[Rondec]

Honestly I own both the FA 31 and FA 35. They are not that different in many situations. There are differences. The FA 35 is sharper at the same f stop across the frame. The 3d rendering is close but not quite the same. If my FA 35 had not been dropped and lost Autofocus I would probably sell my FA 31 since I am not using it as much as I should.

The biggest things I notice are that the colors on the FA 31 seem to pop a little more and the transitions from in focus to out of focus seem smoother with the the limited versus other lenses in that focal length. Overall the differences are small and if you are stopped down much probably they look good.

Now, the Sigma 30 f1.4 is a different story. It just has rough bokeh and the edges never seemed to sharpen up, even at f8.

[Munki]

The biggest things I notice are that the colors on the FA 31 seem to pop a little more and the transitions from in focus to out of focus seem smoother with the the limited versus other lenses in that focal length. Overall the differences are small and if you are stopped down much probably they look good.

Now, the Sigma 30 f1.4 is a different story. It just has rough bokeh and the edges never seemed to sharpen up, even at f8.

The Sigma 30 f1.4 was a great lens, in my opinion. I only sold it to declutter my ~30mm range of lenses. I took my favourite picture of my son on that lens, and I thought it rendered quite nicely too. Of course, it's no FA 31. :P

I've had different experiences with the FA 31 and 77 on APS-C and FF. The 77 was my favourite on my K-5, but the 31 is my favourite (so far) on the K-1.

[pschlute]

the FA 31 seem to pop a little more and the transitions from in focus to out of focus seem smoother with the the limited versus other lenses in that focal length

The transition from out-of-focus to in-focus is one of the defining features of the 31mm Ltd. No other lens I have used comes close. The pixie dust is alive and well in this lens.

[Digitalis]

I can't imagine parting with the FA31, FA77, DFA100WR or DA*300 ever.

Hey, you should try my Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

I suppose the answer is if you look at photos and can't really tell the difference then you should probably go for the cheaper lens.

No, no....that's the wrong answer! You buy them all!

[Sandy Hancock]

Hey, you should try my Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX

Pop up to Stirling anytime for a single malt and I'll give it a go. I suspect it will fail my "fits in the bag" test though

[monochrome]

Buying more expensive lenses than your skill justifies is analogous to a model railroad enthusiast buying $2,500 collectible brass locomotives when plastic would do just fine to drive around the layout. Some people like brass locos, and some people enjoy using fine lenses, even when the object isn’t making a better photograph.

[BarryE]

Buying more expensive lenses than your skill justifies is analogous to a model railroad enthusiast buying $2,500 collectible brass locomotives when plastic would do just fine to drive around the layout. Some people like brass locos, and some people enjoy using fine lenses, even when the object isn’t making a better photograph.

Not entirely fair, I feel. Buy an expensive lens and discover what it can do. The little nuances it offers may not be obvious at first, but with time it may help take you beyond what a poorer lens can achieve. I do agree with the train analogy, though. After all they just go round in circles, though some may chuff, chuff a little more impressively than others, I suppose. Still after a few laps, be it a plastic, brass, or quartz, or gold studded diamond loco I think I'd be a tad bored But that's just me - I'm probably just lacking in this area...

[Rondec]

Buying more expensive lenses than your skill justifies is analogous to a model railroad enthusiast buying $2,500 collectible brass locomotives when plastic would do just fine to drive around the layout. Some people like brass locos, and some people enjoy using fine lenses, even when the object isn’t making a better photograph.

Maybe.

It is a little different in that if you are committed to learning photography you can "grow into" expensive gear. You can actually end up spending more money by going with cheaper lenses if they don't satisfy you. I started with the DA 35 limited and moved to the Sigma 30 f1.4 and finished with the FA 31. I resold each lens when I moved on, but I still would probably have saved a couple of hundred dollars just by buying the FA 31 initially (not to mention that Hoya raised the FA 31 prices a bunch in that time too).

The bigger thing is that if you are a hobby photographer than definitely don't spend money that you can't afford on a hobby.

[cyberjunkie]

Fotnote: The FA77ltd, which didn't make it into the top 10 average ratings, uses the same optical design as the A*85, which made it into the top 10. They just tweaked focal length and speed slightly, which isn't a big loss, since the A*85/1.4 is soft wide .

I wouldn't be so sure.
Optical layout isn't everything.
Both lenses should have been made with Hoya optical glass. I don't know when Japan restricted the use of hazardous materials (like lead) in the industry. Could have been after Germany. It is possible that the A Star was calculated for the use of optical glass that was not available anymore when the Limiteds were designed. And even if not, it's very likely that the curvatures and the refractive index of the various elements differ in a significant way, one lens from the other.
The different size of the elements, and the important difference in speed (almost 1 stop) suggest a new project, based on new raytracing data.
Btw, an interesting test done on film long time ago showed that the 77 Ltd was kind of average, resolution wise. I think it was designed to have great rendition, not great charts.

I found the original post very interesting, it gives an idea of the taste of us Pentaxians, or at least of those who write reviews
I see there are many A Star lenses in the first ten. Of those I own, only the 2.8/200mm could possibly not deserve its rank. I would also demote the 30mm series K.
I love MF optics, so according to my taste I would give their place to the 1.2/50mm (either K or A) and the 2.2/85mm Soft Focus. Both are the perfect example of the kind of lenses that are not always appreciated because of misplaced expectations and lack of patience/technique/knowledge.

Cheers

Paolo

[normhead]

Buying more expensive lenses than your skill justifies is analogous to a model railroad enthusiast buying $2,500 collectible brass locomotives when plastic would do just fine to drive around the layout. Some people like brass locos, and some people enjoy using fine lenses, even when the object isn’t making a better photograph.

You have to buy one, just to know if you will make use of it. If it doesn't impress you, you can stop at one.

[Digitalis]

Both lenses should have been made with Hoya optical glass. I don't know when Japan restricted the use of hazardous materials (like lead) in the industry.

From what I understand of it the bodies that introduced these rules the World health organization and numerous recycling consortiums which issued directives the glass manufacturers - there was a "grace" period where optical manufacturers could seek out alternatives to using lead in their products - and there were allowances for manufactures of heavily leaded crystal glass [Waterford, Baccarat, Swarovski etc.] to stay in production.

Most lenses aren't made from one single manufacturers catalogue of glass types: Canon who make their own glass cannot make certain types of glass due to patent law, so even they outsource glass blanks or pre-shaped elements from other manufacturers. The directives issued that called for the reduction in lead content in optical glass were enacted in different countries at different times but they mostly center around the year 2003. I'd say Jun Hirakawa who designed the FA43 and with the FA77 he followed optical design aspects for the A*85mm f/1.4 but modernized them by using glass types that already had minimal use of lead*. I think Jun would have seen these directives coming and planned accordingly, like any good lens designer would do.

interesting test done on film long time ago showed that the 77 Ltd was kind of average, resolution wise. I think it was designed to have great rendition, not great charts.

I want citations on this. There may be a grain of truth to this the FA77 wasn't exactly designed with the express purpose of it being an apochromatic-800lp/mm-Lens-from-the-Gods. Jun Hirakawa had some very clear design goals he set out with and he accomplished them...and the resulting lens just happened to have very good MTF characteristics when stopped down, Jun didn't design the FA77 to produce good results on 2D MTF tests** he designed the FA77 to render 3D objects in a very specific way**.

* I have tested Multiple copies of the FA77mm f/1.8 Limited and the A*85mm f/1.4 on my optics bench, there are some subtle differences between them optically.
** If he wanted to, he could have produced a lens that would rival that of Zeiss..but he didn't.
*** I can't wait for Jun to write "Zen and the art of optical design". Reading his design notes on the FA43 and FA77 reveal a keen intellect and an interesting perspective on balancing varying aspects of optical design.

[gofour3]

The K30/2.8 and FA31/1.8 get mentioned a lot, however I prefer the slightly wider K28/2 of the three. The Pentax/Zeiss collaboration K28/2 is a classic and would be considered one of Pentax's best.

Phil.

[normhead]

** If he wanted to, he could have produced a lens that would rival that of Zeiss..but he didn't.

And conversely, if ZIess had wanted to produce a lens like the 77 ltd. they probably could have, but they didn't. Something that a few folks who worship Zeiss lenses should be slapped upside the head with. You can only buy the 77 from Pentax. People tend to push the ZIess as the better lens, when in fact, it's a different lens with different design parameters.

Since the inclusion of third party lenses in the forum competition, has even one Zeiss lens been used for a contest or competition winner? What does that say about Zeiss lenses? Is that a comment on the lenses or the people who use them? You'd think from the sound of people, that any image taken with a Zeiss lens would be a guaranteed wiinner.

[monochrome]

You have to buy one, just to know if you will make use of it. If it doesn't impress you, you can stop at one.

Or you can sell it and buy another expensive lens to see if that one impresses you.

Or you can just keep some of them and use them once in a while because you didn’t have things growing up and now you can.