[Driline]

I can buy a used FA 31 for about the same price as a used DA*16-50 AND Brand spanking NEW FA 35/2. What would you do knowing my current arsenal of lenses?

This is a hobby only and is used for family and fun.

I currently use the following lenses:

DA 21

FA 43

DA*50-135

Tokina F4 100-300

[foto guy]

The FA31 is a gem of a lens, but I'm guessing you'll enjoy the versatility of the 16-50 and 35 more.
OTOH, if you think that you will EVER want the 31, I'd say get it now while it's cheap (as long as it's in good condition). You likely won't want to shell out the huge bucks it goes for new.
How's that for a wishy-washy answer?

[Driline]

The FA31 is a gem of a lens, but I'm guessing you'll enjoy the versatility of the 16-50 and 35 more.
OTOH, if you think that you will EVER want the 31, I'd say get it now while it's cheap (as long as it's in good condition). You likely won't want to shell out the huge bucks it goes for new.
How's that for a wishy-washy answer?

The FA 31 is used for $900. I won't pay more than that.

[yusuf]

You will be hard pressed to find the difference between FA35 & FA31. Additionally, unless you want a full frame lens, Sigma 30/1.4 is even better option in my opinion, see comparision

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/237093-wide...nt-brands.html

[wed7]

Get the 31 and a 18-55WR

[Driline]

Get the 31 and a 18-55WR

I've got the 18-55 II. It's not up to my IQ standards. I will be selling it.

[wed7]

its the WR I am suggesting

[topace]

The 18-55 WR and the 18-55 II share the same optics. I keep an 18-55 WR for its WR functionality, but don't really ever use it.

[DeadJohn]

I would get the 16-50 for versatility and WR. You already have 2 primes in the 16-50 range, so I might skip the FA35 and put that money aside for a more unique lens. Perhaps something superwide, a macro lens, or a dedicated portrait lens depending on what you like to shoot.

[mikemike]

Get the FA 31.

Or get the 16-50.

But probably get the FA 31.

[Driline]

But probably get the FA 31.

I think you're probably right

[freerider]

I have both the 16-50 and the 31mm. I use the 16-50 when I need WR and the flexibility of a zoom. But if image quality is my main concern I use the 31mm. Both are awesome lenses with different strengths and weaknesses. I'd probably go with what I think I'd use more.

I think the most bang for buck would be the 16-50 and sigma 30mm. I don't have the sigma but the images I've seen from it are awesome. I almost got it instead of my 31mm.

[mano]

I had the DA 16-50 and have the FA 31, so my advice seems clear ;-)

There is nothing wrong optically with the 16-50, but I prefer the 31, there is something special about the pictures. The main reason for me to sell the 16-50 was it's size. I prefer primes and use zooms mostly for snapshots and when I'm travelling light, so I got the 18-135 as a (cheaper) replacement. It's not as good as the 16-50 but optically good enough for what I do with it. As you already have the DA* 50-135, I suspect the size and weight of a DA* zoom are no problem for you.

In your position I would consider whether I'd like and need the versatility of a zoom or the IQ and "pixie dust" of the FA 31, for the latter you probably have found enough samples on the forum.

[Driline]

Well, the Noob selling his FA 31 lens I was contemplating on purchasing just decided to up the price past $1,300. I can buy new for that. Looks like I wait some more or just say screw it and buy a new FA 35/2 for $399 at B&H

[pearsaab]

I have the 31 and 16-50....love the 31 and only got the 16-50 for the wr...I love the 31 but there are times I can't use it so you need to decide what is more important to you