[yusuf]

As long as you don't need sharp corners in you images...

I think you meant charts & not images. To be honest, it's only exaggerated in reviews. The only thing which I didn't liked in Sigma 30 over FA31 is size otherwise Sigma 30mm is worth every cent, as good as FA31 at one third of the cost and additionally it can do f1.4 which FA31 can't.

I have seem people defending FA31 and I have no issues with it, but it doesn't mean other lenses are inferior. FA31 is indeed a great lens and it enjoyed its position so far, but now there are other potential alternatives.

[Pioneer]

I have seem people defending FA31 and I have no issues with it, but it doesn't mean other lenses are inferior. FA31 is indeed a great lens and it enjoyed its position so far, but now there are other potential alternatives.

Options are always a wonderful thing. I love my FA31 and won't be turning it loose anytime soon. But that doesn't mean that new buyers should not be considering all their options.

[Driline]

I have seem people defending FA31 and I have no issues with it, but it doesn't mean other lenses are inferior. FA31 is indeed a great lens and it enjoyed its position so far, but now there are other potential alternatives.

If the new Sigma 30mm lens is indeed as good or better than the FA 31 then why aren't people abandoning the FA 31 in droves? You'd think there would be a larger outcry and more talk on forum threads such as these. I don't see that happening. Until then the FA 31 must in fact be the better lens. Pixie dust and all

[Nicolas06]

I think you meant charts & not images. To be honest, it's only exaggerated in reviews. The only thing which I didn't liked in Sigma 30 over FA31 is size otherwise Sigma 30mm is worth every cent, as good as FA31 at one third of the cost and additionally it can do f1.4 which FA31 can't.

I have seem people defending FA31 and I have no issues with it, but it doesn't mean other lenses are inferior. FA31 is indeed a great lens and it enjoyed its position so far, but now there are other potential alternatives.

On different tests, the Sigma 30 is maybe a little weak on corner, even stopped down, that true. But I agree with you this is not that important usually that the center you want sharp, not the corners. And if you buy an f/1.4 lens, this is even more true are the border are likely out of focus anyway!

A remark through, on photzone, the DA35 plastic wonder beat the FA31 in center and edge sharpness (on same K5 sensor) and with the saved money I guess one could always use this baby for landscape and other subject requesting ultimate edge sharpness and still save a good share of money !

So for me I don't see the edge sharpness as the ultimate reason for FA31... For me it is more the more vivid color, the better bokeh and the capacity to make photos pop...

I'am not sure that for a pure landscape the FA31 would be able to set itself appart from many other good lenses.

[LeRolls]

For me it is more the more vivid color, the better bokeh and the capacity to make photos pop...

These are pretty much the characteristics that drew me to all three of the FA Limiteds in the first place and will most likely be the reasons I stick with them for a long time to come...

[Driline]

A remark through, on photzone, the DA35 plastic wonder beat the FA31 in center and edge sharpness (on same K5 sensor) and with the saved money I guess one could always use this baby for landscape and other subject requesting ultimate edge sharpness and still save a good share of money !

I've had the DA 35 plastic wonder and currently own the FA 31. There is no comparison. Sharpness being equal the FA 31 is a much better lens all around. As Nicholas said it makes your photo's "pop". You just can't get that pixie dust from a $200 lens. I gave my DA 35 2.4 away. I don't miss it at all. Is the FA 31 worth $1,296.95 new? Probably not but at ~$700 to $900 on the used market it's a bargain.

[Mirton]

Are you aware sigma simplified the lenses design and substituted expensive glass elements used to correct the original 30mm f/1.4 and replaced them with cheaper alternatives? When a lens maker does this kind of corner cutting it always has an impact on image quality.

* With sigma lenses you really open the door to AF problems chiefly, accuracy. I have several Sigma lenses for my Canon, Nikon and Pentax cameras. None of the Sigma lenses have been accurate at the time of purchase, I have always had to perform AF adjustments.

I wasn't aware that Sigma uses inferior glass as a cost saving measure, It's good to know. I've read that Sigma doesn't licence the AF algorithms from the other manufactures but reverse-engineers them, which might explain why there's so many AF issues with their lineup.

It's amazing how often the topic of Sigma 30mm vs Pentax 31mm comes up on here. And it's almost equally amazing how I can never refrain from throwing in my 2 cents.
The way I look at it, they are both beautiful lenses that each have their own strengths. And one of the big strengths of the Sigma is that it delivers a lot of the goods at a fraction of the price, and even does some things better, such as boasting superior center sharpness and a larger maximum aperture. But of course, all lens designs are a set of compromises, and the big compromise with the Sigma is the edge performance. Luckily for me, that particular weakness has almost no relevance to me since I mostly use mine at large apertures for people pictures.

I think sigma has produced good optical lenses, some better than others (100-300mm f4, 400mm f5.6 macro comes to mind) Apart from the AF and QC issues, sigma has struggled with lens coating for improved micro contrasta nd better rendering, overall failing to give their lenses "character" that many of Pentax primes are known for. I'm positive that I'f i were to print two identical images taken with the Sigma "A" or Ex 30mm f1.4 and 31mm Limited I'd be more drawn to the Pentax lens because of their masterful rendering qualities. I personally try to overcome the clinical or "character-less" qualities of my Sigma EX 30mm f1.4 by being selective about my subjects. (shooting adorable 6 year old girls also works...)

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by Mirton; 07-29-2014 at 07:00 AM.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

It's amazing how often the topic of Sigma 30mm vs Pentax 31mm comes up on here. And it's almost equally amazing how I can never refrain from throwing in my 2 cents.

The way I look at it, they are both beautiful lenses that each have their own strengths. And one of the big strengths of the Sigma is that it delivers a lot of the goods at a fraction of the price, and even does some things better, such as boasting superior center sharpness and a larger maximum aperture. But of course, all lens designs are a set of compromises, and the big compromise with the Sigma is the edge performance. Luckily for me, that particular weakness has almost no relevance to me since I mostly use mine at large apertures for people pictures.

I took my 30mm along tonight for the orientation day at my daughters' school which starts tomorrow, and as always I was delighted with the pictures the lens brought home. Here are a few uncropped pics at different apertures of each of the girls sitting at their desks in their new classrooms (click on each image for a hi-rez version):









From these pictures, you should be able to see why I'm not too concerned with edge sharpness. I'm generally using this lens to take a picture of a subject that is more or less within the center area of the frame. And once I get to the edges, most of them are in the OOF area anyway, so sharpness there would be lost anyway.

I hear some people say that bokeh is a weakness of this lens, but I've always thought that it did a nice job in that regard. It's true that in certain situation you can get triangular points of bokeh in the corners, but in the few pictures I have where that occurs, I have not been bothered by it in the least. And unless somebody pointed it out, I highly doubt that the average person would notice it or consider it a problem.

(For anyone trying to draw conclusions about colors from these pictures, it's probably not a good idea. The light in the rooms was about 50% overhead fluorescent and 50% daylight from the large windows, so simply getting colors that look halfway natural is about the best you can hope for.)

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I'm positive that I'f i were to print two identical images taken with the Sigma "A" or Ex 30mm f1.4 and 31mm Limited I'd be more drawn to the Pentax lens because of their masterful rendering qualities.

I would love to get my hands on a 31mm someday so that I could do a series of back-to-back comparison shots to see what I think. I'm not willing to spend $700-800 for the experiment, but if somebody wants to send me their 31mm....

Some of the sample images on Photozone for the 31mm and 30mm feature the same subjects, and looking at those pictures I didn't see where the 30mm looked more "clinical" or "characterless" or where the 31mm really distinguished itself, other than the aforementioned edge sharpness, so I will probably remain somewhat skeptical until I get to do my own comparison.

[normhead]

I would love to get my hands on a 31mm someday so that I could do a series of back-to-back comparison shots to see what I think. I'm not willing to spend $700-800 for the experiment, but if somebody wants to send me their 31mm....

Some of the sample images on Photozone for the 31mm and 30mm feature the same subjects, and looking at those pictures I didn't see where the 30mm looked more "clinical" or "characterless" or where the 31mm really distinguished itself, other than the aforementioned edge sharpness, so I will probably remain somewhat skeptical until I get to do my own comparison.

The photozone images are apples and oranges, the 30mm images are shot in high contrast light, the 31 in low so the images look lacking in detail and soft.... the criticism I'd have of the 30 looking at photozone, would be that it's CA is through the roof, similar to the DA 18-135, forgivable for a super zoom, not for a prime. And as anyone who uses the 18-135 knows, it doesn't always matter, but you're going to have a few images that just don't look right because of it. But you're right, based on the phtozone images, buy the Sigma, based on the photozone test results, buy the 31 ltd.

[Driline]

I don't think anybody is saying boy that Sigma sure is a bad lens. It's a fine lens and looks great for the price. However it is no FA 31. My DA* 16-50 takes fabulous pictures and I would never part with it. But, it's no FA 31 either.

Again I refer to my original statement. People would be snatching those lenses up left and right if they were equal to the FA 31. They obviously are not.

[THoog]

edit: oops I was thinking about the old Sig 30mm not the ART that you tested, as anybody who read my post probably realized well before I did... Does it have any significant barrel distortion? I know the old one did, and at least one of the shots in your test seemed like it did, but I suppose it could have just been varying POV's between shots...

Barrel distortion on the Art 30 is very similar to the old EX 30 - it's obvious in pictures of things like paintings in frames. PTLens doesn't have a profile for the Art 30, but the EX 30 profile works well enough.

CA is definitely a issue wide open on the Art 30, but it's quite manageable in LightRoom. In-camera, it's generally mild at f/2.8 and gone by f/4.

On the Art 30, the big attraction for me was the silent focusing, because I take a lot of pictures in quiet museum galleries (of things like paintings in frames). I like my Art 30, but I never had any expectation of it competing with the 31 Ltd. I've considered renting a FA 31 just so I could shoot some comparisons, but I'm not sure my skills would make it worthwhile. Plus, shooting series comparing the EX 30 and Art 30 was boooring.

[Mirton]

I would love to get my hands on a 31mm someday so that I could do a series of back-to-back comparison shots to see what I think. I'm not willing to spend $700-800 for the experiment, but if somebody wants to send me their 31mm....

Some of the sample images on Photozone for the 31mm and 30mm feature the same subjects, and looking at those pictures I didn't see where the 30mm looked more "clinical" or "characterless" or where the 31mm really distinguished itself, other than the aforementioned edge sharpness, so I will probably remain somewhat skeptical until I get to do my own comparison.

The "clinical" look that i'm talking about its a personal and very subjective evaluation of the Sigma's rendering. I've compared the Sigma Ex 30mm f1.4 to the MF Rokinon/Samyang 35mm f1.4 UMC and the Rokinon in my opinion has better rendering( I highly recommend this lens!!!). I own the Sigma EX DG 85mm f1.4 HSM but i still prefer the rendering of my Pentax-F 50mm f1.4. Like i said it's just a matter of taste.

I don't mean to Hijack the post, here's some quick shots with the aforementioned lenses.

Sigma EX DC 30mm f1.4:
Rokinon 35mm f1.4 UMC
Pentax-F 50mm f1.4 @ f3.2
Sigma EX DG 85mm f1.4 @ f3.2

[Driline]

I've compared the Sigma Ex 30mm f1.4 to the MF Rokinon/Samyang 35mm f1.4 UMC and the Rokinon in my opinion has better rendering

I like the Rokinon better as well. It seems to have deeper color and slightly better contrast. Subjective to be sure, but if 8 out of 10 people choose this lens then you've got data to prove it does in fact look better.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I appreciate the effort, but I find the four pictures to be too different to be able to glean much from the comparison. I certainly prefer the composition, and brighter exposure of the Rokinon shot, as well as having the subject closer to the camera to throw more of the background into a softer focus, but I don't think that really says much about the respective lenses.