Originally posted by oxidized 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.