[lytrytyr]

FWIW, Photozone gives the "Thumbs up" to both the FA 31 and the FA 35.

[NitroDC]

Incorrect. There are posts explicitly saying what was actually said. Why you're digging to say what it sounds like I'm saying is beyond me.

There is a comparison thread on this very forum. It was done in a flawed manner, for instance, not being blind, so everyone started fanboying around the FA31. On several other forums, the thread and examples were referenced more fairly and we all came to the same conclusion- the biggest difference between the two lenses is the focal length and all other differences are subjectively and objectively negligible, if anything exists at all. This thread gets made fun of on other forums because only the people rallying around the FA31 don't see how little of a difference they're splitting hairs over.

And again, you're saying $400 for the FA35. In my market, it's between 750-900 Euros. Also, since I'm from the US, I can buy a brand new FA31 for less than an FA35 quite easily. The price differetial on my market is much less than you might think, owing to the fact that the FA35 is treated as if it's a discontinued model (with suppliers often listing it as such).

Regardless, the FA35 makes a tremendous showing and if the comparos were truly blind and in the interest of being equal and producing unbiased reports, then we'd see there's close to no difference.

How could build quality, materials, optical quality, and attention to detail POSSIBLY be negligible? You might as well be comparing a Leica to a kit lens... I mean they're all made of glass, right?

[LFLee]

"There is nothing like the FA31"

Except the cheaper FA35.

The direct comparisons are out there and the difference between them is essentially zero. The thread here that compares them gets made fun of throughout the other cam forums because it wasn't done blind and it's obvious that no one can tell the difference- that's how minimally better the 31 is, but they kept just saying 31, making stuff up along the way, because the pictures were marked 31.

I had a choice to get one, but I needed something slightly above 50, not slightly below. The pricing in Germany of the FA31 is fairly horrific, so I just went FA35 (which is also horrifically expensive in Europe).

While I like my FA35, I found the PF is pretty serious in certain situations on this lens. Also, if you shoot into direct light (like window) there is a reflection of image going on.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

I don't know, which definition of "limited" do you think would most fit here?



Maybe limited production (which it's not)?

I think Pentax should have gone with "Type R", or "S", or something Rice-Rockety. Hell, they used "S" on the current K-5.

I can remember when the limited lenses first came out, and boy, did I want one! I can't remember whether the original intention was to limit the number produced. In any case, I couldn't afford them in those distant days. I have recently bought the 15mm and 31mm Limiteds and love them for their size, superb construction and their rendition. No doubt, other lenses would suit just as well, but I find the Limiteds highly desirable (and a bit addictive).

As far as the definition of "Limited" is concerned, I think they're limited to photographers with deep pockets.

[snake]

While I like my FA35, I found the PF is pretty serious in certain situations on this lens. Also, if you shoot into direct light (like window) there is a reflection of image going on.

Dealing with PF is something common for FA model lenses, which can only be solved by going to the DA series.

Bringing that up is not an issue, as when people bring it up about the acclaimed 31, 43, and 77, owners of which are all apt to immediately say it can be solved in PP, so it's effectively not an issue. It's disingenuous to turn it around on the FA35 now, as if it's any different.

Again, PF is EASILY removed in PP and not something you'll solve by moving to an FA31.

How could build quality, materials, optical quality, and attention to detail POSSIBLY be negligible? You might as well be comparing a Leica to a kit lens... I mean they're all made of glass, right?

I actually don't buy the "materials" thing, which I've brought up in the past. All lenses, including incredibly cheap ones, had similar construction and materials to the FA Limited series. I submit that the bulk of the cost is in the glass and consumer expectations/AKA what the market will bear. I have no issues with plastic housings, though metal has a nice feel.

Attention to detail? At the least, the FA35 is made in Japan. Now, who knows if it's even in production anymore. The LTD series threw all that "attention to detail" out the door when they moved production to Vietnam (notice how people complain about the lenses that are made there and on the used market, people are putting premiums on "MIJ"?). Furthermore, these lenses are mass produced. There should be no illusion of skilled craftspeople slaving over each lens with their loupe until it's "just right". There may be some human interaction, but it's no "attention to detail". You are fooling yourself if you believe that. This is, incidentally, the illusion of movements in the swiss and german watch industry, by the way.

Not to mention, the pricing policies involved in the move to Vietnam, which point clearly at priority on widened profit margins.

Regardless, it might have differing optical characteristics, but optical quality is similar, as proven repeatedly in the comparisons. You're turning "negligible" into something that wasn't discussed in an effort to defend the already fine FA31. It's a fine lens without the exaggerations. The FA35 is also a fine lens. That's all. The performance difference between the two seems to be less than what people think, enough to start dragging build quality and "attention to detail" into it.

[snake]

I can remember when the limited lenses first came out, and boy, did I want one! I can't remember whether the original intention was to limit the number produced. In any case, I couldn't afford them in those distant days. I have recently bought the 15mm and 31mm Limiteds and love them for their size, superb construction and their rendition. No doubt, other lenses would suit just as well, but I find the Limiteds highly desirable (and a bit addictive).

As far as the definition of "Limited" is concerned, I think they're limited to photographers with deep pockets.

I disagree.

In the scheme of things, they aren't terribly expensive, but compared to the competition, pro-level lenses, what you get, Vietnamese manufacturing vs. Japanese in some cases, German in others, the Pentax lenses are overpriced, a problem many are aware of. As mentioned (and I've posted links before), the FA35 on my market is running about 900 Euros new in some places. Deep pockets? No, considering I'd pay that for the Sigma 35 in a heartbeat and ZK's discontinued lenses are only slightly more in certain cases, but compared to the Canon and Nikon equivalents? Pitifully and shamelessly overpriced.

[selar]

There is a comparison thread on this very forum. It was done in a flawed manner, for instance, not being blind,

Regardless, the FA35 makes a tremendous showing and if the comparos were truly blind and in the interest of being equal and producing unbiased reports, then we'd see there's close to no difference.

To make a truly blind comparison, I would have had to crop the images from the FA31 to 35mm,FOV, that would have given the 31 an unfair advantage in the corners (not that it appears to need it).

[GeneV]

I don't know, which definition of "limited" do you think would most fit here?
Maybe limited production (which it's not)?
I think Pentax should have gone with "Type R", or "S", or something Rice-Rockety. Hell, they used "S" on the current K-5.

A definition which you won't find in a dictionary--"limited" is a term used to indicate elevated status, regardless of any actual limits on availability.

[snake]

A definition which you won't find in a dictionary--"limited" is a term used to indicate elevated status, regardless of any actual limits on availability.

it's not in a dictionary because it was something that transitioned from its original meaning to a faked, disingenuous one by marketers and large corporations, particularly the manufacturers of low end cars.

Originally, "limited" was status due to being limited in number, but then marketers realized there was no legal obligation to make anything "limited" in limited numbers and exclusive, but perception of status by the masses made it very enticing for them to continue using the word. Chevy and Olds and just about every low-end car company LOVED using this term for trim models, using it as a name, rather than to denote quantity produced.

This is why you won't find the new definition in the dictionary. It is a term that was taken over by marketers for large corporations and it's a good thing dictionaries won't acknowledge it, even as an evolutionary matter.

[vodanh1982]

Is this thread about FA 31mm vs the new Sigma 35mm?

[snake]

It's a thread about people defending their purchases.

[lytrytyr]

Is this thread about FA 31mm vs the new Sigma 35mm?

FWIW, Photozone gives the "Thumbs up" to [] the FA 31 and the FA 35

and the Sigma 35/1.4.

[LFLee]

It's a thread about people defending their purchases.

LOL.

If I have the money, I will buy the Sigma 35 as well, it is a beautiful lens (compare to other sigma lens).

[GeneV]

it's not in a dictionary because it was something that transitioned from its original meaning to a faked, disingenuous one by marketers and large corporations, particularly the manufacturers of low end cars.

Originally, "limited" was status due to being limited in number, but then marketers realized there was no legal obligation to make anything "limited" in limited numbers and exclusive, but perception of status by the masses made it very enticing for them to continue using the word. Chevy and Olds and just about every low-end car company LOVED using this term for trim models, using it as a name, rather than to denote quantity produced.

This is why you won't find the new definition in the dictionary. It is a term that was taken over by marketers for large corporations and it's a good thing dictionaries won't acknowledge it, even as an evolutionary matter.

Yes, but most of us know what it means when any corporation uses the term. It seems like a bit of a waste of time to quibble about it.

[snake]

Yes, but most of us know what it means when any corporation uses the term. It seems like a bit of a waste of time to quibble about it.

Incorrect. This is why marketers use it and why it's not in a dictionary with your usage, as you already posted. Because people don't know what it really means and that the corporation is, in fact, being deceptive.

Pentax is getting the casual shopper, who doesn't look into these things, to think that they are buying a lens produced in limited numbers, like Leica, Zeiss, and some others.

While on the back end, the numbers are not limited, there is no value added due to that, and production moved to Vietnam.

There is no exclusivity to this series. It might have metal construction that's a throwback to the old world, but that's about it. The optics are quite nice, too. So Pentax should really drop the "limited" badge because it makes them look silly. Not even Leica and Zeiss use that, but it's also not like they need to. Plus they still produce in Germany, earning their pricing in some cases, and have much better QC than Pentax's Limited series.