[cali92rs]

I would sell the 35mm macro.
I like the fact that the 31mm is wider and faster. f2.8 is not really all that fast indoors. I'm always surprised how often I am at ISO 3200 and 6400 wide open with a f2.8 lens.

[Rondec]

I would just add to the discussion that the one lens I think is a real competitor to the FA 31 is the Sigma 35mm f1.4.

[cali92rs]

I would just add to the discussion that the one lens I think is a real competitor to the FA 31 is the Sigma 35mm f1.4.

If i didnt already have the FA43mm, I would be all over that lens like flies on...well, you know

[RobA_Oz]

I've had my FA31/1.8 for a number of years, and the DA35/2.8 for a month, so comparisons of strengths and weaknesses are preliminary for me, but, even though they can be used in similar situations (except for low light), they do produce different results.

However, the macro capabilities of the 35 are where it is clearly aimed at, in its design, although it is also a capable and lightweight lens for general use. Comparisons with longer FL macros are fairly pointless, unless one or the other produces what the individual likes. I've had a Sigma 105 macro and I did some interesting work with it, but the 35 allows for a different perspective and DoF experience to the 105. I've also got an A35-105 macro for the occasions when I want a longer FL, although it doesn't focus as closely as the Sigma at 105, and it's a lot heavier than a prime.

Unless you really need the money, why sell either, particularly if you haven't fully explored the differences?

[peterjcb]

After reading all the comments, I don't think that I will sell either lens....I don't know what I was thinking because they really are different lenses as has been mentioned above.
I got very good deals on both so I'll look at them as investments that will most likely hold good value for me and that I can use & enjoy.
I need to make time to use them more...unfortunately life and work is getting in the way of my photography ...