[snake]

I'm color-vision deficient.

And it probably shows in my pics, but I often get positive responses about the "cool colors" when someone finds something they want to buy.

(seriously)

[Adam]

I compared the two lenses a couple of weeks ago, and test shots do suggest that the Sigma is slightly sharper wide-open. The difference isn't quite as drastic, though, so I'm inclined to think that something may be wrong with your 31mm!

[stevebrot]

Okay. Maybe not that vintage. How about 2000 mustang? My point was that for someone like myself who would be driving it at 70 mph at the most (99% of the time) --- Analogous to the average 31 ltd usage -- it wouldnt make much a difference

I agree with your original point. I just could not resist having a little fun with your car comparison.

I am not in the market for either the FA 31/1.8 or Sigma 35/1.4 (already own the FA 35/2 and have no desire to trade up), but if I were, I am sure that the choice would come down to build, size, and price. Yes, the Sigma is better optically (see 16Mpx comparisons at photozone.de) and 2/3rds the price, but if I was able to get the FA 31 for the same dollar or a little less, my attitude would be "Sigma? What Sigma?".

But, as I mentioned above, I have the FA 35/2 and am quite happy to continue shooting with it for as long as it continues to function.


Steve

BTW...in case anyone is interested, I got my FA 35/2 and FA 77/1.8 for less money combined than what a FA 31/1.8 would have cost and would counsel anyone considering the Sigma 35/1.4 to take a look at the FA 35/2 before spending the extra $500.

[stevebrot]

Anyone want to compare the Sigma 35/1.4 | A to the Samyang 35/1.4? Now that is what I would call a shooting match. Similar size and specs...half the money.


Steve

[snake]

Anyone want to compare the Sigma 35/1.4 | A to the Samyang 35/1.4? Now that is what I would call a shooting match. Similar size and specs...half the money.


Steve

Yeah, because it's missing a bunch of stuff, like AF and the electronics. Optics are a different issue, but comparability in pricing is highly inaccurate if you don't mention the no-AF issue. A 1.4, for me, no AF, is a no-go, so even half price, it has little to no value for me.

[snake]

I agree with your original point. I just could not resist having a little fun with your car comparison.

I am not in the market for either the FA 31/1.8 or Sigma 35/1.4 (already own the FA 35/2 and have no desire to trade up), but if I were, I am sure that the choice would come down to build, size, and price. Yes, the Sigma is better optically (see 16Mpx comparisons at photozone.de) and 2/3rds the price, but if I was able to get the FA 31 for the same dollar or a little less, my attitude would be "Sigma? What Sigma?".

But, as I mentioned above, I have the FA 35/2 and am quite happy to continue shooting with it for as long as it continues to function.


Steve

BTW...in case anyone is interested, I got my FA 35/2 and FA 77/1.8 for less money combined than what a FA 31/1.8 would have cost and would counsel anyone considering the Sigma 35/1.4 to take a look at the FA 35/2 before spending the extra $500.

I'm interested in seeing how the Sigma 35 goes up against the FA35 from F2 and up. I have a feeling it will be as big a jump forward as the Sigma 35 is vs the FA31. The FA35 is negligibly different, not better, not worse than the FA31.

[snake]

BTW- which site is it that has those sharpness charts? Interested in seeing how the FA35 is on paper against the Sigma. I know it's better, visibly, so how much better and what characteristics interests me.

[oxidized]

I would be interesting in seeing some night shots with the Sigma 35. It is 9 bladed, which means 18 pointed starbursts. One of my favorite uses for my 31 is night photography. It creates the best star-bursts of any lens that I own.
Here are some samples:





Compare that for instance to the Sigma 10-20:





Not saying that this Sigma will be the same. Certainly not with 9 blades, but I am actually curious about its performance at night.

[tlwyse]

I would be interesting in seeing some night shots with the Sigma 35. It is 9 bladed, which means 18 pointed starbursts. One of my favorite uses for my 31 is night photography. It creates the best star-bursts of any lens that I own.

Compare that for instance to the Sigma 10-20:

Not saying that this Sigma will be the same. Certainly not with 9 blades, but I am actually curious about its performance at night.

I don't even see how it's even worth bringing up the Sigma 10-20 and comparing it to either the FA 31mm or the Sigma 35mm....different animals on a lot of different levels.

If I can get some night shots with the Sigma 35mm, I'll pass them along.

terry

[VisualDarkness]

I would say that in most tests the FA 31mm has more bloom compared to for example the Sigma 35/1.4. Interestingly it seems like the same bloom that lowers contrast a bit (resolution is still good) actually is one of the main reasons for it's bokeh performance. The DA55/1.4 also has some bloom "issues" wide-open and is cited with above average bokeh performance with good resolution but lower micro contrast. It may be a well thought out priority by the designers.

To help a bit with the bloom at F1.4-2.0 with my DA* 55/1.4 I often crudely paint the focused areas with a touch of clarity in Lightroom and solves the bloom but keeps the OOF areas buttery smooth! Is this why they say "know your lens"?

[stevebrot]

Yeah, because it's missing a bunch of stuff, like AF and the electronics.

I believe that all current Samyang lenses in Pentax K have "A" contacts (not always obvious in the stock photos), though you have a point with the AF. My take is that lack of the HSM AF is just one less thing to break. To be honest, I am not a fan of AF with fast lenses. I am picky about just what is in focus and prefer to choose that for myself.


Steve

[oxidized]

I don't even see how it's even worth bringing up the Sigma 10-20 and comparing it to either the FA 31mm or the Sigma 35mm....different animals on a lot of different levels.

Thats exactly what I said on the bottom of my post. My point is that all lenses perform differently at night. This is the only lens I had night pictures with to compare to the 31. I am certain it is very different from the 10-20.

[yusuf]

but I am actually curious about its performance at night.

I am sure Sigma will also perform the same at night or may be even better with its half stop advantage.

[oxidized]

I am sure Sigma will also perform the same at night or may be even better with its half stop advantage.

When I do night photos I rarely use the lens wide open. I prefer big depth of field and also the small aperture is what creates the beautiful star burst effects. The pictures I posted are mostly taken at F10-F14 and are usually exposures of a few minutes in length. I was asking about the particular shape of the aperture blades and the diffraction effects they produce.

[snake]

I believe that all current Samyang lenses in Pentax K have "A" contacts (not always obvious in the stock photos), though you have a point with the AF. My take is that lack of the HSM AF is just one less thing to break. To be honest, I am not a fan of AF with fast lenses. I am picky about just what is in focus and prefer to choose that for myself.


Steve

Sorry, but outside of the Pentax SDM realm, AF systems are very reliable and have incredible longevity. So "one less thing to break" is a stretch. We can say that about Samyang chipping their lenses, as we've actually seen in the past. One can't be certain whether the lenses are chipped or not until they see them, as a first thing. Also,they always make beta first versions, which often do have pretty bad defects (remember the aperture problems?).

Additionally, if you're not a fan of AF, then all you have to do is select "MF" and be as picky as you want about the focus point. In my case, I can't do that, shooting at ISO800, trying to get a lock on fast moving subjects in the dark (where 1/100 or above is needed). So AF will win every time and further reduces the value of a Samyang for me. It might be priced at half of the Sigma, but the value to me is less than that because it's not usable where I'd use it wide open.