[Sandy Hancock]

I currently have two copies of the FA31 because I found a MIJ silver one but haven't gotten around to selling my AIV black one. They are both equally wonderful.

Having said that, with the quite capable 35/2.4 already in your bag I reckon you'd be better served with the FA77. It makes a very fine landscaper, it's considerably cheaper, and would compliment your fast fifty nicely for portraiture if you do that sort of stuff.

But it seems inevitable you'll get a FA31 eventually

[onggie]

So I was in a similar bind a few months ago. I was eyeing the 35mm Sigma Art. The only thing holding me back was;
- I was mostly using zoom lens
- Art is quite big and heavy
- 35mm on crop (K-3) isn't 35mm

So I went to Japan packed with only the 35mm and 50mm plastic fantastic lens. I found my self only using the 35mm and that still being to narrow. In Japan I had the chance to go into BIC Camera and try the Sigma 35mm

[Paul the Sunman]

For an APS-C optimized lens, even taking the f/1.8 aperture into account the Sigma lens is massive. Twice the size,twice the weight, three times the mass.

I'm pretty sure that if it's twice the weight, then it's also twice the mass ... assuming you are comparing in the same gravitational field.

[Sandy Hancock]

Oh yeah. Obligatory FA31 porn:

[onggie]

I love landscape shots, that last one with the sun poking through. Awesome!!!

[Andrea K]

With old limited lenses the focal length is the last data to make a decision to buy or not...

[savoche]

My fears are:
* I will never use the DAL35 again. (god, it's fantastic!)
* I can't tell the difference.
* It's just a bad case of LBA

* It's very probable you won't. In my case it was the FA43 that "killed" my DA35, but getting the FA31 didn't help...
* For a lot of shots you won't
* Of course it is!

I need the K-1, right?

Definitely.

Unlike most people I didn't really connect with the FA31 on APS-C. Yes, it worked well, but I rarely used it (usually bringing DA15, FA43, DA70 with me instead). After I got the K-1 the 31 suddenly made sense. Now I wouldn't want to be without its magic.

But yeah, I haven't used the DA35 in ages. Despite it being a nice lens.

Oh, and if you're set on the FA31 you might as well go for it. Anything else you buy in the same range will be a waste of money since you'll end up getting the 31 at some point anyway

[clackers]

R3nx, for various reasons (not great in retrospect), I've ended up with the DA35, the FA 35, the Sigma 35mm Art and the FA31 Ltd.

The economically fiscal thing for you to do is to keep your 'Plastic Fantastic' and add the FA77 so you've got two classy lenses, cheaper than the FA31 itself.

A compromise thing to do is to sell the DA35 and get the FA35, since it's a little faster, and a little sharper, but like the DA35, lacks those nine aperture blades that produce such beautiful bokeh with the Limited.

The Sigma is sharper than all of them, if you're a measurebator, and reasonably priced, too.

So, never mind the common sense, what does your heart tell you?

[Digitalis]

if it's twice the weight, then it's also twice the mass

i'm not touching that one..

[Rondec]

The FA 31 is a really nice lens. I echo others concerns that maybe it isn't the focal length that needs attention most in your line up. I guess the other question is whether you are planning to get a full frame camera down the road. If you are, then the FA 31 is a no-brainer. It's a really nice wide angle, fast but still small, very well built lens. You won't find that set of attributes in most lens line ups. But of course it is quite expensive. And on APS-C it ends up being a 50-ish mm equivalent lens -- still usable for landscapes, but not as attractive to me as lenses in the 15-20mm range.

Fence Post in the Snow (FA 31 limited)



(flickr link: Fence Post in the Snow | Vincent1825 | Flickr)

Horse at Dawn (with FA 31 limited)



(flickr link: Horse at Dawn | Vincent1825 | Flickr)

[pathdoc]

I found this place because I decided to do last minute review reading on the Sigma 18-35/1.8 before buying it sight-unseen. That's when I learned of the horrible problems a VERY high proportion of users were having with focus being off.

Twice I have had the opportunity to buy the FA31; twice I turned it down (the second at what I later learned was a stupidly low price; fool me).

But now my kids are doing concerts here and performances there... and with a K-1 in my arsenal, it's beginning to look like my next lens will have to be the DFA* 70-200/2.8; I finally found a use case for it. Or rather, it found me. That will finish my lens buying for quite some time.

[bdery]

The wife doesn't mind, I can afford it, but do I need it?

If the minister of finances approves the budget, spend it or it will be cut next year...

* I will never use the DAL35 again. (god, it's fantastic!)

What if you never use it again? Just sell it.

* I can't tell the difference.

You will.

* It's just a bad case of LBA

It is

Having tested thoroughly both lenses, I confirm that, as good as the 35 is, the 31 is leagues ahead except maybe for corner sharpness. The main difference concerns rendering, where the 31 is hard to beat, especially at that focal length (the 77 is the lens I would say renders even better).

If you want it and can afford it, it's money well spent, especially at that price.

[LensBeginner]

*snip*

But in having made the switch the gap in focal lengths between 31mm and 16mm isn't as big as it seems, and having that extra 8mm in wide angle coverage is a real boon.

*snip*

+1 on that... I routinely shoot a 10-20mm + 40m + 100mm kit on APS-C and it covers everything fine, without me feeling the need for narrower gaps.

[normhead]

I recently cleaned up my library getting ready for a new year. I currently have about 1100 files in my library, mostly favourite images from other years.

28mm images I have 59, 28mm or less I have 128, 31 mm I have 4, 31 or less 153, 35 or less 163. Of the 1100 images in my library, there are only 10 images that I would have taken with the 31 if I owned it. And that has always been the problem, much as I'd love to own it based on reputation, I take a very low percentage of my image with that focal length. The 1100 images represents the images I'd print given a chance over the last 4 years. Paying $1000 for the psiiblity of using it for 10 keepers is simply a little too outrageous for me to handle.

IN the absolute best scenario, where I leave home the 35 2.4 but bring the 40XS, I could have used the 31 for 33 usages with considerable cropping on at least a third of those images.

It's not like my 29-105 is failing me....












Really for 10 images I might have used it on if I had it with me it's a no brainer not to own it. Maybe for people who would use the lens sub ƒ2,8 it would be worth it. I take very few images like that. I have 12 images taken at less then ƒ2.8, all taken with the FA 50 1.7, but I also have the 35 2.4.

In short, I'd love to own the lens, but based on my possible usage, it's not even an issue.

[pathdoc]

it's twice the weight, then it's also twice the mass

Balance would affect "felt" weight.