Originally posted by JohnBee I second that statement.
The entire reason behind going with Pentax was to benefit from the better glass without breaking the bank. Otherwise, I would have just stuck with Nikon
Based on comments from other threads, I am not sure you would be better off with Nikon. The consensus was that Nikon glass under 50mm pretty much sucks.
What I am trying to grasp through all of this is why there is the expectation of great bokeh from this focal length. Most available designs date back to 35mm film usage. In that world, the 28mm is a pretty substantial wide-angle...about the same as a 19mm on APS-C. Know anyone who is picky about bokeh with their 19mm? Now, I know that might sound like I am being dismissive, but "back in the day", the main concern was distortion, resolution, and contrast for landscape and architecture shooting. Bokeh was truly not even a design consideration. Who cares about background blur in a shot of the Grand Tetons?
The other thing that I have noticed is that most of the "bad bokeh" shots posted here are at fairly low magnification (i.e. not very close to the subject), have generous DOF, and were taken at smaller apertures. Take the same situation with lenses at other focal lengths and you will get similar results. I am not kidding! Even my Jupiter-9 has crazy bokeh under certain conditions. (16 blades and a sterling bokeh reputation...)
Translation...are you sure that your expectations regarding focal length, bokeh, and price are realistic? If you want it all (corner-to-corner resolution at all apertures, bokeh, low distortion, and pixie dust) at focal lengths less than 35mm, you are going to pay in a major way for the privilege regardless of brand.
Steve
BTW...The FA 31 Limited is not particularly expensive compared to the company it keeps...compare to Zeiss and Leitz, not Canon or Nikon...