FA 31 or DA 21 + FA 43

aleonx3 · 12-13-2011, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Rez

I guess I should stop reading all this stuff ... You will eventually convince me to get all the FA Ltd trio !
It makes me think... My girlfriend has two kidneys, is this really so indispensable ?

Before getting extreme, I've contacted a seller... We'll see

No need to trade in your kidneys.. got them all before the prices go up... (especially in light of upcoming FF rumour).

They are still less expensive than the other brands with equivalent quality but for more money...

robgo2 · 12-13-2011, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Rez

I guess I should stop reading all this stuff ... You will eventually convince me to get all the FA Ltd trio !
It makes me think... My girlfriend has two kidneys, is this really so indispensable ?

Before getting extreme, I've contacted a seller... We'll see

Seriously, once you have been infected by the FA Limited LBA virus, there is only one cure for most people, which is to get all three, although not necessarily at the same time. But you have several good options. Get the focal length(s) that suit your shooting style, and be happy.

Rob

robgo2 · 12-13-2011, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by vrrattko

For me it is difficult to say which is better, maybe I favour FA43 a bit more, but IMHO they are quite different lenses. I see FA43 as one that is ultrasharp in centre and gives sort of impressionistic bokeh, while FA31 is more even across the frame and very smooth rendering. I once bought FA31 because somebody reasoned with me that it can always replace FA43 with just a little crop - that is not true. Both lenses render images differently.

I love all three amigos, but I use the FA31 the most, simply because it is a "normal" focal length. However, if I were to choose a favorite for sharpness and rendering characteristics, it would be the FA43. On an APS-C camera, it makes an excellent portrait lens. Other users may have different preferences, which is understandable, because we are splitting hairs here.

Rob

DogLover · 12-13-2011, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

I love all three amigos, but I use the FA31 the most, simply because it is a "normal" focal length. However, if I were to choose a favorite for sharpness and rendering characteristics, it would be the FA43. On an APS-C camera, it makes an excellent portrait lens. Other users may have different preferences, which is understandable, because we are splitting hairs here.

Rob

I would second all this, though I'm not sure if the 77 or the 43 would be my favorite. I do know that they would be the last lenses I'd get rid of.

Frogfish · 12-14-2011, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by vrrattko

Oh yes, Contax Zeiss 28/2.8 is very highly regarded lens, and used to be also cheap. I had two other Contaxes converted to PK, both performed great (on par with FA limiteds) but I sold them as they were not so convenient to use. But for the landscapes I guess convenience doesn't matter.

Exactly. The Contax Zeiss 28/2.8 reaches infinity at around 3.5M (10ft) so for landscapes etc. it is virtually an AF lens

PentaxMom Felua · 12-14-2011, 02:29 AM - **1 Like**

Oh the joy of lenses. And the despair. For what it's worth: if ever there will be ff pentax, I really do hope there will be new digitally adapted ltd's. Like with aps.
To frogfish: yes, da15 shines with stars. But if you have a really good copy 16-50, it can shine equally, though without the stars.
I used to own quite some Zeisses. I happily sold them all. Indeed about choice it is all. They truly are different lenses. But so are Meyers, or Russians. And Steinheil. For that matter. It's geeky. And wonderful. And enticing. And and so on. But also slow operational wise. Not convenient when needing to be fast paced.
Fa31 is overrated. But very good all around. I have an auto takumar 35 2.3. Now, that is a lens. Not as good as, but sometimes better. But you know, equipment that you have come to know and you used it a lot and you keep coming back to it, that, that is your thing. I always think you should let time give you the oportunity to grow into what you have. To love it and care for it. This special feeling beats better performance, it makes me feel better. Not a better photographer, for I am not. But certainly a happier photographer.
Fa31 is still busy earning that status.

But fa31 is a masterpiece in museums (if they let you use it).

bossa · 12-14-2011, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by Frogfish

Exactly. The Contax Zeiss 28/2.8 reaches infinity at around 3.5M (10ft) so for landscapes etc. it is virtually an AF lens

Could you explain this statement please?

Any 28mm lens @ F2.8 places the hyper focal distance on an APS-C sensor at 14 meters and the nearest in focus object would be 7 meters away. That's ANY 28mm lens and not *just* a Contax Zeiss.

At an F-Stop of 5.6 the HFD is 7 meters and the nearest in-focus object would be 3.5 meters away.

bossa · 12-14-2011, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by PentaxMom Felua

Oh the joy of lenses. And the despair. For what it's worth: if ever there will be ff pentax, .

The manager of a respected Camera Store here told me today that Pentax is going to bring out a FF next year.

bossa · 12-14-2011, 02:52 AM

To the OP: Quite a number of excellent shooters on this forum have started to use the Sigma 30 F/1.4. It's way sharper in the middle than the FA31LTD wide open but soft on the edges. IF you want something for portraits then I'd suggest you look at it and if you need something sharp corner to corner for cityscapes or landscapes then the FA31 is the go. Horses for courses as always. I have a 31mm LTD and I am still considering the Sigma for certain subject matter.

Frogfish · 12-14-2011, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by bossa

Could you explain this statement please?

Any 28mm lens @ F2.8 places the hyper focal distance on an APS-C sensor at 14 meters and the nearest in focus object would be 7 meters away. That's ANY 28mm lens and not *just* a Contax Zeiss.

At an F-Stop of 5.6 the HFD is 7 meters and the nearest in-focus object would be 3.5 meters away.

Correct - however if you are shooting landscapes then you won't be at f2.8 (well I hope you wouldn't be) ! I see that looking at my previous post that it could be taken to mean that I was talking about the 28mm AT f2.8 whereas what I actually meant was that I am referring to the 28/2.8 lens.

At f8 the MFD is just over 3M, HFD is close to 6.5M and infinity would be in focus.

bossa · 12-14-2011, 03:18 AM

Thanks...

joakimfors · 12-14-2011, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by bossa

To the OP: Quite a number of excellent shooters on this forum have started to use the Sigma 30 F/1.4. It's way sharper in the middle than the FA31LTD wide open but soft on the edges. IF you want something for portraits then I'd suggest you look at it and if you need something sharp corner to corner for cityscapes or landscapes then the FA31 is the go. Horses for courses as always. I have a 31mm LTD and I am still considering the Sigma for certain subject matter.

The Sigma 30/1.4 is nice, but not Limited nice. If I had the FA 31 I wouldn't bother spending money on the 30/1.4.

For head and shoulder portraits the DA* 55 is much nicer as it has got rounded blades, smoother focusing and is better built IMHO.

bossa · 12-14-2011, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by joakimfors

The Sigma 30/1.4 is nice, but not Limited nice. If I had the FA 31 I wouldn't bother spending money on the 30/1.4.

For head and shoulder portraits the DA* 55 is much nicer as it has got rounded blades, smoother focusing and is better built IMHO.

You're probably right it's just that some of the photographs I've seen from the 30 1.4 are a compelling reason to consider one at least. The 55 is definitely going to be a better portrait lens though.

abacus07 · 12-14-2011, 06:26 PM

When my bank account has recovered (DA15/DA40) I'm chasing after a K28/2. And then deciding whether I should get upgrade my DA40 to a FA43 or upgrade my A50/1.7 to an FA50/1.4(or an AF 1.7). The DA40 is great as a walkaround/hiking lens but there are times I want f2 (and AF) or a better starburst. Actually I have a never ending list of lenses I want so it will be difficult to decide.

As far as the OP is concerned I think he should buy the focal length that he wants and be less concerned if it's a DA21/FA31/FA43. Personally I find 21mm too wide for regular use and a lot of people don't like the 40-50mm focal lengths. I have really grown to like the 40-50mm lengths (DA40 and A50) because I compose photos better (less empty space) and it can be used as a short portrait lens.

dmort · 12-14-2011, 06:40 PM

I own the 43 and the 21. I love the 43, the pictures it takes just look different to my eye. The 21 is good but there is nothing special about it. I carry it when hiking because of its small size and dual usefulness for landscape and snap shots of family.

I haven't used the 31 but I don't think you'll regret it. It is pretty universally loved after all. I didn't love my 43 initially, but as I used it more we have become fast friends. I imagine it would be the same with the 31.

12-13-2011, 03:47 PM	#31
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Originally posted by Rez I guess I should stop reading all this stuff ... You will eventually convince me to get all the FA Ltd trio ! It makes me think... My girlfriend has two kidneys, is this really so indispensable ? Before getting extreme, I've contacted a seller... We'll see No need to trade in your kidneys.. got them all before the prices go up... (especially in light of upcoming FF rumour). They are still less expensive than the other brands with equivalent quality but for more money...

12-13-2011, 05:16 PM	#32
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by Rez I guess I should stop reading all this stuff ... You will eventually convince me to get all the FA Ltd trio ! It makes me think... My girlfriend has two kidneys, is this really so indispensable ? Before getting extreme, I've contacted a seller... We'll see Seriously, once you have been infected by the FA Limited LBA virus, there is only one cure for most people, which is to get all three, although not necessarily at the same time. But you have several good options. Get the focal length(s) that suit your shooting style, and be happy. Rob

12-13-2011, 05:21 PM	#33
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by vrrattko For me it is difficult to say which is better, maybe I favour FA43 a bit more, but IMHO they are quite different lenses. I see FA43 as one that is ultrasharp in centre and gives sort of impressionistic bokeh, while FA31 is more even across the frame and very smooth rendering. I once bought FA31 because somebody reasoned with me that it can always replace FA43 with just a little crop - that is not true. Both lenses render images differently. I love all three amigos, but I use the FA31 the most, simply because it is a "normal" focal length. However, if I were to choose a favorite for sharpness and rendering characteristics, it would be the FA43. On an APS-C camera, it makes an excellent portrait lens. Other users may have different preferences, which is understandable, because we are splitting hairs here. Rob

12-13-2011, 05:56 PM	#34
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by robgo2 I love all three amigos, but I use the FA31 the most, simply because it is a "normal" focal length. However, if I were to choose a favorite for sharpness and rendering characteristics, it would be the FA43. On an APS-C camera, it makes an excellent portrait lens. Other users may have different preferences, which is understandable, because we are splitting hairs here. Rob I would second all this, though I'm not sure if the 77 or the 43 would be my favorite. I do know that they would be the last lenses I'd get rid of.

12-14-2011, 01:37 AM	#35
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by vrrattko Oh yes, Contax Zeiss 28/2.8 is very highly regarded lens, and used to be also cheap. I had two other Contaxes converted to PK, both performed great (on par with FA limiteds) but I sold them as they were not so convenient to use. *But for the landscapes I guess convenience doesn't matter.* Exactly. The Contax Zeiss 28/2.8 reaches infinity at around 3.5M (10ft) so for landscapes etc. it is virtually an AF lens

12-14-2011, 02:29 AM - 1 Like	#36
PentaxMom Felua Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Veluwe Posts: 339	Oh the joy of lenses. And the despair. For what it's worth: if ever there will be ff pentax, I really do hope there will be new digitally adapted ltd's. Like with aps. To frogfish: yes, da15 shines with stars. But if you have a really good copy 16-50, it can shine equally, though without the stars. I used to own quite some Zeisses. I happily sold them all. Indeed about choice it is all. They truly are different lenses. But so are Meyers, or Russians. And Steinheil. For that matter. It's geeky. And wonderful. And enticing. And and so on. But also slow operational wise. Not convenient when needing to be fast paced. Fa31 is overrated. But very good all around. I have an auto takumar 35 2.3. Now, that is a lens. Not as good as, but sometimes better. But you know, equipment that you have come to know and you used it a lot and you keep coming back to it, that, that is your thing. I always think you should let time give you the oportunity to grow into what you have. To love it and care for it. This special feeling beats better performance, it makes me feel better. Not a better photographer, for I am not. But certainly a happier photographer. Fa31 is still busy earning that status. But fa31 is a masterpiece in museums (if they let you use it).

12-14-2011, 02:39 AM	#37
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by Frogfish Exactly. The Contax Zeiss 28/2.8 reaches infinity at around 3.5M (10ft) so for landscapes etc. it is virtually an AF lens Could you explain this statement please? Any 28mm lens @ F2.8 places the hyper focal distance on an APS-C sensor at 14 meters and the nearest in focus object would be 7 meters away. That's ANY 28mm lens and not just a Contax Zeiss. At an F-Stop of 5.6 the HFD is 7 meters and the nearest in-focus object would be 3.5 meters away.

12-14-2011, 02:45 AM	#38
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by PentaxMom Felua Oh the joy of lenses. And the despair. For what it's worth: if ever there will be ff pentax, . The manager of a respected Camera Store here told me today that Pentax is going to bring out a FF next year.

12-14-2011, 02:52 AM	#39
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	To the OP: Quite a number of excellent shooters on this forum have started to use the Sigma 30 F/1.4. It's way sharper in the middle than the FA31LTD wide open but soft on the edges. IF you want something for portraits then I'd suggest you look at it and if you need something sharp corner to corner for cityscapes or landscapes then the FA31 is the go. Horses for courses as always. I have a 31mm LTD and I am still considering the Sigma for certain subject matter.

12-14-2011, 03:02 AM	#40
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	Originally posted by bossa Could you explain this statement please? Any 28mm lens @ F2.8 places the hyper focal distance on an APS-C sensor at 14 meters and the nearest in focus object would be 7 meters away. That's ANY 28mm lens and not just a Contax Zeiss. At an F-Stop of 5.6 the HFD is 7 meters and the nearest in-focus object would be 3.5 meters away. Correct - however if you are shooting landscapes then you won't be at f2.8 (well I hope you wouldn't be) ! I see that looking at my previous post that it could be taken to mean that I was talking about the 28mm AT f2.8 whereas what I actually meant was that I am referring to the 28/2.8 lens. At f8 the MFD is just over 3M, HFD is close to 6.5M and infinity would be in focus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-14-2011, 03:18 AM	#41
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Thanks...

12-14-2011, 05:26 AM	#42
joakimfors Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Lund, Sweden Posts: 237	Originally posted by bossa To the OP: Quite a number of excellent shooters on this forum have started to use the Sigma 30 F/1.4. It's way sharper in the middle than the FA31LTD wide open but soft on the edges. IF you want something for portraits then I'd suggest you look at it and if you need something sharp corner to corner for cityscapes or landscapes then the FA31 is the go. Horses for courses as always. I have a 31mm LTD and I am still considering the Sigma for certain subject matter. The Sigma 30/1.4 is nice, but not Limited nice. If I had the FA 31 I wouldn't bother spending money on the 30/1.4. For head and shoulder portraits the DA* 55 is much nicer as it has got rounded blades, smoother focusing and is better built IMHO.

12-14-2011, 02:03 PM	#43
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by joakimfors The Sigma 30/1.4 is nice, but not Limited nice. If I had the FA 31 I wouldn't bother spending money on the 30/1.4. For head and shoulder portraits the DA* 55 is much nicer as it has got rounded blades, smoother focusing and is better built IMHO. You're probably right it's just that some of the photographs I've seen from the 30 1.4 are a compelling reason to consider one at least. The 55 is definitely going to be a better portrait lens though.

12-14-2011, 06:26 PM	#44
abacus07 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Taiwan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,075	When my bank account has recovered (DA15/DA40) I'm chasing after a K28/2. And then deciding whether I should get upgrade my DA40 to a FA43 or upgrade my A50/1.7 to an FA50/1.4(or an AF 1.7). The DA40 is great as a walkaround/hiking lens but there are times I want f2 (and AF) or a better starburst. Actually I have a never ending list of lenses I want so it will be difficult to decide. As far as the OP is concerned I think he should buy the focal length that he wants and be less concerned if it's a DA21/FA31/FA43. Personally I find 21mm too wide for regular use and a lot of people don't like the 40-50mm focal lengths. I have really grown to like the 40-50mm lengths (DA40 and A50) because I compose photos better (less empty space) and it can be used as a short portrait lens.

12-14-2011, 06:40 PM	#45
dmort Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Bronx, NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 415	I own the 43 and the 21. I love the 43, the pictures it takes just look different to my eye. The 21 is good but there is nothing special about it. I carry it when hiking because of its small size and dual usefulness for landscape and snap shots of family. I haven't used the 31 but I don't think you'll regret it. It is pretty universally loved after all. I didn't love my 43 initially, but as I used it more we have become fast friends. I imagine it would be the same with the 31.