[y0chang]

Well then, in my dreams I'm buying the 31. I honestly think at some point I'll break down and buy either an A7r or A7s. While I love the look of the lens... I don't buy what I can't carry, and I have the Sigma 8-16 and 70 macro, and they weigh as much as my TC, 35, 50, and 21 combined. As much as i love the 8-16, I may have to move it and go with the 15, just for the weight. Sigma has become the company, who sold out in the battle to keep weights down in the interest of technical excellence. I love every modern thing they make in their art series, I just don't want to carry them. In that way, they are the anti Pentax. The Pentax philosophy was centre ultra sharp, edges so so, and low weight. The modern Sigma philosophy is "you can't buy a lens better than this, but it's going to weigh a bit." Not the best for us outdoorsy types.

I totally agree with this but I almost think that pentaxians should support sigma because at least sigma is still supporting pentax mount. Tamron's 150-600mm would be super popular in K-mount but it isnt ever likely to come out.

[mee]

Congratulations, normhead! You are our 1000th poster in this thread! You win an FA3 ... a Sigma lens cap! Just send $11.95 for S&H to the address that will be emailed to you shortly!

Happy Opposites Day! Free lens caps on normhead! Thanks, normhead, what a trooper!

---------- Post added 07-03-14 at 10:54 PM ----------

I totally agree with this but I almost think that pentaxians should support sigma because at least sigma is still supporting pentax mount. Tamron's 150-600mm would be super popular in K-mount but it isnt ever likely to come out.

I prefer the whole frame of my shot to be sharp.. why can't we have both?

[ElJamoquio]

Happy Opposites Day! Free lens caps on normhead! Thanks, normhead, what a trooper!

---------- Post added 07-03-14 at 10:54 PM ----------




I prefer the whole frame of my shot to be sharp.. why can't we have both?

I think the lenses are pretty good these days... but there are still design optimizations that have to be made. It's easier when the aperture is smaller and the focal length isn't too far away from normal (or the registration distance)... but still if you want every bit of light to curve precisely correctly, you're generally going to need more glass.

[momotazur]

I just have received the lens from BHphoto. It feels like using this lens will result in photo session and workout at the same time.

---

Last edited by momotazur; 07-03-2014 at 09:24 PM.

[momotazur]

First few shots with my K-5. All are at f1.8.

[Cannikin]

Dam, 31 ltd or 18-35 1.8 zoom, I hate it... just when I had everything under control, there is a tremor in the force. Someone do a 31 ltd and 18-35 zoom comparison...

I now own both and plan to do a bokeh comparison when I have time, like I did with the 35 f/1.4 Art and the FA 31. I'm already seeing something I really like though: a lot less longitudinal chromatic aberration ("bokeh fringing") which is the thing that bugs me the most about the FA 31 (in many cases visible even at normal viewing sizes). Still have yet to really see how it handles busy, high contrast backgrounds though. The 35 f/1.4 Art doesn't handle these too well IMO, but the 31 renders them as beautifully smooth as any lens I've seen.

Wide open sharpness is very comparable (with perhaps a very slight edge to the Sigma). Stopped down the difference is negligible. I don't have a controlled sharpness test, but as far as I'm concerned they both have the same sharpness, which is excellent. I'm sure PF will be doing a more controlled sharpness comparison between these two lenses.

Yes, the Sigma is quite a big lens, much bigger than the 31. It was actually the length that surprised me the most as I need to reverse the hood while attached to my K-3 to get it to fit in my camera bag which otherwise comfortably fits every lens I own but the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. It is very well balanced on the K-3 though. The balance point on that setup is at the back of the zoom ring (towards the mount), and there's plenty of comfortable space to hold. The size is well worth it IMO when you compare it to carrying and swapping between a FA 31 f/1.8, a 24 f/1.8 (which I don't have) and an 18 f/1.8 (which does not exist). Just the FA 31 and Sigma 24mm f/1.8 together are already heavier than the 18-35, not to mention over double the price bought new (though they are both FF lenses of course).

Not really going to be part of my hiking setup (I have Micro 4/3 for that), but I already knew that from its size, focal range and weak flare resistance. That's not what I bought it for, though. I bought it for wide angle subject isolation, wide-field astrophotography/night landscapes, and general low light. From what I've seen so far, it's going to perform brilliantly for these applications.

No matter what, though, I'll be hanging on to the FA 31 in case a FF Pentax does finally come. It still renders bokeh like no other FF wide angle I've seen, including Leicas.

[dadipentak]

Dadipentak........after your "retirement" from sports photography, maybe the 18-35mm creates a whole new venue (ya' know the one door closes...one door opens thingy )

I gotta watch out with all those swinging doors! I may turn into that lowest of all forms: a cat photographer.

prefer the whole frame of my shot to be sharp.. why can't we have both?

Agree: all lenses should be fast, sharp, exquisitely & durably built and light. Also too, inexpensive.

---

Last edited by dadipentak; 07-04-2014 at 07:04 AM.

[boriscleto]

I gotta watch out with all those swinging doors! I may turn into that lowest of all forms: a cat photographer.

Wasn't there someone who had a 645D who only posted cat photos to Flickr?

[VoiceOfReason]

Wasn't there someone who had a 645D who only posted cat photos to Flickr?

I think I remember that the one who did that got one for a few days to review it, and instead of going out to do things he simply took pictures of cats in the area.

[normhead]

Congratulations, normhead! You are our 1000th poster in this thread! You win an FA3 ... a Sigma lens cap! Just send $11.95 for S&H to the address that will be emailed to you shortly!

Oh boy, I can't wait.

[boriscleto]

I thought the standard prize around here was an old sweat stained camera strap.

[mee]

Agree: all lenses should be fast, sharp, exquisitely & durably built and light. Also too, inexpensive.

(I am going to read your comment as not being rudely sarcastic and snarky because you're not a rude person right?I)

I guess if one is going to ask, I suppose they ask for the moon and see what comes of it. But really, why can't we have small/lighter, sharp lenses? I don't see the reason for either/or black/white choices here. Take the DA 50 f/1.8 as a suitable example.. it is cheap as well. Albeit the build is plastic. However. it is the image coming from using the lens that matters most I think..

[Digitalis]

A 18-35 f/1.8 will be arriving in my city in a few days ( strangely, the store only ordered one of them) and It is my intention to get it and compare it to my FA31. But from some of the samples I have seen already the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 has noticeable amounts of distortion through its range, and Image quality in the corners will be something I will be keeping an eye on ( personally I doubt it will be able to match the FA31 from f/1.8~f/2.8 range at all). My instincts tell me that the FA31mm f/1.8 ASPH limited will be difficult to replace in my own Pentax lens lineup, it has an unusual optical design and while it does have some flaws it also has some distinct strengths that I'm able to make use of in my work.

[normhead]

I now own both and plan to do a bokeh comparison when I have time, like I did with the 35 f/1.4 Art and the FA 31. I'm already seeing something I really like though: a lot less longitudinal chromatic aberration ("bokeh fringing") which is the thing that bugs me the most about the FA 31 (in many cases visible even at normal viewing sizes). Still have yet to really see how it handles busy, high contrast backgrounds though. The 35 f/1.4 Art doesn't handle these too well IMO, but the 31 renders them as beautifully smooth as any lens I've seen.

Wide open sharpness is very comparable (with perhaps a very slight edge to the Sigma). Stopped down the difference is negligible. I don't have a controlled sharpness test, but as far as I'm concerned they both have the same sharpness, which is excellent. I'm sure PF will be doing a more controlled sharpness comparison between these two lenses.

Yes, the Sigma is quite a big lens, much bigger than the 31. It was actually the length that surprised me the most as I need to reverse the hood while attached to my K-3 to get it to fit in my camera bag which otherwise comfortably fits every lens I own but the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. It is very well balanced on the K-3 though. The balance point on that setup is at the back of the zoom ring (towards the mount), and there's plenty of comfortable space to hold. The size is well worth it IMO when you compare it to carrying and swapping between a FA 31 f/1.8, a 24 f/1.8 (which I don't have) and an 18 f/1.8 (which does not exist). Just the FA 31 and Sigma 24mm f/1.8 together are already heavier than the 18-35, not to mention over double the price bought new (though they are both FF lenses of course).

Not really going to be part of my hiking setup (I have Micro 4/3 for that), but I already knew that from its size, focal range and weak flare resistance. That's not what I bought it for, though. I bought it for wide angle subject isolation, wide-field astrophotography/night landscapes, and general low light. From what I've seen so far, it's going to perform brilliantly for these applications.

No matter what, though, I'll be hanging on to the FA 31 in case a FF Pentax does finally come. It still renders bokeh like no other FF wide angle I've seen, including Leicas.

Oh just what I needed, a guy who tells me I might need both... will the LBA ever stop?

[dadipentak]

(I am going to read your comment as not being rudely sarcastic and snarky because you're not a rude person right?I)

I like to think not so your generous reading is appreciated. I'll admit to snarky & sarcastic but I only meant to poke fun at all of us (myself included) for our reluctance to accept the real-world trade-offs in lens design.