[EarlVonTapia]

The FA 31 is one of those lenses that just polarizes opinion.

I'll add my experience here. This past Christmas I had a chance to pick one up for cheap, so I did. At first I was unimpressed, but after some calibration testing (-6) I was able to get it sharp wide open. After that, it didn't leave my camera for months. I used it for everything, product shots, portraits, travel, landscapes, events. It's just a stellar lens, and probably the last lens I would keep if I ever decided to leave photography.

Of course, there are plenty of cheaper alternatives that might come close to the lens, but none will replace it.

Good luck!

[redcat]

I used it for everything, product shots, portraits, travel, landscapes, events. It's just a stellar lens, and probably the last lens I would keep if I ever decided to leave photography.

same here, I use it for everything now ! and if I sell it, I might quit photography ^^

[knightzerox]

Well I'm sitting outside waiting for the delivery truck. A new 31mm is arriving and we'll see how it goes. Worst it goes back so just some time lost but glad I was able to get a chance with the lens.

[dcpropilot]

I just got my 31 1.8 today. All is I can say is WOW...


(disclaimer: also posted in the FA Limited Lens club)

[knightzerox]

I just got my 31 1.8 today. All is I can say is WOW...


(disclaimer: also posted in the FA Limited Lens club)

Very nice photo!

Well, what a difference a lens change can make. The replacement lens seems to focus accurately , or I should say more consistently than the previous adjustment. It needed minor calibration that I was able to adjust quickly just like the FA77 and seems to be performing just fine now. I also checked for any decentering and the lens seems to be equal on both sides. It looks like I just got a bad copy, and I'm pretty sure I'll be the keeping the lens. I've been able to get more shots that are performing the way I'd expect.

I still stand by my earlier statement that if you are on a budget or want a FF lens, the DAL 2.4 is fantastic. However, if you want something with better build quality and are on APSC, the other newer 35mm limited's might suit someone better and offer macro. But if you want sharpness, low-light, and full frame, this lens seems to be performing well now. I still feel it's a wee bit expensive but , the money was not an issue for me now that is working well enough.

As for Pixie dust, I think that comes with that fact that the Pentax bodies I have tried this on, it is hard for it to be able to focus accurately wide open, alongside that shooting wide open at farther subjects creates a bit of softness and maybe those characteristics , along side it's rendering and color, create the magic. Now after extensively going through a testing process withe the previous lens, I think I have a good understanding of how to use it and can get some great photos.

Thanks for all the help and giving this lens another chance.

[stevebrot]

It was designed in the film era. Many film era lenses do no hold up well on modern high megapixel digital sensors.

I am sorry...not my experience.* Can you tell me how the design of say the DA 50/1.8 is more evolved than the Pentax-M 50/1.7? After all, the DA 50/1.8 has 35+ years of additional optical science to support its design.** Please by explicit. Put both in front of a test chart or real world subject and both will produce similar numbers. The same is true for real world subjects. How do I know? I own and use both lenses. Put the older Pentax-K 55/1.8 into the same mix and it is noticeably better than either in general shooting.

Don't get me wrong. There are some wonderful modern lenses. I am in awe, at times, of my Sigma 17-70/2.8-4. It seldom fails to deliver. I would probably feel the same about the Zeiss Otus if I were ever to own one.


Steve

* I am a little biased in that I only own three lenses that are digitally optimized. The oldest, a Super-Takumar 55/1.8 with reverse direction controls, dates back to when I was just beginning grade school. It performs only a small notch below the above-mentioned K-55/1.8, with the two lenses differing mostly in the quality of coatings and physical size. The optics are virtually identical design and implementation.

** The choice of those two lenses is a little unfair since they have very similar optical designs and design goals. The DA 50/1.8 has a slightly smaller image circle, but is otherwise a modern clone of its ancestor.
Steve

[6BQ5]

I could be completely wrong here ... but I thought the DA 50mm f/1.8 is a 99% copy of the 50mm f/1.7 of the past. The only differences are the coatings were updated and the largest aperture slightly constricted by design. Doesn't the DA 50mm work perfectly as a FF lens on film?