[Nicolas06]

I have the 31, the 35f/2.4 and I had until recently the 35 macro. I sold it to fund (partially) the 31.

First the obvious: f/2.8 35mm vs f/1.8 31mm. This is a huge difference. 31mm is a bit wider framing but the apperture difference mean you can use the 31 for a set of picture the 35 will not be able to achieve.

Then the rendering. FA31 has better bokeh, more subtle colors, more pleasing in/out of focus transitions. The rendering is simply more pleasing. You are more likely to get a 3D look and you get a more classic "film" rendering typical of the FA.

The 35 macro has really soso bokeh outside of macro/proxy. The rendering give very profound black that can be a bit agrressive and disturbing. The flare resistance, in particular on the HD is truely great and better than of FA31. I do find that while it does a great job of landscapes and small objects, its rendering isn't pleasing at all for people. The difference is quite visible. So no I would not consider it as a good portrait lens. For such use, a simple FA50 f/1.7 would do noticably better than the DA35 ltd. At the same focal length, that would be FA35 or even DA35 f/2.4.

The superior lens for me overall is the FA31, only for macro or scene that would induce flare on the 31 would I consider the 35 ltd as a better lens.

The DA35 ltd vs the DA35 f/2.4 has still more contrast, more flare resistance but the cheap plastic wonder is still superior for people. So again it is flare resistance, more contrast and macro that put the 35 ltd appart.

As a single lens that does it all the 35 ltd is nice because there always some macro/proxy shot you could do and in a setup with 3 primes, a DFA100 macro may be far less appealing. The great flare resistance also is quite nice to have at time.

But other than that the DA35 f/2.4 is better for some use (people) and the FA31 overall render better. Please understand that anyway all of this is subtle. None of theses lenses are bad by any measure.

[Driline]

What do people mean by 'clinical', anyway?

Clinical means Flat and boring. I guess you have to experience these lenses yourself to know the difference. I have

---------- Post added 10-22-16 at 05:50 PM ----------

Then the rendering. FA31 has better bokeh, more subtle colors, more pleasing in/out of focus transitions. The rendering is simply more pleasing. You are more likely to get a 3D look and you get a more classic "film" rendering typical of the FA.

Agree 100%.

Although nondescript , I think this pic in my mind illustrates the lovely rendering the FA 31 can give.....



For People....well it's just awesome

[phs]

Tried that, doesn't work for me. Grip changes and focus point deviates. Not easy to achieve fine focus while applying pressure on the button. Anyway, with the success of the K-1, I hope Pentax considers updating the 31 with HD and quick shift.

Just push the lens mount button to uncouple the screw drive from the lens - instant quick shift.

[Fat Albert]

Clinical means Flat and boring. I guess you have to experience these lenses yourself to know the difference. I have

I own both. Perhaps I'm just not sophisticated enough.

[Driline]

I own both. Perhaps I'm just not sophisticated enough.

Drink some Dom Pérignon whilst sitting in your Fine Rolls Royce Shadow testing the lenses again. I'm sure you'll see the difference then.

[robgski]

IMHO it's way better to spend $900 on a good lens and $400 on a body

I agree, I've got 40 year old glass on my K-5, and brand new glass as well. Good lenses are worth the bigger investment, I used some of my old lenses on a rented K-1 as well, good glass shows its quality no matter what generation of camera on which it is mounted.