smc P-FA 31mm F1.8 Wide Angle Lens

k100d · 10-01-2008, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by aleonx3

k100d, may I ask where do you get the 58mm non-flaring hood for the 31mm lens? I am looking for the one similar to the one you have in the picture; it looks good and ergonomically sound. Appreciate your help.

see my post here

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/33808-heliopan...ed-lenses.html

HermanLee · 10-01-2008, 03:18 PM

Hi Pirate. I can understand your frustration with 31Ltd. Sometimes I also wish that my 43Ltd also has a closer focus distance.
Oh well, I guess we can't have it all.
Until you mention that interesting T*25/2.8, hmm I wonder how it is compared to FA*24/2. Have you ever compared them?
I own the FA*24/2 but no T*25/2.8

I see in your signature that you have lots of Zeiss lenses. Do you happen to own the T*85? I know it's kinda new

but who knows, right?

Originally posted by thePiRaTE!!

Hi Herman. Its not the focal length specifically, its just that at 31mm, one has to draw quite close to the subject to really acquire strong seperation from its background. The FA31's minimum focus distance and scale of subject (1:6.25) are sort of modest compared to my new favored wider angle lens, the T*25/2.8. Its nearly a macro at 1:2.3, so I can create swirling bokeh scapes of small things, incredible close-ups and/or the good, flat field wide angle shots I'd counted on the 31 for, so it has replaced the FA in overall usefulness to me. I lose some night performance with the Distagon, but I don't shoot much in the dark anyways, hence the FA31 has taken a backseat for me, as good a lens as it is.

In fact, I've considered selling it (gasp!). I'd like to get the 60-250 for event shoots and the $ would be timely.

celetron · 10-13-2008, 02:11 AM

My opinion on DA35/2.8 Macro Ltd is that the lens rocks... Mind that there are some variations among copies due to unfortunate QC problems. I am very satisfied with my copy (actually I picked the best that came to Greece Pentax

and I tell you there was a difference between the copies...) I used to own 31,35 and now I have 35macro so my feeling is that 35 macro is somewhere between 31 and 35 but with 2 extra features. It has absolutely no CA and it is macro. I used it for macro and as all around lens and so far and I have to say that produced excellent images in both occasions... It produces images with that 3Dsh look but not as 3Dsh as 31 do. However, it is sharper than 31. In my opinion if you shoot B&W film 31 is the best you can get. But as long as it concerns the APS digital I think 35 macro wins hands down and especially if you count in the cost/performance ratio...

soccerjoe5 · 10-13-2008, 02:47 AM

argh i'm torn between the 35 and the 40

i want the 35 but i can get the 40 for half the price and it's also even less than half the size!

Blue · 10-22-2008, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

*Any* lens you ever see sold for *any* DSLR will list its true focal length. If you are interested in figuring out what the equivalent focal length length would be on film, you have to apply the crop factor yourself.

Then why does the Pentax software give an actual focal length for a lens and an equivalent one as well on the exif data for the DA 35mm ltd and DA55-300mm?

Miserere · 10-22-2008, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Blue

Then why does the Pentax software give an actual focal length for a lens and an equivalent one as well on the exif data for the DA 35mm ltd and DA55-300mm?

It gives the 35mm-equiv. length for every lens that has focal length recorded on the EXIF data.

The focal length is an intrinsic characteristic of the lens and has nothing to do with the camera it's mounted on. However, the size of the light-sensing surface (glass plate, film, CCD...) determines the field-of-view a particular focal length will provide. The larger the light-sensing surface, the wider the FoV. 50mm is "normal" on a 35mm camera, short telephoto on APS-C, and wide on medium format. Lenses designed specifically for APS-C cameras can be much smaller than those for medium format cameras because the image circle required for the former is much smaller than for the latter.

The reason camera makers give the 35mm-equiv. focal lengths is historical. When cropped sensor DSLRs first appeared on the market, camera makers wanted 35mm film photographers to know what FoV they were going to get when using their old lenses on their new DSLRs, and also what FoV they would get with the new designed-for-APS-C lenses in terms they were familiar with.

Blue · 10-22-2008, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Miserere

It gives the 35mm-equiv. length for every lens that has focal length recorded on the EXIF data.

The focal length is an intrinsic characteristic of the lens and has nothing to do with the camera it's mounted on. However, the size of the light-sensing surface (glass plate, film, CCD...) determines the field-of-view a particular focal length will provide. The larger the light-sensing surface, the wider the FoV. 50mm is "normal" on a 35mm camera, short telephoto on APS-C, and wide on medium format. Lenses designed specifically for APS-C cameras can be much smaller than those for medium format cameras because the image circle required for the former is much smaller than for the latter.

The reason camera makers give the 35mm-equiv. focal lengths is historical. When cropped sensor DSLRs first appeared on the market, camera makers wanted 35mm film photographers to know what FoV they were going to get when using their old lenses on their new DSLRs, and also what FoV they would get with the new designed-for-APS-C lenses in terms they were familiar with.

That's what I thought, but based on Marc's post, it sounds like he is saying that for example the Da 35mm ltd isn't 35mm compared to the smc-A 35mm regardless of the camera because it is mad for the APS-C dslr bodies.

Miserere · 10-22-2008, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Blue

That's what I thought, but based on Marc's post, it sounds like he is saying that for example the Da 35mm ltd isn't 35mm compared to the smc-A 35mm regardless of the camera because it is mad for the APS-C dslr bodies.

What Mark is saying is that you can't use the DA 35mm on a film body because the image circle doesn't cover the full 35mm film surface.

felix68 · 10-22-2008, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by k100d

however it is no doubt overpriced.
it's already excellent

But you do own it, don't you?

Mabey pricey or expensive is appropriate, not overpriced... I would argue that a C@non or Nik0n equivalent will cost you more, if you believe that they stack up.
I say get the FA31 if you can afford it, and be happy. If not, go sell blood or something until you can.

A while back I was planning to sell my PS3 to fund the FA31 but I got a windfall and didn't have to. If my 31 was stolen or broken today, I would grieve and then sell whatever was required to buy another.

felix68 · 10-22-2008, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Miserere

What Mark is saying is that you can't use the DA 35mm on a film body because the image circle doesn't cover the full 35mm film surface.

You can use DA lenses on film but most of them don't project an image to cover the entire negative, some do. That is to say that they vignette on film because they are designed to cover a smaller sensor. Just wanted to clarify that point.
You can always crop the negative and get exactly what you would have on an APS-C camera.

Lance B · 10-22-2008, 09:55 PM

Having both the FA31 and the DA35, I will say the following:
The FA31 is a tad sharper with slightly better bokeh.
The DA35 is a better all purpose lens due to its true macro capability.

I love the FA31, but I often find that I need something that focuses closer than the 300mm of the FA31 as I sometimes like to get in close.

The DA35 is still almost the standard FOV and allows you to get in nice and close.

There is not much to differentiate between the image quality, but the FA31 possibly has the edge overall, whereas the DA35 has the edge in useability.

Good luck with your choice, but I am sure you will not be disappointed with either.

tomtor · 10-22-2008, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by jacksonpritt

and that lets me get a little closer to my subject.

It is quite simple. If that part of your question is really important than get the DA35, otherwise the FA31 if money is not an issue.

I DO find the DA35 a very good allround lens as do many others (also people owning both the FA31 and DA35), you will not be disappointed.

joshmas · 10-26-2008, 02:10 PM

I'm looking to fill out my primes and pick up one of these 2 lenses next for my k10d.

I was wondering if anyone had experience with both the lenses and could guide me. I'd be looking to use this for about 50% portrait, and 50% landscape.

All help appreciated.

Best regards,

Josh

k100d · 10-26-2008, 02:27 PM

the FA31 is a stellar lens. if you can afford it, get that, otherwise if you need the speed, then the Sigma's the only way to go. if you want a different alternative to both, the Sigma 28 1.8 is not a bad lens either

there are some remarks here on the 30 1.4... i noted some sources of reviews in my comment in that thread too
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/40130-30-1-4-has-landed.html

ilya80 · 10-26-2008, 02:33 PM

Sigma 30mm / F1.4 can be a very nice lens if you pick the good unit. There are literally breath-taking samples out there at PBase. Resolution can be great if you take your time choosing the right piece, color rendition is very nice.

However Sigma quality varies greatly from piece to piece, and i cant emphasise this enough. One of my buddies got the bad one and its awfully soft wide open.

No online buys if you go for one.

10-22-2008, 03:41 PM	#219
felix68 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 281	Get the FA31 and be Happy! Originally posted by k100d however it is no doubt overpriced. it's already excellent But you do own it, don't you? Mabey pricey or expensive is appropriate, not overpriced... I would argue that a C@non or Nik0n equivalent will cost you more, if you believe that they stack up. I say get the FA31 if you can afford it, and be happy. If not, go sell blood or something until you can. A while back I was planning to sell my PS3 to fund the FA31 but I got a windfall and didn't have to. If my 31 was stolen or broken today, I would grieve and then sell whatever was required to buy another.

10-22-2008, 03:46 PM	#220
felix68 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 281	You Can Use It on Film Originally posted by Miserere What Mark is saying is that you can't use the DA 35mm on a film body because the image circle doesn't cover the full 35mm film surface. You can use DA lenses on film but most of them don't project an image to cover the entire negative, some do. That is to say that they vignette on film because they are designed to cover a smaller sensor. Just wanted to clarify that point. You can always crop the negative and get exactly what you would have on an APS-C camera.

10-26-2008, 02:10 PM	#223
joshmas New Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Wimberley TX Posts: 21	Pentax 31mm f1.8 or Sigma 30mm f1.4 I'm looking to fill out my primes and pick up one of these 2 lenses next for my k10d. I was wondering if anyone had experience with both the lenses and could guide me. I'd be looking to use this for about 50% portrait, and 50% landscape. All help appreciated. Best regards, Josh

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Wide Angle SMCP-FA 31mm f/1.8 AL Limited AF Lens - Black	MikeDubU	Sold Items	0	02-02-2009 02:17 PM
For Sale - Sold: SMC Pentax SMC P-FA 35mm F/2.0 AL Wide Angle Autofocus Lens - MINT	dimako	Sold Items	6	01-30-2009 02:04 AM
For Sale - Sold: For Sale: SMC Pentax SMC P-FA 35mm F/2.0 AL Wide Angle Autofocus Lens - MINT	dimako	Sold Items	0	08-12-2008 03:47 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax SMC A 24mm F2.8 24/2.8 Wide Angle Lens	frank	Sold Items	0	08-05-2007 12:58 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax SMC DA 14mm F2.8 14/2.8 Super Wide Angle Lens	frank	Sold Items	8	02-12-2007 07:10 PM

10-01-2008, 02:59 PM	#211
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	Originally posted by aleonx3 k100d, may I ask where do you get the 58mm non-flaring hood for the 31mm lens? I am looking for the one similar to the one you have in the picture; it looks good and ergonomically sound. Appreciate your help. see my post here https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/33808-heliopan...ed-lenses.html

10-01-2008, 03:18 PM	#212
HermanLee Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Southern California, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 729	Hi Pirate. I can understand your frustration with 31Ltd. Sometimes I also wish that my 43Ltd also has a closer focus distance. Oh well, I guess we can't have it all. Until you mention that interesting T25/2.8, hmm I wonder how it is compared to FA24/2. Have you ever compared them? I own the FA24/2 but no T25/2.8 I see in your signature that you have lots of Zeiss lenses. Do you happen to own the T85? I know it's kinda new but who knows, right? Originally posted by thePiRaTE!! Hi Herman. Its not the focal length specifically, its just that at 31mm, one has to draw quite close to the subject to really acquire strong seperation from its background. The FA31's minimum focus distance and scale of subject (1:6.25) are sort of modest compared to my new favored wider angle lens, the T25/2.8. Its nearly a macro at 1:2.3, so I can create swirling bokeh scapes of small things, incredible close-ups and/or the good, flat field wide angle shots I'd counted on the 31 for, so it has replaced the FA in overall usefulness to me. I lose some night performance with the Distagon, but I don't shoot much in the dark anyways, hence the FA31 has taken a backseat for me, as good a lens as it is. In fact, I've considered selling it (gasp!). I'd like to get the 60-250 for event shoots and the $ would be timely.

10-13-2008, 02:11 AM	#213
celetron Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Greece Photos: Albums Posts: 301	My opinion on DA35/2.8 Macro Ltd is that the lens rocks... Mind that there are some variations among copies due to unfortunate QC problems. I am very satisfied with my copy (actually I picked the best that came to Greece Pentax and I tell you there was a difference between the copies...) I used to own 31,35 and now I have 35macro so my feeling is that 35 macro is somewhere between 31 and 35 but with 2 extra features. It has absolutely no CA and it is macro. I used it for macro and as all around lens and so far and I have to say that produced excellent images in both occasions... It produces images with that 3Dsh look but not as 3Dsh as 31 do. However, it is sharper than 31. In my opinion if you shoot B&W film 31 is the best you can get. But as long as it concerns the APS digital I think 35 macro wins hands down and especially if you count in the cost/performance ratio...

10-13-2008, 02:47 AM	#214
soccerjoe5 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,343	argh i'm torn between the 35 and the 40 i want the 35 but i can get the 40 for half the price and it's also even less than half the size!

10-22-2008, 11:58 AM	#215
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Any lens you ever see sold for any DSLR will list its true focal length. If you are interested in figuring out what the equivalent focal length length would be on film, you have to apply the crop factor yourself. Then why does the Pentax software give an actual focal length for a lens and an equivalent one as well on the exif data for the DA 35mm ltd and DA55-300mm?

10-22-2008, 01:51 PM	#216
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	Originally posted by Blue Then why does the Pentax software give an actual focal length for a lens and an equivalent one as well on the exif data for the DA 35mm ltd and DA55-300mm? It gives the 35mm-equiv. length for every lens that has focal length recorded on the EXIF data. *The focal length is an intrinsic characteristic of the lens* and has nothing to do with the camera it's mounted on. However, the size of the light-sensing surface (glass plate, film, CCD...) determines the field-of-view a particular focal length will provide. The larger the light-sensing surface, the wider the FoV. 50mm is "normal" on a 35mm camera, short telephoto on APS-C, and wide on medium format. Lenses designed specifically for APS-C cameras can be much smaller than those for medium format cameras because the image circle required for the former is much smaller than for the latter. The reason camera makers give the 35mm-equiv. focal lengths is historical. When cropped sensor DSLRs first appeared on the market, camera makers wanted 35mm film photographers to know what FoV they were going to get when using their old lenses on their new DSLRs, and also what FoV they would get with the new designed-for-APS-C lenses in terms they were familiar with.

10-22-2008, 02:32 PM	#217
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Miserere It gives the 35mm-equiv. length for every lens that has focal length recorded on the EXIF data. *The focal length is an intrinsic characteristic of the lens* and has nothing to do with the camera it's mounted on. However, the size of the light-sensing surface (glass plate, film, CCD...) determines the field-of-view a particular focal length will provide. The larger the light-sensing surface, the wider the FoV. 50mm is "normal" on a 35mm camera, short telephoto on APS-C, and wide on medium format. Lenses designed specifically for APS-C cameras can be much smaller than those for medium format cameras because the image circle required for the former is much smaller than for the latter. The reason camera makers give the 35mm-equiv. focal lengths is historical. When cropped sensor DSLRs first appeared on the market, camera makers wanted 35mm film photographers to know what FoV they were going to get when using their old lenses on their new DSLRs, and also what FoV they would get with the new designed-for-APS-C lenses in terms they were familiar with. That's what I thought, but based on Marc's post, it sounds like he is saying that for example the Da 35mm ltd isn't 35mm compared to the smc-A 35mm regardless of the camera because it is mad for the APS-C dslr bodies.

10-22-2008, 03:33 PM	#218
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	Originally posted by Blue That's what I thought, but based on Marc's post, it sounds like he is saying that for example the Da 35mm ltd isn't 35mm compared to the smc-A 35mm regardless of the camera because it is mad for the APS-C dslr bodies. What Mark is saying is that you can't use the DA 35mm on a film body because the image circle doesn't cover the full 35mm film surface.

10-22-2008, 09:55 PM	#221
Lance B Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 593	Having both the FA31 and the DA35, I will say the following: The FA31 is a tad sharper with slightly better bokeh. The DA35 is a better all purpose lens due to its true macro capability. I love the FA31, but I often find that I need something that focuses closer than the 300mm of the FA31 as I sometimes like to get in close. The DA35 is still almost the standard FOV and allows you to get in nice and close. There is not much to differentiate between the image quality, but the FA31 possibly has the edge overall, whereas the DA35 has the edge in useability. Good luck with your choice, but I am sure you will not be disappointed with either.

10-22-2008, 10:03 PM	#222
tomtor Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Netherlands Posts: 382	Originally posted by jacksonpritt and that lets me get a little closer to my subject. It is quite simple. If that part of your question is really important than get the DA35, otherwise the FA31 if money is not an issue. I DO find the DA35 a very good allround lens as do many others (also people owning both the FA31 and DA35), you will not be disappointed.

10-26-2008, 02:27 PM	#224
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	the FA31 is a stellar lens. if you can afford it, get that, otherwise if you need the speed, then the Sigma's the only way to go. if you want a different alternative to both, the Sigma 28 1.8 is not a bad lens either there are some remarks here on the 30 1.4... i noted some sources of reviews in my comment in that thread too https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/40130-30-1-4-has-landed.html

10-26-2008, 02:33 PM	#225
ilya80 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia Photos: Albums Posts: 410	Sigma 30mm / F1.4 can be a very nice lens if you pick the good unit. There are literally breath-taking samples out there at PBase. Resolution can be great if you take your time choosing the right piece, color rendition is very nice. However Sigma quality varies greatly from piece to piece, and i cant emphasise this enough. One of my buddies got the bad one and its awfully soft wide open. No online buys if you go for one.