[selar]

You can't point an FA31 at any old scene and expect it to work its magic. It is a highly refined tool, but it is still a tool, and requires a master craftsman to wield it to its full potential.

[NaClH2O]

HiYa Capt Bert,

I'd say make up your own mind. Check out the FA Ltd Club thread and see for yourself. I'd suggest starting with the latest postings as there will be less deleted photos.
clicky here for eye candy

NaCl(in my experience, pixie dust is in the eye of the beholder)H2O

[yusuf]

You can't point an FA31 at any old scene and expect it to work its magic. It is a highly refined tool, but it is still a tool, and requires a master craftsman to wield it to its full potential.

I am not saying FA31 is bad, but it's not exceptional in my opinion, and from what I have seen, most FA31 owners praises FA31 because they have not tried other better lenses or just to protect their investment. FA31 is poorest of limited edition produced by Pentax imo.

You seems to have both the lenses, why don't you post raw pictures of both keeping subject at same distance and prove it's magic.

[captainbert]

HiYa Capt Bert,

I'd say make up your own mind. Check out the FA Ltd Club thread and see for yourself. I'd suggest starting with the latest postings as there will be less deleted photos.
clicky here for eye candy

NaCl(in my experience, pixie dust is in the eye of the beholder)H2O

How do NaClH2O,

Thanks for that..i'll have a good look through it.. cheers!

[robgo2]

How much 'pixie dust' is in the FA Limited 43mm 1.9?

Try it on a film camera and find the real truth; you guys don’t know what you are missing.

Phil.
.

Oh, I know what I'm missing: countless hours of tedious scanning and mind-numbing removal of dust spots and scratches. If Pentax ever produces a FF camera, then I may get to test the FA43 on a FF sensor, but I highly doubt that I will be returning to film, just to find out what I might be missing.

Rob

[gofour3]

Oh, I know what I'm missing: countless hours of tedious scanning and mind-numbing cleaning up of dust spots and scratches. If Pentax ever produces a FF camera, then I may get to test the FA43 on a FF sensor, but I highly doubt that I will be returning to film, just to find out what I might be missing.

Rob

Film Labs can do the scanning for you, so it’s actually easier and I spend less time in front of a PC than I would shooting digital. I can’t handle PP and find that painfully boring, sorry not my cup of tea.

Anyways I do hope that Pentax releases a FF DSLR soon, so you non SLR owners can also enjoy these old film lenses in their proper FL, especially the FA31/43/77.

Phil.

[Jimfear]

Oh, I know what I'm missing: countless hours of tedious scanning and mind-numbing cleaning up of dust spots and scratches.

Now why would you even try to clean the pixie dust off your film?

[Ecaterin]

In the category of FWIW, I sold my DA35 Ltd. after a couple of weeks. It's a fantastic lens, but it's not a *special* lens.

I only let go of my FA43 when I sold my K-5....and selling the 43 was harder than seeing the K-5 go!!

I've had the DA35Ltd, the DA15Ltd and the DA70Ltd, and my experience with them was, they were amazing lenses in every technical way - sharpness, micro contrast, color, build....so perfect that they rendered everything almost exactly as the human eye sees it. And that's where they fell short for me. I want a lens that gives me all of those technical qualities, and then *adds* something to the picture. The FA limited lenses do that, where the DA lenses don't (or don't as much).

Somewhere on the forums, in one of the many "compare DA to FA Ltds" threads, someone wrote about the engineering choices made for the FA's, and how they wouldn't be designs created today. Some corner softness and susceptibility to CA were allowed in order to give a rendering that's completely unique in bokeh, center sharpness....and general pixie dust content

Having messed with a bunch of lenses in the past few years, my long term camera plan looks like this: my Fuji X100 for all my every day shooting and professional use as a second camera, and reacquiring a K-5 plus the FA Ltds. for portrait work. I just don't see the point of owning much beyond those 3 lenses, except that the DA15 still has complete mind control, so I'll have it as well Alas, my love affair with the FA Ltd. rendering will cost me many monies, and that'll take me a good long while to generate. But I'm patient, and meanwhile the K-5 body will keep coming down in price, as the K-? and further get released :P

I'm not the only person whose camera lay out runs the same way....and chances are we're not *all* crazy Just, you know, most of us :P

[Ash]

I am not saying FA31 is bad, but it's not exceptional in my opinion, and from what I have seen, most FA31 owners praises FA31 because they have not tried other better lenses or just to protect their investment. FA31 is poorest of limited edition produced by Pentax imo.

You seems to have both the lenses, why don't you post raw pictures of both keeping subject at same distance and prove it's magic.

What better lenses are you referring to? Sigma 30/1.4? (no thanks - size and IQ not quite matched). FA 35? (not close in IQ, IMO). DA 35/2.4? (that's pretty close, but not where it matters most - f/1.8-4)... If you want to see what the FA 31 can do, have a look at the FA 31 lens samples archive on the forum - and I have a number of FA 31 images in my PPG collection. It's as good as the other FA ltds in my eyes.

[selar]

You seems to have both the lenses, why don't you post raw pictures of both keeping subject at same distance and prove it's magic

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/144298-fa35-vs-fa31-shootout.html

[builttospill]

The FA 43 is my favorite lens of all. If you're planning on buying the 43 you might as well start saving now for the 77 and 31 too. On digital my 43 has more pixie dust than the 77, but it's the opposite on film. Both are great on film, but the magic just shines with the 77 on a camera it was made for.

Buy the 43, you won't regret it.

[captainbert]

The FA 43 is my favorite lens of all. If you're planning on buying the 43 you might as well start saving now for the 77 and 31 too. On digital my 43 has more pixie dust than the 77, but it's the opposite on film. Both are great on film, but the magic just shines with the 77 on a camera it was made for.

Buy the 43, you won't regret it.

Thanks for that!

[pinholecam]

Personally I feel FA31 is highly overrated lens. If you like FOV and smooth bokeh, Sigma 30/1.4 can produce much better results than FA31.

I have close range portraits comparison too which I remember posting here but somehow not able to find now, conduces the same - no difference, FA35 is in fact a bit more sharper at f2. I no longer have access to FA31 but maybe someone having both FA31 & FA35 should post some portraits and I am sure it will conclude the same.

FA31ltd needs to be seen in context. Its a overall sharp FF wide angle lens with a fast aperture. That's not too common (esp..in its time; and for Pentax; now Nikon have some fast f1.4 WA).
I'd attribute some of that price to the above.
Of course in a way Pentax users are paying for the FF when none is avaliable right now, but the lens is what it is (FF lens) and each buyer has to consider what he is paying for.
I do use my 24, 31, 35mm for pano stitches during travels, and a lens like the Sigma 30/1.4 won't do. (mainly center sharp)


Personally, I've found FA35 to be about 1/3 stop darker in exposure when shot side by side with the FA31ltd at the same settings.
Whether its T-stop or loose f-stop specs for the FA35 (ie. Vary from f2 to f2.4?? ) , I don't know. Just that I've seen this quirk when doing quick comparisons.
In fact I think this has been mentioned before in a few posts on PF.

The hexagon bokeh does present itself as a distraction too when used slightly stopped down on the FA35.

All said though, FA35/2 is a very good lens for the money.
The 31ltd has some bits over it, wider FOV, faster, bokeh, aperture blades, build, some of the quirks like 0.3 stop exp diff.
Is that worth that price difference?
It depends on the user.
For me, I'm 'luke warm' over it. The differences won't kill me or make me a better photographer.
But for now I can afford to keep one, so I'm keeping one. (in case it goes OOP too in the far future)

I have both, perhaps I can post some shots when I get time to shift thru them.

[yusuf]

What better lenses are you referring to? Sigma 30/1.4? (no thanks - size and IQ not quite matched). FA 35? (not close in IQ, IMO). DA 35/2.4? (that's pretty close, but not where it matters most - f/1.8-4)... If you want to see what the FA 31 can do, have a look at the FA 31 lens samples archive on the forum - and I have a number of FA 31 images in my PPG collection. It's as good as the other FA ltds in my eyes.

Ash, I don't deny that FA31 can produce wonderful images, but so is Sigma 30/1.4 and FA35. Seriously, it does not help looking at fantastic image produced by FA31 in isolation, unless some nice subject shot with both the lens. Would love to see the comparison.

[Ash]

selar has shown you some comparative shots - that's one example. People make their own minds up, but if your trying to convince us that FA 31 is a mediocre lens amongst its peers then you'll do so in vain. I know what results I get with the lens and have made my own comparisons and assessments. I'm sure many others have done the same. Those who don't care for the FA 31 don't need what it can do, so each user forms their opinions of the lenses accordingly.