[Nesster]

Except they lack the aperture ring, the DA40 and DA70 do cover a full frame. Just to get that out there.

Leaving aside what people post out there - the me shots, whether 'me' is in the picture or the picture is documenting what 'me' does. I do note that in general, gauging by flickr and somewhat even places like this here forum, people respond to people pictures, to animal pictures, and to those WOW pictures that either show something new not normally seen, or that have been processed for some effect. That's pretty much it - the eyeballs are pulled in by content and not the form. I think it's always been so, only now these shots are available to all, when before they sat in a shoe box after being looked at a couple of times.

So, one hypothesis might be: only wealthy photographers can afford the FA31, and therefore you will see mainly the photography such people make. The wild ones can't afford such a lens

Another hypothesis might be: the lens testers are measuring things that don't matter all that much (which you pretty much say), and not just in 800 pixel portions, but even blown up as slides. The measurement microscopes (or whatever digital contraption they use nowadays to count lines) has only slight -if any- relation to the expressiveness of the images shot in the real world.

As has been said a few times already: both lenses are far better than the internet allows. Yet, through the limited internet interface, differences do show themselves.

[Just1MoreDave]

I find that ~30mm is a pretty good focal length for "me" shots - i.e., hold the camera at arms length and point it at my face. A longer lens makes aiming trickier, the same type of argument the OP had against the FA77. For a couple, ~20mm works great.

[stevebrot]

I find that ~30mm is a pretty good focal length for "me" shots - i.e., hold the camera at arms length and point it at my face. A longer lens makes aiming trickier...

I just about fell out of my chair when I read this!

Steve

[stevebrot]

Ok...I will chime in...from a guy with too many lenses...

Just a few bullet points (brevity being the essence of wit):

• Facebook munges all photo uploads...invalid for comparison purposes
• All of the FA Limiteds are incredible
• I own the FA 77 and don't find the focal length to be limiting (notice pun)
• I would own the FA 43 except that I already own excellent glass in that focal length range and don't feel the pain
• I would own the FA 31 except that I already own the FA 35/2 and am not rich
• If I did not own any of the above, I would get the FA 43

Steve

(Not really into the "me" photography. Suck at self-portraits...)

[Wheatfield]

I think that you are judging lens quality based on 600x800 pixel images on the internet speaks volumes for what you know about lenses.
I have my own opinion about bunches of birdbrains.

[atiratha]

Now, this is perhaps the first time, I see the other extreme. I mean, we all know pixel peepers judging bodies and lenses from ridiculously zoomed in pictures. But seldom does one encounter an individual who judges the lenses based on a small preview....

[aleonx3]

I have all 3 FA limited lenses 31, 43 and 77. The 31mm lens get used most often as it is the normal FOV if you want more than two people in the picture and also if you don't have much room to work with. I do not favor one over the others simply because they are all great lenses and each lens is good for the application it is intended for. Out the three, the 43mm is the smallest and is easier to carry around. If you can afford it, get all three.

[KayMan]

<sarcasm>
Folks, one clarification: "me" photographs don't mean self-portraits, it means that you hand the camera over to someone nearby and ask them to take a picture. At every party you see these group sessions, where 4-5 people hand their cameras to the least photogenic person and do a 1-minute photoshoot before getting back to binge drinking.
</sarcasm>

I see some people commenting or ridiculing me for judging a lens' quality from Internet pictures. I am not judging the quality, I am judging the look or the emotional impact. And as @Nesster correctly observed, candy-coated pictures with people or animals tend to get more attention from the masses. Professional or non-professional, print is slowly but surely being replaced by Internet - this will require new approaches to testing and comparing lenses. My approach is no more or no less valid than any pixel-peeper's Imatest analysis.

[kristoffon]

But before biting this very expensive bullet, I decided to check out pictures taken by these lenses on www.Flickr.com and Facebook photography groups, which is probably a better representation of what new-generation, non-professional photographers can do with these lenses.

obvious troll is obvious

[KayMan]

obvious troll is obvious

Visiting websites different than you does not make me a troll Kristoff. One of my friend's father is a well-known photographer in my neck of woods, and I visited his FB group to see his images and lenses. Anyway, other than a personal attack, did you want to contribute something else to this discussion?

[KungPOW]

So the OP likes the 43 better then the 31 because the 43 is a better lens for face book photos taken while binge drinking?

wow.

Why even bother with a DSLR?

[FHPhotographer]

KayMan, welcome to the forum. As one of the most reviled of members, I can tell you that irony and satire are lost on most here and logic is always suspect, but don't give up the effort; it is refreshing. As to the lenses, I have had the 43, 50 f/1.4, 70 and various zooms, both Pentax and others, and found they all brought something different to the dance. I now live in the world of the single-lensed with a DA-35 macro; I like the near-normal field of view that most closely represents what I see. All are good, some were better than others, but the DA-35 is the best in giving me the kind contrast I want for object-centric B&W I shoot plus the macro and all-around use.
Of course, as a contrarian, I go to the other extreme from you and assert that an image that is data only, and not printed, doesn't exist, but then that's just my opinion. Again, have fun with it, it's only rock n' roll,
Brian

[Finn]

Come on guys, take a deep breath. To each is own, you know?

But to the OP: FWIW you are kinda asking for trouble with a thread title like that.

And really, if you're interested in actually retaining ownership of your art, I'd suggest never getting one of your photos within a mile of Facebook. Have you read the terms and conditions?

[kristoffon]

Visiting websites different than you does not make me a troll Kristoff. One of my friend's father is a well-known photographer in my neck of woods, and I visited his FB group to see his images and lenses. Anyway, other than a personal attack, did you want to contribute something else to this discussion?

You see, you put on this persona of a naïve lost person trying to decide where to burn his money and it might even have worked in other forums but there's no way a person that disinformed would have the most passing desire for those lenses. It takes lots of research and education in photography to appreciate their value.

Nice use of "quotes", btw, to "give" emphasis to "words". Does ANYBODY (except trolls trying to pass for dumb) write website addresses with the first letter of the domain name capitalized?

I'm sure you put on a nice show in other forums with the same recipe. Entry level camera body + top quality lens for silly use. What was it with Canon? Rebel XS + 50mm f/1.2 L "for capturing fast action of my kids running at night"?

And you even wrote my username wrong! I guess that's the whole book on trolling!

I hear the Leica S2 is pretty good though. Maybe you should check out what "facebook groups" say about it.

[stevebrot]

Folks, one clarification: "me" photographs don't mean self-portraits, it means that you hand the camera over to someone nearby and ask them to take a picture. At every party you see these group sessions, where 4-5 people hand their cameras to the least photogenic person and do a 1-minute photoshoot before getting back to binge drinking.

Oh...You mean the kinds of photos the iPhone was designed for! <BING!!!> I understand...

Steve