A bit disappointed on FA 31 ltd, not sure worth the cost

Venom3300 · 06-04-2015, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Please explain how design degrades over time.

Seriously.

Steve

It was designed in the film era. Many film era lenses do no hold up well on modern high megapixel digital sensors. The FA 31 does, but none the less it is starting to shows its age. The sigma 18-35 1.8 outperforms it in resolution at larger apertures. Its a legend, but an aging one that is increasing less impressive compared to more modern designs, especially wide open.

redcat · 06-05-2015, 12:58 AM - **2 Likes**

well, I had LBA and it ends with the FA 31mm, that's how good it is ! (https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/277257-how-cure-lba.html)
I'm a total newbie but very demanding in term of sharpness & focus accuracy, I find the FA77 is easier to nail the focus, the FA 31 is a little harder to nail the focus, but it's totally doable. Just play a little more with your lens and you'll find out why it's a legend ^^
A humble example at f1.8 with available light :

Sandy Hancock · 06-05-2015, 02:26 AM - **2 Likes**

I reckon it goes alright too. There is something about the focal transition and the quality of the out of focus areas. The bottom two are at f/1.8 - I would say they are acceptably sharp.

knightzerox · 06-05-2015, 07:27 AM

As an update, whether the stars aligned or not, I wasn't able to return the lens online last night as the order number was not available. I would have to wait till the morning to start the process.

Since I still had it this morning I decided to give it one last shot to see if I could get the lens to AF correctly, thereby letting me get to actually use the benefits of this lens.

To baseline myself again, I set my micro adjustment to zero, shot at 62cm, and calibrated. I also checked against manually focusing as well to make sure I had a baseline of what was the sharpest/best image the lens could produce to compare. I had done quite a few tests before but in similar fashion but they were not adding up. Even after calibrating two of my indoor subjects focused fine, and another was very poor. Turns out that since this was a semi reflective surface, the AF was having an issue I think. Manually focusing and comparing another shot to a different contrast point verified it was working and producing similar images. This can happen with any lens but seemed odd.

Once set I went and retook some more real world test shots and things fell into place. The lens is now AF correctly at close to far distances and I verified these by also manually focusing on subjects to confirm what was the best image I could produce. Once I had these baselines it was a bit easier to curb expectations and verify AF.

Stating that, I feel this lens is best used at 2.2+ for close subects, 1.8 for medium to close distance), and f4 and above for landscape or distance.

Compared to the DAL 2.4, the range would be f2.4 all the way till far subjects where I would recommend f5.6+

You gain about a stop advantage in two ranges, medium to far for usability. While you can focus at 1.8 on close subjects, the accuracy and thin DOF make it very hard for the AF system to get right and for you as photographer to hold still. I was able to shoot at 1.8 at close objects but the DOF was always a bit thinner than what I actually needed for the photo. Nice to have when needed and can be done, but better to use it at slightly farther off subjects.

I will take more shots today to confirm my decision of keeping the lens, as the 35 ltd macro is an option but won't meet my lowlight requirements. I have the DFA 100 macro already. The 20-40 doesn't give me enough advantage in lowlight over the 18-135, though it may be optically better in its range.the two Sigmas are larger than what I want to carry for traveling, otherwise could be an option.

Last edited by knightzerox; 06-05-2015 at 07:49 AM.

normhead · 06-05-2015, 07:39 AM

I wonder if the lens could be adjusted....

Quote:

The 20-40 doesn't give me enough advantage in lowlight over the 18-135, though it may be optically better in its range.

The 20-40 exactly mimics the range where the 18-135 is strongest. It's just one of those weird things. To me, it really only makes sense coupled with a DA* 60-250 and a 50 and the 15mm. On a big outing the size and weight advantage of the 20-40 is the big thing as far as I can tell.

knightzerox · 06-05-2015, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I wonder if the lens could be adjusted....

The 20-40 exactly mimics the range where the 18-135 is strongest. It's just one of those weird things. To me, it really only makes sense coupled with a DA* 60-250 and a 50 and the 15mm. On a big outing the size and weight advantage of the 20-40 the big thing as far as I can tell.

If I didn't have the 18-135 I would be looking hard at this lens, but I would probably buy the 18-135 again. After using it everyday to practice for my trip to Italy and learning where I can best maximize its potential, it's a fantastic lens.

The 31 ltd for me would fill in a niche of lowlight wide FOV versus the FA43. Now that it seems to be working fine on AF, I can really try to see its benefits. I am willing to pay for quality and sharpness, but not for a lens that doesn't work at all, which was my issue.

I still would be hesitant to recommend this lens to anyone that already has one of the other 35mm. For me this was for a very specific purpose for a very specific trip.

Driline · 06-05-2015, 08:23 AM

Well you gotta look at it this way as well. If the FA 31 was equal or no better than the DA 35 2.4 or the FA 35 2.0 or the 35 macro, then why are people willing to pay 5 times more for it? Are they a bunch of clueless numbnuts? Maybe?

I've had the the el cheapo plastic fantastic DA 35 2.4, and while it was a nice capable lens, compared to the FA 31 it was clinical, flat and boring. I've since given it to my brother. I'll keep the FA 31 Thankyou

pathdoc · 06-05-2015, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Driline

I've had the the el cheapo plastic fantastic DA 35 2.4, and while it was a nice capable lens, compared to the FA 31 it was clinical, flat and boring.

Aha! This is the dividing line where photography-as-record-keeping and photography-as-art part company. Both have their places, sometimes in the mind of the same photographer, but nobody can say for certain that either is right or wrong. It just IS for them or ISN'T.

I have the 35 macro for work, and a flat clinical image is important here. Whether it renders the right image for those seeking slices of life is a highly individual matter. As a pathologist, I photograph slices of organs and I am content with what I have.

normhead · 06-05-2015, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Driline

Well you gotta look at it this way as well. If the FA 31 was equal or no better than the DA 35 2.4 or the FA 35 2.0 or the 35 macro, then why are people willing to pay 5 times more for it? Are they a bunch of clueless numbnuts? Maybe?

I've had the the el cheapo plastic fantastic DA 35 2.4, and while it was a nice capable lens, compared to the FA 31 it was clinical, flat and boring. I've since given it to my brother. I'll keep the FA 31 Thankyou

And that's exactly it... at some point you have to let go of your way of looking at things, and try and see what the other guys are seeing. My 35 2.4 is a nice sharp lens and looks good on the test charts, but we're talking about selling it. We just never use it. 31 images on the other hand tend to be the opposite. It's better than it's test chart scores. But there's a message here. If so many good photographers like the 31 and you don't, they're seeing something you're not seeing. To me, it's the way it handles sharp to out of focus transitions and out of focus areas. I remember a while a go some guy posted a thread where he shot the 31 against some other lens, Sigma 30, someone's 28 or something, and was crowing about how they were virtually the same. I was looking at the same images he was, and I didn't think they were at all the same. It wasn't that the difference wasn't there, it was that he wasn't seeing it. Lenses of that quality tend to excel at the little things, usually they aren't things that hit you over the head with a bat. Although sometimes the stars align and they do (hit you over the head with a bat.)

But I can also just say, if you don't like it forget it and send it back. It does something special, but whether or not that something special is something you are going to like is a personal decision.

The other question is, is your lens aligned properly? I'm not convinced by your description that it doesn't need to be sent back for adjustment.

A new lens always puts you through the wringer, "do I have a good copy, why don't my images taken with it look better? should I send it back for adjustment? should I ask for an exchange?" all the stuff hits you all at once, and you just spin for a while. And first impressions don't always last.

thomasp · 06-05-2015, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by knightzerox

The 20-40 I had originally wanted may not be the best in lowlight either as it is usually at f4 for most of the range, but it may be more viable?

well, 20-40 is not at F4 for most of it's range. it stays at 2.8 till 24mm, then goes to 3.5 until about 34mm. only from then on it's on F4. i bought it for my K3 to have a reasonably wide angle lens that isn't some oversized monster. it does the job well. using it mostly up until about 30mm. i have the 40mm pancake to deal with the narrow end.

ogl · 06-05-2015, 09:24 AM - **2 Likes**

My FA31 at f2

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/3416/84073594.2d/0_1ad9b7_bb646fc0_orig

is it a bad?

Franc · 06-05-2015, 09:29 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ogl

My FA31 at f2

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/3416/84073594.2d/0_1ad9b7_bb646fc0_orig

is it a bad?

yes it is, i now want to have that lens!

oh dear, i already have it

nice shot!!

**todd** · 06-05-2015, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by knightzerox

As an update, whether the stars aligned or not,

I'm just curious, but are you using any extra hood, or just the built in? And does the front end/element of your copy have any wobble to it?

knightzerox · 06-05-2015, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by todd

I'm just curious, but are you using any extra hood, or just the built in? And does the front end/element of your copy have any wobble to it?

I'm using only the built in. I haven't noticed any wobble in the front element? Is there a test for this?

narual · 06-05-2015, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

I have the 35 macro for work, and a flat clinical image is important here. Whether it renders the right image for those seeking slices of life is a highly individual matter. As a pathologist, I photograph slices of organs and I am content with what I have.

But... but... think of the bokeh! Buttery soft insert florid adjectives here bokeh might just cure whatever problems those organs have!

I'm not super thrilled with my 31mm either. I loved my nikon 35/1.8 and it was $200. It was the only lens I used on my honeymoon (granted, this is because I tripped while hiking back up from a waterfall on our first day and smashed the superzoom I'd brought with me). Some of my favorite photos I've ever taken were with that lens. I bought the 31mm last fall hoping it would give me a similar experience. I've taken a bit less than 900 photos with it since then, and about 60 of them are flagged as keepers in lightroom, and there are only 2 or 3 of those that I look at and think "yeah, I really like that photo!"

But I'm sure a large part of that is simply time on camera. When I was on Nikon, I had a superzoom, an ultra wide, and the 35/1.8 prime. It was my best quality lens. I have a lot of nice Pentax lenses, and when I reach for one to take with me, it's usually the 50-135. If I bring a second, it's usually the 15mm ltd. I bought the 31 and 77 with the idea that I'd use them with the 15mm, 1 in each pocket and 1 on the camera, but somehow that hasn't happened more than a couple times.

06-05-2015, 07:39 AM	#35
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,449	I wonder if the lens could be adjusted.... Quote: The 20-40 doesn't give me enough advantage in lowlight over the 18-135, though it may be optically better in its range. The 20-40 exactly mimics the range where the 18-135 is strongest. It's just one of those weird things. To me, it really only makes sense coupled with a DA* 60-250 and a 50 and the 15mm. On a big outing the size and weight advantage of the 20-40 is the big thing as far as I can tell. Last edited by normhead; 06-05-2015 at 09:56 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hmmmm... A bit disappointed	jayman_1975	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	45	01-23-2015 12:31 PM
For Sale - Sold: Reduced price FA 43 LTD silver / FA*300 / FA77LTD / TOKINA 28-80 / FA 31 LTD	trustkor	Sold Items	6	02-05-2013 09:10 AM
Those who own the FA 43 LTD and/or FA 31 LTD	LeDave	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	11-03-2009 05:15 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax FA* 200 macro, FA* 85, FA* 24, FA 31 LTD, FA 77 LTD, A 50/1.2, VL 125 M	aegisphan	Sold Items	86	09-03-2009 02:37 PM

06-04-2015, 10:24 PM	#31
Venom3300 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 714	Originally posted by stevebrot Please explain how design degrades over time. Seriously. Steve It was designed in the film era. Many film era lenses do no hold up well on modern high megapixel digital sensors. The FA 31 does, but none the less it is starting to shows its age. The sigma 18-35 1.8 outperforms it in resolution at larger apertures. Its a legend, but an aging one that is increasing less impressive compared to more modern designs, especially wide open.

06-05-2015, 12:58 AM - 2 Likes	#32
redcat Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Paris Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,939	well, I had LBA and it ends with the FA 31mm, that's how good it is ! (https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/277257-how-cure-lba.html) I'm a total newbie but very demanding in term of sharpness & focus accuracy, I find the FA77 is easier to nail the focus, the FA 31 is a little harder to nail the focus, but it's totally doable. Just play a little more with your lens and you'll find out why it's a legend ^^ A humble example at f1.8 with available light :

06-05-2015, 02:26 AM - 2 Likes	#33
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,267	I reckon it goes alright too. There is something about the focal transition and the quality of the out of focus areas. The bottom two are at f/1.8 - I would say they are acceptably sharp.

06-05-2015, 07:27 AM	#34
knightzerox Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 220 Original Poster	As an update, whether the stars aligned or not, I wasn't able to return the lens online last night as the order number was not available. I would have to wait till the morning to start the process. Since I still had it this morning I decided to give it one last shot to see if I could get the lens to AF correctly, thereby letting me get to actually use the benefits of this lens. To baseline myself again, I set my micro adjustment to zero, shot at 62cm, and calibrated. I also checked against manually focusing as well to make sure I had a baseline of what was the sharpest/best image the lens could produce to compare. I had done quite a few tests before but in similar fashion but they were not adding up. Even after calibrating two of my indoor subjects focused fine, and another was very poor. Turns out that since this was a semi reflective surface, the AF was having an issue I think. Manually focusing and comparing another shot to a different contrast point verified it was working and producing similar images. This can happen with any lens but seemed odd. Once set I went and retook some more real world test shots and things fell into place. The lens is now AF correctly at close to far distances and I verified these by also manually focusing on subjects to confirm what was the best image I could produce. Once I had these baselines it was a bit easier to curb expectations and verify AF. Stating that, I feel this lens is best used at 2.2+ for close subects, 1.8 for medium to close distance), and f4 and above for landscape or distance. Compared to the DAL 2.4, the range would be f2.4 all the way till far subjects where I would recommend f5.6+ You gain about a stop advantage in two ranges, medium to far for usability. While you can focus at 1.8 on close subjects, the accuracy and thin DOF make it very hard for the AF system to get right and for you as photographer to hold still. I was able to shoot at 1.8 at close objects but the DOF was always a bit thinner than what I actually needed for the photo. Nice to have when needed and can be done, but better to use it at slightly farther off subjects. I will take more shots today to confirm my decision of keeping the lens, as the 35 ltd macro is an option but won't meet my lowlight requirements. I have the DFA 100 macro already. The 20-40 doesn't give me enough advantage in lowlight over the 18-135, though it may be optically better in its range.the two Sigmas are larger than what I want to carry for traveling, otherwise could be an option. Last edited by knightzerox; 06-05-2015 at 07:49 AM.

06-05-2015, 07:48 AM	#36
knightzerox Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 220 Original Poster	Originally posted by normhead I wonder if the lens could be adjusted.... The 20-40 exactly mimics the range where the 18-135 is strongest. It's just one of those weird things. To me, it really only makes sense coupled with a DA* 60-250 and a 50 and the 15mm. On a big outing the size and weight advantage of the 20-40 the big thing as far as I can tell. If I didn't have the 18-135 I would be looking hard at this lens, but I would probably buy the 18-135 again. After using it everyday to practice for my trip to Italy and learning where I can best maximize its potential, it's a fantastic lens. The 31 ltd for me would fill in a niche of lowlight wide FOV versus the FA43. Now that it seems to be working fine on AF, I can really try to see its benefits. I am willing to pay for quality and sharpness, but not for a lens that doesn't work at all, which was my issue. I still would be hesitant to recommend this lens to anyone that already has one of the other 35mm. For me this was for a very specific purpose for a very specific trip.

06-05-2015, 08:23 AM	#37
Driline Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,692	Well you gotta look at it this way as well. If the FA 31 was equal or no better than the DA 35 2.4 or the FA 35 2.0 or the 35 macro, then why are people willing to pay 5 times more for it? Are they a bunch of clueless numbnuts? Maybe? I've had the the el cheapo plastic fantastic DA 35 2.4, and while it was a nice capable lens, compared to the FA 31 it was clinical, flat and boring. I've since given it to my brother. I'll keep the FA 31 Thankyou

06-05-2015, 08:39 AM	#38
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by Driline I've had the the el cheapo plastic fantastic DA 35 2.4, and while it was a nice capable lens, compared to the FA 31 it was clinical, flat and boring. Aha! This is the dividing line where photography-as-record-keeping and photography-as-art part company. Both have their places, sometimes in the mind of the same photographer, but nobody can say for certain that either is right or wrong. It just IS for them or ISN'T. I have the 35 macro for work, and a flat clinical image is important here. Whether it renders the right image for those seeking slices of life is a highly individual matter. As a pathologist, I photograph slices of organs and I am content with what I have.

06-05-2015, 08:41 AM	#39
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,449	Originally posted by Driline Well you gotta look at it this way as well. If the FA 31 was equal or no better than the DA 35 2.4 or the FA 35 2.0 or the 35 macro, then why are people willing to pay 5 times more for it? Are they a bunch of clueless numbnuts? Maybe? I've had the the el cheapo plastic fantastic DA 35 2.4, and while it was a nice capable lens, compared to the FA 31 it was clinical, flat and boring. I've since given it to my brother. I'll keep the FA 31 Thankyou And that's exactly it... at some point you have to let go of your way of looking at things, and try and see what the other guys are seeing. My 35 2.4 is a nice sharp lens and looks good on the test charts, but we're talking about selling it. We just never use it. 31 images on the other hand tend to be the opposite. It's better than it's test chart scores. But there's a message here. If so many good photographers like the 31 and you don't, they're seeing something you're not seeing. To me, it's the way it handles sharp to out of focus transitions and out of focus areas. I remember a while a go some guy posted a thread where he shot the 31 against some other lens, Sigma 30, someone's 28 or something, and was crowing about how they were virtually the same. I was looking at the same images he was, and I didn't think they were at all the same. It wasn't that the difference wasn't there, it was that he wasn't seeing it. Lenses of that quality tend to excel at the little things, usually they aren't things that hit you over the head with a bat. Although sometimes the stars align and they do (hit you over the head with a bat.) But I can also just say, if you don't like it forget it and send it back. It does something special, but whether or not that something special is something you are going to like is a personal decision. The other question is, is your lens aligned properly? I'm not convinced by your description that it doesn't need to be sent back for adjustment. A new lens always puts you through the wringer, "do I have a good copy, why don't my images taken with it look better? should I send it back for adjustment? should I ask for an exchange?" all the stuff hits you all at once, and you just spin for a while. And first impressions don't always last.

06-05-2015, 08:59 AM	#40
thomasp New Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 7	Originally posted by knightzerox The 20-40 I had originally wanted may not be the best in lowlight either as it is usually at f4 for most of the range, but it may be more viable? well, 20-40 is not at F4 for most of it's range. it stays at 2.8 till 24mm, then goes to 3.5 until about 34mm. only from then on it's on F4. i bought it for my K3 to have a reasonably wide angle lens that isn't some oversized monster. it does the job well. using it mostly up until about 30mm. i have the 40mm pancake to deal with the narrow end.

06-05-2015, 09:24 AM - 2 Likes	#41
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	My FA31 at f2 https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/3416/84073594.2d/0_1ad9b7_bb646fc0_orig is it a bad?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2015, 09:29 AM - 1 Like	#42
Franc Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Hoevelaken Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,211	Originally posted by ogl My FA31 at f2 https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/3416/84073594.2d/0_1ad9b7_bb646fc0_orig is it a bad? yes it is, i now want to have that lens! oh dear, i already have it nice shot!!

06-05-2015, 09:31 AM	#43
todd Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,789	Originally posted by knightzerox As an update, whether the stars aligned or not, I'm just curious, but are you using any extra hood, or just the built in? And does the front end/element of your copy have any wobble to it?

06-05-2015, 09:40 AM	#44
knightzerox Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 220 Original Poster	Originally posted by todd I'm just curious, but are you using any extra hood, or just the built in? And does the front end/element of your copy have any wobble to it? I'm using only the built in. I haven't noticed any wobble in the front element? Is there a test for this?

06-05-2015, 09:41 AM	#45
narual Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: South Bend (Notre Dame), Indiana Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,988	Originally posted by pathdoc I have the 35 macro for work, and a flat clinical image is important here. Whether it renders the right image for those seeking slices of life is a highly individual matter. As a pathologist, I photograph slices of organs and I am content with what I have. But... but... think of the bokeh! Buttery soft insert florid adjectives here bokeh might just cure whatever problems those organs have! I'm not super thrilled with my 31mm either. I loved my nikon 35/1.8 and it was $200. It was the only lens I used on my honeymoon (granted, this is because I tripped while hiking back up from a waterfall on our first day and smashed the superzoom I'd brought with me). Some of my favorite photos I've ever taken were with that lens. I bought the 31mm last fall hoping it would give me a similar experience. I've taken a bit less than 900 photos with it since then, and about 60 of them are flagged as keepers in lightroom, and there are only 2 or 3 of those that I look at and think "yeah, I really like that photo!" But I'm sure a large part of that is simply time on camera. When I was on Nikon, I had a superzoom, an ultra wide, and the 35/1.8 prime. It was my best quality lens. I have a lot of nice Pentax lenses, and when I reach for one to take with me, it's usually the 50-135. If I bring a second, it's usually the 15mm ltd. I bought the 31 and 77 with the idea that I'd use them with the 15mm, 1 in each pocket and 1 on the camera, but somehow that hasn't happened more than a couple times.