[UncleVanya]

The aspheric element in the FA 31 Limited is visible in the out of focus areas in the right circumstances.


Generated from my Motorola o using tools.sportscard.trade

It appears as concentric circles.

[Johnny2shoes]

I also own the FA31, FA35 and FA43.

Its easy to obsess with details, of course, but all these lenses are capable of taking fantastic photos.

That out of the way lets obsess a bit. For me key factors are:
1. Focal length. What do you need and what do you prefer working with. I love the 35mm focal length on FF and is the main reason I still have a FA35. At the same time when I'm shoot wide landscapes 31mm is a good compromised between 35 and 28.
2. Bokeh rendering. The rendering of FA 35 is closer to the FA 31 than most (certainly me anyway) would like to admit. Where I see a difference in my test shots and field use is in the focus transition zones. I can't see it in your first FA31 test shot and I think possibly it may be because your focus point is nearer to the camera for the FA35 (which helps the background bokeh) than the FA31. Also sometimes with the 31 I can spot an affect a bit like a swirl (although nothing like the Helios 44-2). Even so they are pretty subtle differences.
3. Colour & contrast. Its hard to quantify but he colours on the FA31 are a little bit of step up on the FA35. Although PP can help with that
4. f1.8 versus f2.Yep its not a lot and apparent DOF is not much different than 35 f2 due to be a wider FOV. However filling the frame with the FA31 you often end up closer than you would with the FA35 and that helps with the bokeh. My point being if you are comparing FA31 to FA35, there is an argument that says the 31 should be at f1.8 and 35 at f2 in order to achieve similar DOF. In any case the f1.8 is a help in low light siturations
5. Build. No question the FA31 has it here and it also makes it a delight use.

I have shot the same subjects with the FA31 and FA35 and in some instances I prefer the FA35 (largely FOV related). However overall I have shot more photos I like with the FA31 than the 35 - partially due to subtle 31 qualities and partially that I'm using the 31 more because I enjoy using it more.

You (and others) have addressed what im trying to see in a manner that reflects the way i perceive and think when looking at images. In true fairness to the 31mm I think I need to own it and take real world photos and I'm starting to think that it won't conflict with also owning the fa35 as it will act as my true wide - when moving with it at my eye the distortion bend was much more wide angle than my 35mm which is more natural. Any wider and I have a sigma ex DG 12-24 (urban/landscape) for light weight the dfa15-30 beast for warped low light concert work.

I also see colour rendering differences that are very slight but indicative of the 31mm colour characteristic, in my test of the painting especially in the orange edges - the fa35 looks a little dirty/underexposed in the edges of the canvas while the 31 has a brighter,richer hue there and some more blue transitions in the centre purples but it's very slight and easily fixed in PP. But it indicates that in real life shots the details.

"I have shot the same subjects with the FA31 and FA35 and in some instances I prefer the FA35 (largely FOV related). However overall I have shot more photos I like with the FA31 than the 35 - partially due to subtle 31 qualities and partially that I'm using the 31 more because I enjoy using it more." - i think this may be true for me too.

So i think i will get the 31mm and If I don't like it- what am i saying, i do like it - if I don't use it much, i can sell it with seeming little loss. Not 100% sure but that's my inclination atm.

I guess now I'm wondering whether to get the 43 too. I didn't enjoy the MF feel as much - the focus ring was too tiny and close to the camera body and I have no problem with the plastic fa focus ring size/position (people seem to criticise this feature), it's out of the way and small because it spins with AF but it's forward enough to slide to when I want MF. I thought the FOV so close to the 35mm that it wasn't justifiable and they seemed to have similar sharpness at f2 (box with soft bag handle hanging out). But might make more sense when pairing I think 31mm + 35/43mm + fa50mm + 77mm/dfa100mmWR macro. So 28/35/50 or 31/43/50

The 43 doesn't compete with the 50mm FL, rather the 35mmFL to my eye - a tight 35mm. >46mm would be a wide 50mm (31mm on APSc FF eq46.5mm)

Thanks for posting. Thanks to all. I've read them all and it's a great help.

---------- Post added 11-02-19 at 04:15 PM ----------

The aspheric element in the FA 31 Limited is visible in the out of focus areas in the right circumstances.


Generated from my Motorola o using tools.sportscard.trade

It appears as concentric circles.

Thanks for this and the lamp images. I'm seeing subtle but useful things. I like that you can compose the bottom of the frame with the 31mm (presuming the wider images is a 31mm and the tighter FOV is the 35mm) as horizon or plateau which makes the wider a nicer composition when looking at the rear OOF lamp. Also the rendering of the OOF detail of the forward lamp stand and rear lamp bulb of the 31mm/wider shot - i dont mind painterly detail in OOF. I quite like it (Vis Art grad). Though the tighter image does have smoother/less detailed OOF to my eye. Both appeal.

[mikesbike]

I do not own nor have I used the FA 31mm Limited. However, I do own and have used both the FA 35mm f/2 and the FA 43mm f/1.9 LTD, mostly for FF use in the form of 35mm film.. As to the 31mm LTD, the way I see it, the 31mm focal length was decided upon with two factors in mind: 1. It is a good compromise for the old question of FL preference that was common among 35mm film users who were interested in a single versatile walk-around prime lens, and the main two camps that emerged were either for 28mm being best or for 35mm being best. 2. Lens size vs. aperture speed.

I belong to the latter. I juggle that preference with my 43mm LTD as a strong alternative. The "look" obtained using these FL lenses for the same subject matter, as others have said, has mainly to do with FL, and for good reasons- perspective, and also how much gets into the frame. The 43mm lens has the most accurate perspective. It will get more into the frame and will have a more 3-D "look" than will a 50mm FL, (we're talking FF use here) and it will be a very natural 3-D as the eye would see the scene. It is a true "normal" lens. The FA 35mm OTOH, will get more yet into the frame, as it is a moderate WA lens, and will thus produce a slightly exaggerated 3-D effect, but not overly so the way a 28mm lens would. So perspective with the 35mm lens will be not quite accurate, but fairly close.

That brings in the 31mm LTD. It is right in between the 28mm and the 35mm. Here we have yet more versatile capability to get more into the frame than the 35mm lens, but stretches perspective a bit more, a bit more exaggerated 3-D quality, but still not to the degree a 28mm lens would. Not as exaggerated. At the same time, if one laments not having a fine-quality fast 28mm lens (which would be rather large and heavy), the FA 31mm LTD is the answer Pentax came up with, while still being within the relatively compact concept of the Limited series. Getting good edge-to-edge sharpness in a WA FL, even wide open, is quite an accomplishment while keeping size and weight down in a premium-built lens.

I have no issue in owning both the FA 35mm f/2 and the FA 43mm f/1.9 LTD, because they are different, both in a good way. Depends on the need, and the effect I am looking for. Both are great as a compact walk-around prime, and so is the FA 31mm LTD, I am sure, when one wants a wider FOV and different perspective with its "look". I'd only go to my FA 28mm when I want to do some more expansive wide-angle shooting. I have often used it and it is a very good lens indeed for that, but for me a bit too wide for a walk around general use lens. And besides, that lens has only f/2.8 to offer, and does not even have a lens hood. A very good lens and can serve very well for WA shooting, but as noted is not really in the same league as the other three.

[kiwi_jono]

So i think i will get the 31mm and If I don't like it- what am i saying, i do like it - if I don't use it much, i can sell it with seeming little loss. Not 100% sure but that's my inclination atm.

I guess now I'm wondering whether to get the 43 too. I didn't enjoy the MF feel as much - the focus ring was too tiny and close to the camera body and I have no problem with the plastic fa focus ring size/position (people seem to criticise this feature), it's out of the way and small because it spins with AF but it's forward enough to slide to when I want MF. I thought the FOV so close to the 35mm that it wasn't justifiable and they seemed to have similar sharpness at f2 (box with soft bag handle hanging out). But might make more sense when pairing I think 31mm + 35/43mm + fa50mm + 77mm/dfa100mmWR macro. So 28/35/50 or 31/43/50

The 43 doesn't compete with the 50mm FL, rather the 35mmFL to my eye - a tight 35mm. >46mm would be a wide 50mm (31mm on APSc FF eq46.5mm)

The FA 31 is popular and seems to sell pretty well but also I don't think you will be disappointed with it (but your experience may differ from mine!). One other point on the 31, when I first got mine, I took lots of comparative shots at home and, excect for the build and usability, was a little underwhelmed by it. However after using it in the field for a while I'm very happy with it. I think a couple of things were going on with the home tests:
1. At that stage I probably didn't have the AF fine tune quite as good as I got it later. With a lens like this having accurate focus is particularly important.
2. Also I was trying to duplicate exactly the same scene first for the FA35, and then the FA31. This is a bit hard to convey but what "looked right" or the 35 was not how would normally compose for the 31 and so a disadvantage to the 31 in those tests.

Finally the FA43. Its a lens that some review sites seem to love to hate on and think this is partly due to some poorer copies in circulate and possibly a lot to do with the 43s character. The 43 does not prioritise corner to corner wide open sharpness as many modern fast 50s but never the less its usable wide open (sharpest in the center) and does have a nice character to it.
I should point out I got mine with limited (excuse the pun) expectations, but have been pleasantly surprised by it.
I carry mine everywhere - usually on my camera (initially anyway) as it a fantastic compromise:
* Size / weight. Small unobtrusive - does scare human subject away so much and so easy to carry. Takes up so little space in the bag - its aways there.
* Near enough to 50 for me - in fact slightly wider suits me.
* Good all round performer. Good bokeh, good sharpness (expect maybe corners wide open), low CA. Fast enough for most things.

I have a FA50 f1.4 as well, but have hardly used it since I got the FA 43. But maybe then I like thats its a little wider than 50. Granted the 43 is not the nicest to MF, but then the FA 50s worse.

[Johnny2shoes]

The FA 31 is popular and seems to sell pretty well but also I don't think you will be disappointed with it (but your experience may differ from mine!). One other point on the 31, when I first got mine, I took lots of comparative shots at home and, excect for the build and usability, was a little underwhelmed by it. However after using it in the field for a while I'm very happy with it. I think a couple of things were going on with the home tests:
1. At that stage I probably didn't have the AF fine tune quite as good as I got it later. With a lens like this having accurate focus is particularly important.
2. Also I was trying to duplicate exactly the same scene first for the FA35, and then the FA31. This is a bit hard to convey but what "looked right" or the 35 was not how would normally compose for the 31 and so a disadvantage to the 31 in those tests.

Finally the FA43. Its a lens that some review sites seem to love to hate on and think this is partly due to some poorer copies in circulate and possibly a lot to do with the 43s character. The 43 does not prioritise corner to corner wide open sharpness as many modern fast 50s but never the less its usable wide open (sharpest in the center) and does have a nice character to it.
I should point out I got mine with limited (excuse the pun) expectations, but have been pleasantly surprised by it.
I carry mine everywhere - usually on my camera (initially anyway) as it a fantastic compromise:
* Size / weight. Small unobtrusive - does scare human subject away so much and so easy to carry. Takes up so little space in the bag - its aways there.
* Near enough to 50 for me - in fact slightly wider suits me.
* Good all round performer. Good bokeh, good sharpness (expect maybe corners wide open), low CA. Fast enough for most things.

I have a FA50 f1.4 as well, but have hardly used it since I got the FA 43. But maybe then I like thats its a little wider than 50. Granted the 43 is not the nicest to MF, but then the FA 50s worse.

Points 1 and 2 a re very good re he fa31.

RE the 43mm, when I was using it, the 43 just seemed to feel like shooting with a slightly tighter the fa35 - I wanted to compare it to the fa50 but they felt too different in FOV and found myself comparing the 43 to the fa35 instead. When I look back on the first set of images (bag handle in box w/ window) if I crop the fa35 (I'm using a tablet so pinch zoom) image just a little and recenter the handle, and compare to the 43 image they look almost identical.

I feel with the 43mm vs the fa35 I am overlapping in use and they serve the same purpose. What do you think?

From 43 to 50 there seems to be a bigger jump in FOV than from 31-35-43. Those seemed like an even jump up but from 43-50 it at least it felt like a big jump and the 50 has this shallow DOF softening which i like from the central focal point that the 43 and 35 don't have. I spent very little time with the 43 and may need to reconsider how I compose and my distance to the subject matter - like you suggested with the FA31.

I feel like the 31 and 35 are worlds apart re FOV purpose - the 31 feels like a wide angle. Holding the camera to my eye and moving around (like a cyclops) the edges and corners bend in like a wide angle. The 35 by comparison feels relatively normal, like a wide 'normal' FOV on FF.

I feel like the 43 and 35 do the same job re FOV just the 43 is a little tighter but both are wide-normals and a slight crop (leaning a little forward) of the 35 makes a 43 FOV - also slightly wider would make for easier composition. What do you think? How do you find your usage between those 2? Would you pack both or do they overlap too much?

(I don't mind the FA50 MF ring - being further from the body I don't touch it when in AF and when I switch I can feel for it quickly by sliding my fingers forward. Same with the 35 -same design)

I worry with the 43 there isn't enough difference to the fa35 and if I got the 43 I'd not use one of them.

Just by comparison I don't think cropping a 35 FOV to 50 FOV looks the same.

I much appreciate the discussion.

---------- Post added 11-02-19 at 09:10 PM ----------



I cropped the fa35. The distortion makes it obvious which is which but I also had the fa35 shot tilted slightly without paying attention at the time it seems. I only cropped a little off less than 5%from the side approx.

[UncleVanya]

The shots I posted click through to Flickr where the details can be found. If I recall they were not shot the same day, and I tried to get close on the framing but if memory serves I was merely eyeballing it. The shots were handheld and the fixture has been sold and a new one is in place.

[Johnny2shoes]

The shots I posted click through to Flickr where the details can be found. If I recall they were not shot the same day, and I tried to get close on the framing but if memory serves I was merely eyeballing it. The shots were handheld and the fixture has been sold and a new one is in place.

Same here with mine =)

I'll check out the Flickr account for details =)

Thanks

[kiwi_jono]

RE the 43mm, when I was using it, the 43 just seemed to feel like shooting with a slightly tighter the fa35 - I wanted to compare it to the fa50 but they felt too different in FOV and found myself comparing the 43 to the fa35 instead. When I look back on the first set of images (bag handle in box w/ window) if I crop the fa35 (I'm using a tablet so pinch zoom) image just a little and recenter the handle, and compare to the 43 image they look almost identical.

I feel with the 43mm vs the fa35 I am overlapping in use and they serve the same purpose. What do you think?

From 43 to 50 there seems to be a bigger jump in FOV than from 31-35-43. Those seemed like an even jump up but from 43-50 it at least it felt like a big jump and the 50 has this shallow DOF softening which i like from the central focal point that the 43 and 35 don't have. I spent very little time with the 43 and may need to reconsider how I compose and my distance to the subject matter - like you suggested with the FA31.

I feel like the 31 and 35 are worlds apart re FOV purpose - the 31 feels like a wide angle. Holding the camera to my eye and moving around (like a cyclops) the edges and corners bend in like a wide angle. The 35 by comparison feels relatively normal, like a wide 'normal' FOV on FF.

I feel like the 43 and 35 do the same job re FOV just the 43 is a little tighter but both are wide-normals and a slight crop (leaning a little forward) of the 35 makes a 43 FOV - also slightly wider would make for easier composition. What do you think? How do you find your usage between those 2? Would you pack both or do they overlap too much?

(I don't mind the FA50 MF ring - being further from the body I don't touch it when in AF and when I switch I can feel for it quickly by sliding my fingers forward. Same with the 35 -same design)

I worry with the 43 there isn't enough difference to the fa35 and if I got the 43 I'd not use one of them.

Just by comparison I don't think cropping a 35 FOV to 50 FOV looks the same.

I guess for me, now that I have both 31 and 43, I tend to used them rather than the 35. On the odd occasion I take my 35 then normally I would take the 50 (also would often take FA 28 f2.8 as well, so covering 28 - 50). Most of the time though I take the 31 & 43 and the 77 and so I have 31 - 77 covered (I find 31 near enough to 28 for my needs).

Granted the 31 / 43 combination is wider than the 35 / 50 combinations but that seems to suit be quite well. My main "hole" at the moment is something wider than 28mm - I have a Sigma 20mm f1.8 which fills it at the moment but its quite bulky and IQ in the corners is not so good.

In the end it depends on your own preferences and priorities as to what lenses to run with but as I said before they are all worthy choices!

[Johnny2shoes]

I guess for me, now that I have both 31 and 43, I tend to used them rather than the 35. On the odd occasion I take my 35 then normally I would take the 50 (also would often take FA 28 f2.8 as well, so covering 28 - 50). Most of the time though I take the 31 & 43 and the 77 and so I have 31 - 77 covered (I find 31 near enough to 28 for my needs).

Granted the 31 / 43 combination is wider than the 35 / 50 combinations but that seems to suit be quite well. My main "hole" at the moment is something wider than 28mm - I have a Sigma 20mm f1.8 which fills it at the moment but its quite bulky and IQ in the corners is not so good.

In the end it depends on your own preferences and priorities as to what lenses to run with but as I said before they are all worthy choices!

Thanks, gives me a bit to ponder. For a prime kit I see a combo of the following:

-31mm (yet to own but 95% sure to get it now) fits the 28mm FL well enough
-35/43mm (not sure about the 43 since the 35 is so good. If I buy it it will replace the 35 and both sit in a middle sweet spot for me)
-Fa50 1.4/DFA* 50 1.4 (depends on whether I take another big lens along, if I'm just going small, or if the DFA* is my prime for the day and the others playjng supporting roles)
-77 ltd/dfa100 macro WR (if I want macro or extra light) the fa 50 can also be my macro with extension tubes or reversal ring.

If they are all the small lenses and I go one more big lens I can do a 24-70, 15-30 (for low light) or 12-24 (quite small for the angle}. Depends on where and when I'm going to shoot I suppose.

Just have to decide if the 43 is worth upgrading the 35mm which is already so good. I do side focus often enough with all lenses skill have to check the copy again to see how far I need to stop down to get edge sharpness. This copy was centre sharp at f2.0. It'll be small without the hood. But it's money when I have a good lens... Stupid GAS and chasing unicorns (rhinos are the real unicorns).

I really appreciate everyone's help and input. If there's any love for the fa35 over the fa43 or thoughts on how the fa31/43 compares to the pentax-a 35 f2.8 (MF)...
SMC Pentax-A 35mm F2.8 Reviews - A Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

...and/or tokina SL28mm F/2.8 (MF) KA mount ...
Tokina SL28 28mm F2.8 Lens Reviews - Tokina Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
... where they have something mystical that cancels or rivals the ltds I should be aware of, please give me a shout out. Since they share the fa or similar optical construction I doubt it but who knows.

Otherwise I think the 31 ltd is a done deal and the 43 is in ponder-zone for now. Thanks again =)

[johnha]

I don't have the 31 - UK prices are over £1100 new and this pushes up used prices too high for me to justify for a FOV I might not get on with. I have the FA28, FA35 (original), FA50 and for wider, use the FA20-35/4 (couldn't decide between the 20 & 24). I've started to enjoy the rendering of a SMC-Tak 20/4.5 but struggling with CA in the corners.

The 28 is too wide for out and about shooting (I used it as a 40-ish equivalent on my K-5). If I'm using one prime on the K-1 it will be the 43, two primes the 35 & 50 (I use the 20-35 an awful lot as well).

The 31 might be a more suitable FOV than the 28 and I'd probably pair it with the 43 - it's just justifying the cost. There's the 77 to think about too - which is easier as I don't have an AF lens near it (closest is a Super-Tak 85/1.9).

[Johnny2shoes]

PS I ask because I own the pentax-a SMC 35mm f2.8, pentax-a SMC 50mm f1.4, and tokina ka sl28 f2.8 all with auto A and similar build manual focus.

[Darkover]

That brings in the 31mm LTD. It is right in between the 28mm and the 35mm. Here we have yet more versatile capability to get more into the frame than the 35mm lens, but stretches perspective a bit more, a bit more exaggerated 3-D quality, but still not to the degree a 28mm lens would.

Perhaps you have seen that I ask the question between 31 and 35 myself three weeks ago at this place. My choice was the 31mm and I am very lucky with it. I agree with the sentence above by 100% and there is something more. I have a huge 4k TV that I use for viewing my picture. I had to crop/cut my picture to 16/9 and in this case a few extra-mm are worse the money. When I view the picture on my 27" 16/10 computer monitor they are looking good, but at the huge TV (58") they are unbelievable. The 31mm on a huge TV brings you back to the place where you took the picture. It looks definitive different/better than 35mm.
The next point, the size and the build quality with the integrated lens hood make this lens a good choice for the K1 one for just walk around.
The only think I dislike on this lens (and the 35 limited macro) is the lens cap.

Olaf

[Johnny2shoes]

I don't have the 31 - UK prices are over £1100 new and this pushes up used prices too high for me to justify for a FOV I might not get on with. I have the FA28, FA35 (original), FA50 and for wider, use the FA20-35/4 (couldn't decide between the 20 & 24). I've started to enjoy the rendering of a SMC-Tak 20/4.5 but struggling with CA in the corners.

The 28 is too wide for out and about shooting (I used it as a 40-ish equivalent on my K-5). If I'm using one prime on the K-1 it will be the 43, two primes the 35 & 50 (I use the 20-35 an awful lot as well).

The 31 might be a more suitable FOV than the 28 and I'd probably pair it with the 43 - it's just justifying the cost. There's the 77 to think about too - which is easier as I don't have an AF lens near it (closest is a Super-Tak 85/1.9).

I have the 77 as my 85mm. Love it. Bought it second hand from a dude on the day he was leaving AU permanently and I could have picked up the trio at super cheap but i was a dumbass.

I shot these with the fa35 DFA* 50 1.4 and the 77... It was a weird gig. But you'll see some very tight photos. They're the 77. It's a photodiary approach so i leave them all in.. no editing the best, chuck out the rest.
W-Angle.Photography - Photos | Facebook

I was considering doing the 31(eq28)/35/50 or 31/43 leave on thing too but I keep flicking back between the 35 and 43 shots and think I can just lean in a little or crop a tiny bit and the 35 width gives me a little more room... Though I take better photos when I struggle with a tight composition. I just keep seeing them doing the same. I'd just get 43nif I didn't own the fa35 but I do and they seem so similar..
.. I'm still in the 43 ponder-zone. =)

---------- Post added 11-03-19 at 02:06 AM ----------

Here's a 77ltd shot
W-Angle.Photography added a new photo. - W-Angle.Photography | Facebook

---------- Post added 11-03-19 at 02:21 AM ----------

Perhaps you have seen that I ask the question between 31 and 35 myself three weeks ago at this place. My choice was the 31mm and I am very lucky with it. I agree with the sentence above by 100% and there is something more. I have a huge 4k TV that I use for viewing my picture. I had to crop/cut my picture to 16/9 and in this case a few extra-mm are worse the money. When I view the picture on my 27" 16/10 computer monitor they are looking good, but at the huge TV (58") they are unbelievable. The 31mm on a huge TV brings you back to the place where you took the picture. It looks definitive different/better than 35mm.
The next point, the size and the build quality with the integrated lens hood make this lens a good choice for the K1 one for just walk around.
The only think I dislike on this lens (and the 35 limited macro) is the lens cap.

Olaf

I used to love the bends you get from a wide rectilinear or fish eye (got a Russian 16mm k manual and screw mount 180 that fits on a 50mm FL to make the 180°) and have 12-24 for extremes but I'm starting to gravitate to normal perspectives so... A 35mm lying on the ground pointing a bit up. I still love wide and look forward to the 31 but until I tried it I thought it would replace the 35 and 43 replace the 50 but now Ive tried them I think the 31 takes the place of a 28 and the 43 of the 35. Those ltds felt like shooting with with tight versions of the shorter FL on my k-1. Just my experience. That's why I'm not having an real qualms on getting the 31 as it fills a space that doesn't make redundant FLs i already own.. at least that's how it felt when I was shooting with them.

The 43 and 35 overlap for me.

I do love that immersive experience you describe and loved seeing images of salt lakes blown up to wall paper size when I was doing art in uni. Not me but one of the other students, film days too so a lot of hard work printing .

---------- Post added 11-03-19 at 02:42 AM ----------

The thing I like about the 50mm FL esp on FF is the rendering of the perspective and way that FL seems to deal with Fore-mid-back-grounds, the way that FL renders perspective distortion and how it deals with diagonal vanishing points - whether it pinches distant subjects (wide angle) or expands them (normal to tele) in comparison to the foreground subjects. Changing format doesn't seem to change this property despite the change in FOV and FOV equivalents. It seems to be the product of proximity perspective and the distortion properties of a given FL. I think my favourite is a 50mm on medium format. The 35mm FL FOV on FF with the perspective distortion and of the 50mm FL.. or a stitched composite image using FF 50mm FL to widen the FOV.

I used to be about the wide angle foreground emphasis and distorted perspective (I called my photography schtick w-angle photography after all) but now I realise I actually see/perceive at 50mm or close to FL perspective but at the 35mm FF FOV. I like trying to recreate that. I might have to get a 50mm ish 645 or 67 and a focal reducing adaptor for either my A7R or the k-1...

The 43 is a nice compromise but still too close to 35 FL and it feels like it leans that way too, when I tried it. I think I'd need a 46-48mm to make that work on a FF in a single shot. Sorry just went for a rant there =/

[mikesbike]

-31mm (yet to own but 95% sure to get it now) fits the 28mm FL well enough

Exactly. If I get one, on FF (if I get a K-1) would serve as my fast extra-wide angle lens- that is in place of a fast 28mm lens. Another good thing is, on APS-C it would be close to the FOV and perspective of the FA 43mm LTD on a FF body. But it would be more capable wide open. I do that now with my FA28mm, and it is fine wide open, but it only has f/2.8 compared to using the FA 31 with f/1.8 or f/1.9 for the FA 43mm on FF.

Notice in your comparison images between the FA 43mm and 35mm, how with the 35mm those pages seem to protrude more, even seeming to come out of the frame 3-D like. Very appealing. Looking at that same part of the photo with the 43mm you don't quite get that effect. The 43mm more accurately depicts what you'd see if you were standing there looking at that scene, while the 35mm lends some exaggeration, but not to the point of distortedly exaggerated as would a wider angle lens. A 50mm lens would flatten everything more. My FA 35mm f/2 became a favorite walk-around prime lens for versatility, wide open performance, and its quality of images with my film bodies.

50mm lenses certainly have their place. When I got my first SLR camera, a 50mm lens is all I had for 6 years. After getting the FA 43mm (using film), I used a a 50mm lens far less. Not only was perspective more accurate with the LTD, I got more into the frame as well. Its perspective is like looking at reality itself, a feature that can be better appreciated with use over time.

[Johnny2shoes]

Notice in your comparison images between the FA 43mm and 35mm, how with the 35mm those pages seem to protrude more, even seeming to come out of the frame 3-D like. Very appealing. Looking at that same part of the photo with the 43mm you don't quite get that effect. The 43mm more accurately depicts what you'd see if you were standing there looking at that scene, while the 35mm lends some exaggeration, but not to the point of distortedly exaggerated as would a wider angle lens. A 50mm lens would flatten everything more. My FA 35mm f/2 became a favorite walk-around prime lens for versatility, wide open performance, and its quality of images with my film bodies.
.

I kinda see it a little the opposite way. Both have a 3d pop (I see 3d pop in hyperfocal too often enough - maybe my eyes are weird) but the 35mm has the beginnings of wide angle distortion pinching the receding background but leaving the bag handle unaffected in the foreground and it being relatively sharp, it 3d protrudes while the 43 also has a 3d pop with great edge definition of the bag handle with the BG being lens pinched you (I) see a greater receding blur of the box which makes the handle 3d pop out even more. And that is most emphasised in the 50mm shot as the focus to OOF transition of the box with the bag handle in sharp focus creates it's 3d protrusion.. to my eye. I love how people see things differently.. it's why it so great to have so many fixed lenses with different characters.

50mm lenses certainly have their place. When I got my first SLR camera, a 50mm lens is all I had for 6 years. After getting the FA 43mm (using film), I used a a 50mm lens far less. Not only was perspective more accurate with the LTD, I got more into the frame as well. Its perspective is like looking at reality itself, a feature that can be better appreciated with use over time.

Mine was my father's old by then, fujica film slr with 55mm F/2.2 or 2 (can't remember) with split prism and 1:1 view finder. The 55mm view on that camera allowed me to open both eyes and the perspective was the same. I know the size ratio affects this as well as the FL - my mz50 first camera I bought - it was the 80mm FL that matched the 2 eyes open with one in the viewfinder. But I loved shooting the 55 on the fujica and it had a smell. I still have it in a bag but I don't really shoot film anymore. =)

Thanks for the insight re 43 to the 50. From when I tried the 43 I didn't feel it substituted a 50, it didn't have enough of the 50 perspective/distortion rendering characteristics which is why I keep comparing it to the 35 as a substitute which I also see as the border between WA and normal FOV but more on the normal.. a W-ormal. And the 43 as tight wide normal - TW-ormal. Just from my couple hours with it in the office. But I'll be giving it another crack after work today so I'll keep all this in mind.

But as a 35 sub it can fit in any bag but the 35 FOV is my eyes FOV with the 50mm render distortion. The internal dialogue rages on in my brain =)

Anyway off to work... And then to buy the 31 and maybe the 43 too =)

Thanks for the insight =)