Originally posted by elho_cid Basically the main improvement of the FA 31 over FA 35 is that it fixes the hexagonal features in bokeh.
Thanks I didn't know this, but probably not so relevant for my usage.
---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 08:54 PM ----------
Originally posted by Na Horuk Part of this is the macro design. (Most) macro primes have a flat field of focus (not curved), with a very good sharpness even in the edges, and a lot of optic corrections. DFA 100mm macro is similar to DFA 50mm macro in that regard. DA 35mm f2.8 macro, as well; but this one is mostly for APSC. Don't know about FA 35mm f2, though the DA 35mm f2.4 (which is based on the FA) is pretty sharp and has decent corners. The FA is probably just as good, if not better, than the DA 35mm f2.4.
Thanks. I have the 100, so with the 50 and possibly the 35, this is/might be my prime set. Take your point about the macro design. I was wondering if the FA 35 was a similar design to the DA version, and thus a macro in disguise.
---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 08:55 PM ----------
Originally posted by UncleVanya Film era reviews on full frame of the FA 35 and FA 31 suggest the 35 is sharper across the frame earlier (wide open) and the FA 31 is sharper in the center stopped down a little. I have only used these two on crop so I can't confirm this as gospel on full frame but I can confirm there isn't much to complain about on either lens on crop.
Thanks I'll take a look ...
---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 08:59 PM ----------
Originally posted by repaap I like my FA 35 on K-1...it is not sharp WO from edge to edge as others said. But it is surprisingly good. If you stop it down little a bit it is really good, but what one might find disturbing is hexagonal bokeh. That would be my only complain now when I have got used to its FoV. Stopped down to f 8 or more, it is really sharp and detailed. Have to shoot WO to get rid of hexagons, is little compromising that I want to do, but then I sacrifice edges. If I'd have more money, I'd put it towards FA 31 to get my 3 amigos complete and get that smooth blurr...but that is quite a much money. Just my 2 cents.
Another note about the bokeh ... noted. As a landscaper I rarely find I notce the bokeh anyway. I sometimes use wide apertures if I'm doing intimate landscape styles, but don't really fret about the bokeh quality. Maybe I should look more closely ...Thanks.
---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 09:00 PM ----------
Originally posted by npc The FA35 is OK, but not as uniformly sharp across the frame as the FA50 macro. The sigma art 35 1.4 and even Samyang/Rokinon 35 1.4 are closer to FA50 macro as far as sharpness is concerned, but both are quite huge.
Noted. The size is an issue. I came from the DA limiteds and have struggled with the big 24-70, so a big prime is not to my taste. Again a reference to how good the 50 is. Thanks.
---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 09:02 PM ----------
Originally posted by stevebrot I can provide a recent "film era" review of the FA 35/2. The lens is a little soft in the corners wide open on 35mm film, but not so much so as the "fast 50s" on my shelf. It was priced and marketed as a premium offering when it was released and the performance confirms that placement. After several years of ownership, my only complaints are the eventual loose fit of the dedicated hood (due to wear of the plastic bayonet) and the design of the rubber focus grip that makes manual focus a little difficult when the hood is mounted.
Steve
It's getting some good, poitive comments. Thanks Steve all input helps