ones. But if those increments are where the magic/pleasure/quality/results lie, then you gotta pay to play, baby. I also doubt that I'm the only one that gets tired of hearing about how bargain bin lenses are just as good. But we have to suffer you fellas, so turnabout is fair play.

[DogLover]

I dont own the 55(yet) but from photos ive seen taken with it, I thought it renders images very similar to the fa43, and produces a very strong "3d" feel just like the 43.

Totally agree on the strength of 3D with the 55, but to me it renders with a little less warmth or romanticism than the 43. More WYSIWYG. Not better or worse, just different. I like having both lenses on call for different situations.

[paperbag846]

But we have to suffer you fellas

I wonder how many direct comparisons you have done between top-quality and bargain bin glass?

In any case, most of the FA *romanticism* can be duplicated with post production on a high-fidelity DA lens. To me, WYSIWG is always preferable because it gives you maximum flexibility in post. I do like the look of the FAs though, and will frequently attempt to emulate it in lightroom (often with good results).

On the other hand, the DAs are much more resistant to flaring, and for it's intended purpose, a 55mm lens on ASPC makes a lot more sense than a 43mm lens. If they make the 55 in a non-SDM package, I'll likely sell all of my lenses for one.

[robgo2]

A fundamental fact not many are willing to entertain. People need to feel good about their over priced purchases so it's important for them to try to convince others that their expensive lenses are more than just incrementally better. When more than a few people buy into this false line of reasoning I call that phenomena the Sarah Palin effect.

There is truth is in what you say. It is a common human trait to identify with our possessions and to seek validation for possessing them. And the when the cost of these possessions is high, the trait becomes even stronger.

But that does not change the fact that there are qualitative differences between things, including lenses. Some people appreciate the differences, small or large, and are willing to pay for them. I have no doubt that many, if not most, of the FA Limited "rejectionists" have never seriously used one in their lives. I also have no doubt that if the prices of the FA Limiteds were cut in half, many of those same people would be flocking to buy them and would fill this forum with gushing praise for their new possessions.

Rob