[racingsnake]

Oh my, that first portrait is a winner.

Thanks a lot. The light coming through that window was just perfect.
I’ve got more photos if the OP is still not convinced one way or the other.

[racingsnake]

more from the 31
i find it to be very comfortable as a walkaround lens despite its focal length

[BruceBanner]

Thanks a lot. The light coming through that window was just perfect.
I’ve got more photos if the OP is still not convinced one way or the other.

Keep 'em coming for sure!

I still think I like the sharpness and the intenseness of the 35@1.4, those shots are truly breathtaking when nailed. I sometimes wonder that the 31/1.8 can look a tad soft at times and I wonder if that is user error, the lens or just the incredibly difficult nature of nailing 1.8 properly. I know with my FA77 for example it's hard to land 1.8 absolutely perfectly right, but when it does it's super sharp.

[racingsnake]

Keep 'em coming for sure!



I still think I like the sharpness and the intenseness of the 35@1.4, those shots are truly breathtaking when nailed. I sometimes wonder that the 31/1.8 can look a tad soft at times and I wonder if that is user error, the lens or just the incredibly difficult nature of nailing 1.8 properly. I know with my FA77 for example it's hard to land 1.8 absolutely perfectly right, but when it does it's super sharp.

I find the focusing speed of the 35 much faster but accuracy is where it lacks. The 31 I’ve got needed +2 correction on my K-1 but once dialed in it is spot on.

[englishphotographer]

Hello Brother,

You'd be hard-pressed to actually distinguish the image quality between either lens, even when compared side by side. The focal length difference and particularly the possibilities of f1.4 vs f1.8 are what you'll actually notice. But, the Sigma is definitely a lot bigger and heavier, especially with the hood. It doesn't feel as good either, the 31mm is like a precision jewel. But the AF is noisy vs the Sigma's silent AF and manual override. If you've got the 77mm already, it would be nice to have the 31mm. But I think it's overpriced because it was a good standard lens for APSc.

Anyway here's a K1 DNG with the Sigma 35mm just to have a look at the quality...

K1__9783.DNG - Google Drive



Shot Click | Smarter

[BruceBanner]

Hello Brother,

You'd be hard-pressed to actually distinguish the image quality between either lens, even when compared side by side. The focal length difference and particularly the possibilities of f1.4 vs f1.8 are what you'll actually notice. But, the Sigma is definitely a lot bigger and heavier, especially with the hood. It doesn't feel as good either, the 31mm is like a precision jewel. But the AF is noisy vs the Sigma's silent AF and manual override. If you've got the 77mm already, it would be nice to have the 31mm. But I think it's overpriced because it was a good standard lens for APSc.

Anyway here's a K1 DNG with the Sigma 35mm just to have a look at the quality...

K1__9783.DNG - Google Drive



Shot Click | Smarter

So far I feel as though I can guess pretty well which picture comes from which lens, especially the wide open ones. You get way more pop and sharpness from the Sigma, the 31 is still respectable but feels a tad softer with those wide open shots. I bet I would find it a different battle altogether to tell them apart when they are stopped down a lot more (like f4 onwards).

There is part of me that wants to collect the three magic FA limited lenses, but I have to say I can't help feeling that they're all pretty over priced somewhat. I mean... the FA77 commands that price tag because it's also has a bit of a monopoly on that focal range and aperture, the FA85/1.4 cannot be bought new, and so it has a strong footing (I mean what else is there on the market that you can buy similarly new at that fl range?!).
The 43/1.9 is close to a nifty fifty of which we have far more options, so it feels a little overpriced considering there are a few more options to buy even new at that FL. And to a certain degree the 31/1.8 also has some still competition like the 43/1.9...

I think much of the price is down to the compactness of the lenses, which is kinda fair enough, but I would have really liked to have seen more features packed into them such as Quick Shift or perhaps a quieter focus.

My heart is leaning towards the 31/1.8 but my head says 35/1.4 (and just tolerate the weight and bulk).

[englishphotographer]

Have you considered the Zeiss 35mm? I've not tried it and it's manual focus but apparently it's an excellent performer. All of them aren't that easy to find anyway so it might be a case of what's available at the best price near you. I'd love the 77mm, my friend who worked for Pentax had an amazing copy that he outright refused to sell!

[leekil]

And to a certain degree the 31/1.8 also has some still competition like the 43/1.9...

I wouldn't say they are in competition; the focal lengths are significantly different. It's 70° vs. 53° FOV, similar to the difference between 50mm and 35mm.

[BruceBanner]

Have you considered the Zeiss 35mm? I've not tried it and it's manual focus but apparently it's an excellent performer. All of them aren't that easy to find anyway so it might be a case of what's available at the best price near you. I'd love the 77mm, my friend who worked for Pentax had an amazing copy that he outright refused to sell!

Nah, not interested in manual focus at this time, not because I can't manual focus (my friend on the weekend actually laughed at me because I use manual focus with my FA77 more than in auto focus mode, heh), and I used to own a Samyang 85/1.4 that I too got satisfying results with (and I have a Tenpa 1.22 to assist with all of that).... but... I actually find nailing wide open shots on wide angle lenses far far harder than doing the same with longer focal lengths :/

I sold about 4 lenses to afford the 77, so it wasn't a decision I made lightly. I was very happy with the Samyang 85, but there were a few sessions where AF was absolutely necessary, and not having something of a similar focal length and aperture to fall back on (with AF) really started to hurt. The 85 was also quite large (especially with the hood), so I made the choice to switch and clear some shelf space at the same time, perhaps downgrade on IQ/immense DoF shenanigans, but gain a smaller lighter prime with AF (albeit noisy), started to make more sense.
So far I feel I made the right decision, quite happy with it.

I wouldn't say they are in competition; the focal lengths are significantly different. It's 70° vs. 53° FOV, similar to the difference between 50mm and 35mm.

I must have been high when I said that. hehe. Nah, but in all honesty I have seen some similar resolving portrait images done with both the 43 and 31, I'll go find them...

k.. 2mins later I found them xD

All credit goes to Ireneusz Ciejka, fantastic shots I think you'll all agree.

FA77@1.8



FA43@1.9



FA31@1.8


Now if I was to comment on these shots (which I will hehe), I would say this. The FA77 is the strongest 'portrait' shot of the lot, the most profound bokeh and the subject gets all the attention (as you would hope with a portrait shot). However, the context of where the boy is being snapped at is a little more vague, pay attention to the building and how much we see of it and now look at the other two shots.

To my mind there isn't a massive difference between the 43 and 31, both give pleasing 'context' portrait shots with clearer (less pronounced) bokeh along with the wider FoV so that you can absorb more of the surroundings of where the lad is (compared to the 77).

Now look between the 43 and 31 more closely... ask yourself... was stepping back a bit to take the 43 shot (compared to taking the 31) and losing some of the building in the shot really worth what is basically twice the price of the 43? That's kinda where I'm at with this process. I mean I like the 31 shot more, but twice the price over a FA43 more? Hmm...

[leekil]

Now look between the 43 and 31 more closely... ask yourself... was stepping back a bit to take the 43 shot (compared to taking the 31) and losing some of the building in the shot really worth what is basically twice the price of the 43? That's kinda where I'm at with this process. I mean I like the 31 shot more, but twice the price over a FA43 more? Hmm...

The bokeh on the 31 is better than on the 43, in my experience, though it may vary depending on distance of the background. I like the 31 better for general image quality, I feel it edges out the 43, but I often use the 43 simply to have a smaller & lighter lens on FF.

Suer, you can step back to get a similar image with the 43, assuming you can step back. I personally have a lot of situations where I can't step back and specifically need the wider field of view of the 31. If you could always step back, then there wouldn't be any need to get the 77, 43, and 31, would there?

[BruceBanner]

The bokeh on the 31 is better than on the 43, in my experience, though it may vary depending on distance of the background. I like the 31 better for general image quality, I feel it edges out the 43, but I often use the 43 simply to have a smaller & lighter lens on FF.

Suer, you can step back to get a similar image with the 43, assuming you can step back. I personally have a lot of situations where I can't step back and specifically need the wider field of view of the 31. If you could always step back, then there wouldn't be any need to get the 77, 43, and 31, would there?

No truer word spoken

I currently have a FA77, Lensbaby 56 and a HD DA 35 Macro (that I feel works adequately on a K-1), I step down from the FA77 to the 35 when I run out of room. On a 'job' I would have the 35 on the KP on for quicker FoV change (keeping the 77 on the K1). But as Sandy points out the 35 macro on the FF isn't 'quite' fully FF so it would be nice to get that focal range properly satisfied on the K-1, but also the Lensbaby is only MF, and so getting AF at around the 50 mark is also not entirely silly (wink wink nudge nudge 43 ).

[englishphotographer]

If you could always step back, then there wouldn't be any need to get the 77, 43, and 31, would there?

I tend to think of focal length as changing perspective, not framing! My feet change the framing, if I can step back. Hollywood used to check which focal length most flattered an actor/actress' face because of the way that their features are rendered.

[leekil]

I tend to think of focal length as changing perspective, not framing! My feet change the framing, if I can step back.

Again, as you say, *if* you can step back. Different focal lengths will change the framing choices if you are comparing them at the same distance from the subject.

[racingsnake]

Landscape with the 35

[angerdan]

Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art had to go, i'd fall for the FA 31 only
The D FA* 50mm is an awesome lens, doesn't matter Sigma abandoned the K-mount for this.