[Na Horuk]

However there are lenses and camera bodies that I have that are unique, and cannot simply be replaced. So I frequently buy two (or more) of a lens or camera body I like.

That's why its so hard to find those unique lenses! You have two of each!

[Digitalis]

That's why its so hard to find those unique lenses! You have two of each!

I have sold a few of the lenses - mainly because they tend to age more gracefully than camera bodies. Amongst my RF camera bodies I own six Hexar RFs, three Nikon SPs, two Zeiss IKONs, four Leica M3s, three M6s two M7s, one M8, M9 and a Leica monochrom.

[osv]

I shoot my FA 35/2 on FF regularly with no problems with light leaks. I am, however, mounting it to native K-mount bodies without the all-too-common hazards of the various E mount adapters. (Do they all have light leaks or is that just a common forum topic?)

different lens on the same adapter isn't nearly as bad... i'm wondering if it's somehow leaking in front of the aperture ring, because the rubber band isn't fixing all of the problem.

have you ever tested anything for light leaks? because a number of camera bodies leak at the mount, not just the a7/a7r... sony provides a free warranty fix for the body light leakage issue.

the k3/k5 is supposed to be fully sealed, so perhaps you could test the fa35 for leakage... max iso, 30 second exposure, with bright sunlight pointed into the side of the lens, at the mount area.

---------------------------------------------------

The Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800E DSLRs with light leak cost even more.

"And for you Fanboys who just can’t wait to Sony bash over this odd little issue, let he whose camera is without light leak cast the first stone. Because, so far the same problem has been found with Canon, Nikon, and Fuji cameras. I assume a similar solution will work just fine for those, too."
LensRentals.com - The Sky is Falling and the Light is Leaking: the A7r Anti-Massacree

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/76-non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/253...#ixzz3BW80pcUl

---------- Post added 08-26-2014 at 09:53 AM ----------

I can see a differences in focal length however it is a trivial difference between 31mm and 35mm. The difference between 18mm and 16mm is considerably larger.

that makes sense, because the difference between 28mm vs. 24mm is significant on full-frame... and it's more than just a width issue.

[Driline]

I have sold a few of the lenses - mainly because they tend to age more gracefully than camera bodies. Amongst my RF camera bodies I own six Hexar RFs, three Nikon SPs, two Zeiss IKONs, four Leica M3s, three M6s two M7s, one M8, M9 and a Leica monochrom.

And from what I understand you're a neuro surgeon during the week and the photography stuff is just a weekend hobby for you? I'm impressed

[Digitalis]

And from what I understand you're a neuro surgeon during the week and the photography stuff is just a weekend hobby for you?

I wish I had a job that had the pay-scale of a neurosurgeon with the stress level of a video store clerk. But most of my work Is in administration with some professional studio photography. But mostly, it is the admin work that takes up the most of my time.

[mikeodial]

I have the FA 31 for a few months now. I can only compare to the DA 35mm Macro (which I had for a while). While the microcontrast is great, the lens has some flaws as well, however, at least for me, they are overcome by the rendering. The FA 31 (and the 43 and 77) seem to render more like my old film camera with Kodak Slide film. It has a "look" that I like. It doesn't happen on each picture, but when I pay attention to what I am doing, the results are better than the photo I thought I took.


I find this makes me look for the sort of composition, lighting and color situations that bring the rendering characteristics out more. So, for me it's not the test chart, as there are better lenses from a fidelity perspective. Sorry if this sounds like poetry or non-technical drivel, but I get a cinematic feeling using this lens that doesn't happen with some of my other, perfectly good lenses.

[monochrome]

I find this makes me look for the sort of composition, lighting and color situations that bring the rendering characteristics out more. So, for me it's not the test chart, as there are better lenses from a fidelity perspective. Sorry if this sounds like poetry or non-technical drivel, but I get a cinematic feeling using this lens that doesn't happen with some of my other, perfectly good lenses.

I think that's precisely the attraction of the FA31, but it takes someone who appreciates an older, film-era aesthetic to appreciate. Commenters who look for 'sharp across the frame' might well not score the FA31 as highly as the DA35/2.8 Macro.

The FA35/2 is a special lens in its own right, neither better nor worse, I don't think, than the 31. I LOVE the 35/2 files from my K10D and the K-01 files are awfully good too. I have some lovely interior shots made with natural window light from the 35/2.

I have both and I'm keeping both.

[mikeodial]

I think that's precisely the attraction of the FA31, but it takes someone who appreciates an older, film-era aesthetic to appreciate. Commenters who look for 'sharp across the frame' might well not score the FA31 as highly as the DA35/2.8 Macro.

The FA35/2 is a special lens in its own right, neither better nor worse, I don't think, than the 31. I LOVE the 35/2 files from my K10D and the K-01 files are awfully good too. I have some lovely interior shots made with natural window light from the 35/2.

I have both and I'm keeping both.

Good observation. And yes I am old! (Oldish anyway ... 59). When I see the FA31 results they seem like they have been softened in some way, but not in a bad way. Hard to describe. Lighting seems to have a huge impact on the quality of output. Night shots are glare free, but bright harsh sunlight is not always a friend. I agree with your comments on the comparison. I have a DFA 100mm Macro and it appears much sharper than the FA31

[Conqueror]

In the end I did crumble... I managed to get a good 2nd hand copy...

This thing is every bit as good as they say! No regrets... only negative over the FA 35mm is the size... but the build quality/metal is better so that handling makes up for it in many ways.

[monochrome]

Good observation. And yes I am old! (Oldish anyway ... 59). When I see the FA31 results they seem like they have been softened in some way, but not in a bad way. Hard to describe. Lighting seems to have a huge impact on the quality of output. Night shots are glare free, but bright harsh sunlight is not always a friend. I agree with your comments on the comparison. I have a DFA 100mm Macro and it appears much sharper than the FA31

I see center sharpness and a special color rendering, plus a design that enhances edge softness and bokeh. isolates and promotes a centered subject, which is a mid-20th century aesthetic.

[mikeodial]

I see center sharpness and a special color rendering, plus a design that enhances edge softness and bokeh. isolates and promotes a centered subject, which is a mid-20th century aesthetic.

Yes. I have just bought a Hasselblad 500cm for that exact type of look. It's something that was missing from a more "clinical" digital look. I think Pentax has something special here, all my relatives don't understand why my family pictures turn out to be so different.

[Digitalis]

It's something that was missing from a more "clinical" digital look.

In essence this sums up the difference between the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 and FA31 - the sigma lens looks colder, harsher. The FA31 renders things sharply, even at f/1.8 but there is a subtle roll off outside the immediate area of focus. It takes a truly skilled lens designer to produce something like that.