[arv]

A lens that has awful curvature and distortion outside the 60% crop box for $1000? This is what I expect of a lens that costs 20% that much. You might say "Well, just don't put stuff in those parts of the frame, then!" This, of course, entirely defeats the entire point of a wide-angle lens. If I can jam everything into the 60% middle box, which is an equivalent FoV to a ~50mm lens on FF, then I would just use a 50-55mm lens on the K-1!

Indeed, as Sandy states, that is the volume deformation, correctable with DXO ViewPoint (see the tutorial).
A.

[normhead]

Indeed, as Sandy states, that is the volume deformation, correctable with DXO ViewPoint (see the tutorial).
A.

With my Sigma 8-16 also rectilinear, if there are people in the image they have to be in the centre of the image, where they look at all and skinny, at the edges, they are short little fat people. My wife won't even let me take a picture of her with it unless she's close to the centre of the frame.

These lenses are hazardous to your well being. Tess stands over me and makes sure any short fat Tess's are deleted, or I'd post examples.

I note that the Sigma 8-16 is now over $1000 CAD as well. It's big thing? It's corrected down to 12mm, which is pretty impressive. Really impressive for buildings. Not so much for portraits. Maybe it's the 31's rep that is the problem here. If you just think "the 31 is a great lens" without checking what people use it for, you may have bought the wrong lens.

My first rule of the review section, is find someone who shots what you shoot. Find out what pictures look like what you want to shoot, buy that lens. Looking at a few 31 images used a group portrait lens might have saved some again here. SO my advice would be , back up, use a 50, or back up even more and use a 70.

But folks who do this kind of shooting on a regular basis probably have better ideas. It's definitely a known issue. When I do group beach shots etc, of my camping buddies, you can see Tess weaselling her way to the centre of the frame, by nook or by crook. It doesn't matter what lens I'm using , she doesn't take chances.Pity the should who get's in her way.

Her refrain is "What kind of photographer are you? You knew that was going to make me look short and fat."
I set of shrug and say " I was thinking about other things."

If you are shooting people, don't imagine for a second this kind of thing won't be taken personally.

You will be hated.

If shooting wide angle, that thing about not having your subject in the centre of the frame? Corp in post. Don't shoot that way.

[bdery]

How does the 43 compare to the 31? Is the rendering the same?

Comparable, if not identical. The 43 is a purely "normal" lens, less prone to distortion (simply because it's not as wide) but also less sharp in the corners. It's better at starbursts, smaller, and (on the K-1) since I own it it's become my most-used lens.

[pentaxfall]

The FA31 has massively glaring weaknesses on a FF camera and displays significant curvature distortion past the 1/3 boxes of the frame on both sides. For the high price tag, it should be a lot better. Let's start with an example:

Thanks for illustrations. I know wide angle lenses by nature skew the image but did not know the degree of it. I was planning to buy 31mm just for the sake of panorama. I was debating between 31mm and 35mm. I will drop 31mm from the list and focus on FA 35mm.

[bdery]

Thanks for illustrations. I know wide angle lenses by nature skew the image but did not know the degree of it. I was planning to buy 31mm just for the sake of panorama. I was debating between 31mm and 35mm. I will drop 31mm from the list and focus on FA 35mm.

You will get, more or less, the same kind of results with any wide lens. It's not something unique to the 31, and it gets worse as you go wider. For landscapes it's not a true problem.

[bdery]

Thanks for illustrations. I know wide angle lenses by nature skew the image but did not know the degree of it. I was planning to buy 31mm just for the sake of panorama. I was debating between 31mm and 35mm. I will drop 31mm from the list and focus on FA 35mm.

You will get, more or less, the same kind of results with any wide lens. It's not something unique to the 31, and it gets worse as you go wider. For landscapes it's not a true problem.

[normhead]

On APS-c photozone says

The Pentax SMC FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited exhibits only slight barrel distortion (~0.8%) which shouldn't be really field relevant.

I guess you guy are saying it's worse on FF.

For the 35 macro
The lens shows a slight degree of barrel distortion (0.4%) which is not overly field relevant.

So if you want a flat line for stitching the macro should be better, although the APS-c numbers are quite good for either.

For example at 24mm, the DA 18-55 has barrel distortion of 0.5% at 28mm, That would mean the 18-55 has less barrel distortion than the 31 ltd.

The best option for sticking i clearly the 35 macro, if that's what you're after.

[pentaxfall]

The best option for sticking i clearly the 35 macro, if that's what you're after.

I will be using K1. I think DA lens may vignette on K1.

For landscapes it's not a true problem.

My panoramas are mostly landscape. Stitching will take 15% on either side. I have seen landscapes shot using 31mm and they do not show distortion.



I have been using longer focal length for Panoramas. Usually 100mm macro or DFA 70-200mm. Too many frames leads to buffering problem when Panorama and HDR are combined. Additionally, 31mm in portaite mode
may help squeeze two rows in to one frame. I already have trusty FA 50mm Macro. I may go with 31mm because it will achieve the purpose of reducing frames. I do not have any limited lens. and want to buy one before Pentax stops making them :-)

[Bophoto]

Wide angles provide such fat people. For about 40 years, I have reacted negatively to newspapers photos with several people, but they don´t care.
If you are going to take a group picture and can not backwards, think about using a fish-eye instead.
Google:
http://www.dxo.com/sites/dump.dxo.com/files/dxoimages/photo/academy/tutorial...ion/fig-01.jpg
Fish-eye group picture don´t get fat people: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GjT92.jpg

[worleyg]

What are people's opinion of the old pentax-a 35mm f2 versus the da 35mm limited, is there much difference bar the auto focus

[aslyfox]

What are people's opinion of the old pentax-a 35mm f2 versus the da 35mm limited, is there much difference bar the auto focus

Go up to " Lenses " above and you can read reviews for those lenses

The DA has either SMC coating or the newer HD coating

[mikesbike]

The DA 35mm f/2.8 macro and the FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited are very different. The former is primarily designed for macro use, with other uses secondarily. A 35mm lens on APS-C is virtually the same FOV as a 50mm lens on a FF body, which is the traditional "normal" prime lens. But f/2.8 is not the aperture of the traditional "normal" 50mm prime lens, which is a fast prime of at least f/2 or greater.

The FA 31mm is closer to true normal on APS-C, which is 28mm, and thus will get more into the frame for greater versatility of use than a 35mm lens. Its greater f/1.8 aperture will afford more aperture capability for obtaining a shallower DOF, and for low light use and higher shutter speed. Its perspective for scenic shots will have an impression of more depth and dimensionality. However, if you want the FOV and capabilities of a classic fast 50mm prime on a FF body, the FA 35mm f/2 is the way to go, and it is a wide angle FF lens in case you will go into a FF body, or 35mm film use in the future.

[halimj7]

The DA 35mm f/2.8 macro and the FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited are very different. The former is primarily designed for macro use, with other uses secondarily. A 35mm lens on APS-C is virtually the same FOV as a 50mm lens on a FF body, which is the traditional "normal" prime lens. But f/2.8 is not the aperture of the traditional "normal" 50mm prime lens, which is a fast prime of at least f/2 or greater.

The FA 31mm is closer to true normal on APS-C, which is 28mm, and thus will get more into the frame for greater versatility of use than a 35mm lens. Its greater f/1.8 aperture will afford more aperture capability for obtaining a shallower DOF, and for low light use and higher shutter speed. Its perspective for scenic shots will have an impression of more depth and dimensionality. However, if you want the FOV and capabilities of a classic fast 50mm prime on a FF body, the FA 35mm f/2 is the way to go, and it is a wide angle FF lens in case you will go into a FF body, or 35mm film use in the future.

Thanks for all the info. The quality that seems more appealing to me is the famed unique and beautiful rendering of the 31mm. Is it really all that unique as far as rendering goes or is the high price mostly a result of the build quality and hype? Thanks.

[mikesbike]

I have the FA 43mm and FA 77mm Limiteds, but not the FA 31mm. However, all the images I have seen posted from it indicate exceptional rendering. A fast wide angle lens will always be much more expensive than a fast mid-FL lens. It will also usually be fairly bulky and hefty. The superb build quality, and its unusual compactness for a fast wide-angle lens, make it even more costly. It will present a greater, deeper front-to-back perspective, more on a FF body, but even on APS-C bodies, than will a 35mm or a 50mm lens. It is close to the accurate perspective of a 28mm lens on APS-C, which is the equivalent of the FA 43mm LTD on a FF body, but try finding an optically good, fast 28mm lens that is compact and well-built, for stand-in use on APS-C, comparable to the FA 43mm on a FF body! So the FA 31mm makes sense, and also offers true wide-angle use if going to a FF body.

[aslyfox]

you can collect opinions as much as you want

but

the key is what you want, what you will be happy with and what you can afford

only you can decide that

and your choice will be correct for you and your needs