Hard time deciding...

I recently bought a Pentax K20D with the following setup:

<br>14mm

<br>31mm

<br>43mm

<br>50-135

<br>All with appropriate UV *Tiffen Haze-1* and Pentax flash

<br>I am having a hard time deciding whether to keep the 31mm or return it! I

don't mind the perspective of 43mm at all and most of the time I would go back a

few steps to frame the subject if required. I am not a professional photographer

- mostly for self-satisfaction. I feel I am do with 2 primes (juggling, when

required) but hardly 3. The facts I like about 43mm is the small size and it's

light. Whereas with 31mm., it's not only larger, heavier and twice costly.

<br>I did some amateur checks and really couldn't differentiate btw. quality

among these 2 lens! I don't understand WHY 31mm is so costly. What's better in

31mm? If I do return it, what would I loose (permit me to point out again - I

don't care much about perspective offered, but care a lot about QUALITY of the

photo)

<br>Sorry - if this looks rather stupid, but kindly assist.

I would replace both with a FA 35/2.

I recently bought a Pentax K20D with the following setup: <p>14mm <br>31mm

<br>43mm <br>50-135 <p>All with appropriate UV *Tiffen Haze-1* and Pentax flash

<p>I am having a hard time deciding whether to keep the 31mm or return it! I don't

mind the perspective of 43mm at all and most of the time I would go back a few

steps to frame the subject if required. I am not a professional photographer - mostly

for self-satisfaction. I feel I am do with 2 primes (juggling, when required) but hardly

3. The facts I like about 43mm is the small size and it's light. Whereas with 31mm.,

it's not only larger, heavier and twice costly. <p>I did some amateur checks and

really couldn't differentiate btw. quality among these 2 lens! I don't understand WHY

31mm is so costly. What's better in 31mm? If I do return it, what would I loose

(permit me to point out again - I don't care much about perspective offered, but care

a lot about QUALITY of the photo) <p>Sorry - if this looks rather stupid, but kindly

assist.

Congrats, You've bought a fantastic kit. If you're in usa and bought all this on one receipt then you've got two $100 rebates to file for.

 

I've never read anything bad about the overpriced 31mm. I agree its pricey but hey, $200 back and you likely saved $200 waiting till now on K20D. I say keep it ALL and enjoy it. I bet your 31mm was made in Japan too?

 

I'd add I handled that new issue 35mm Limited Macro and its a sweet piece of glass. And somehow you have yet to buy a macro so you're not done shopping yet.

 

;^)

 

Lindy

For macros (which I'll hardly use) I plan to use tubes. I am also debating if to go for the portrait lens 77mm., but that comes later. The question is btw 31mm and 43mm..... I wish to return 31mm, since I am unable to figure out in terms of quality is it really different that much (to justify the price difference) against the 43 mm.?

My advice (worth very little): return the 31mm, buy the 77mm (absolutely) and the 21mm (probably).

i agree with Renato. the 35mm f2 AL is optically just as good if not better than themuch more expensive limiteds, and weighs 7oz.

i agree with Renato. the $300 FA35mm f2 AL is optically just as good if not better than themuch more expensive limiteds, and weighs only 7oz.

David Kelly Wrote:<br/>

<em>

i agree with Renato. the $300 FA35mm f2 AL is optically just as good if not better

than themuch more expensive limiteds, and weighs only 7oz.

</em>

<p>

Really? Have you used both, or studied images from both? When I was trying to

decide between the 35 and 31, I studied pictures from pbase.com, and came away

thinking the 31 was better - <em>for me</em>. I liked the contrast and "pop" better

on the 31. But I have read the 35 is dynamite, so likely will do just fine.

</p>

<p>

But to the question - you state that the perspective (field of view) difference does

not bother you, so quality is the only thing at stake. Take some pictures with both,

trying for the same field of view, and see for yourself. Take pictures wide open, as

well as stopped down. Many lenses will perform quite differently when stopped

down, and you may find one or the other does better wide open. If you find the

quality differences are minute, then return the 31, and use the money for other

things.

</p>

<p>

As suggested above, consider the 21, since the jump between 14 and 43 is quite

large (3x). That would give you, in old school terms, FOV of ~21mm, ~32, and ~65.

</p>

From the 31.

If you don't use the FOV, get rid of it.

 

I don't get what you mean with quality of the photo. The FOV plays an important role in how a picture is perceived, and therefore an important part of the image quality.

 

Both the 43mm and 31mm are stunning optics, way better than the 21mm, but if the 21mm FOV is something you need, then the 21mm Limited yoiu should get.

 

Cheers

 

Fredrik

Why is the 31 so expensive? Simple: you're also paying for coverage--i.e. field of

view.

The same quality of lens in a 50 is less expensive, and it's more expensive to make

a wider angle lens than a normal lens. A good example is the price difference

between the Leica 50 and 35.

 

However, because you're not using a full frame, the edge quality of the 31 is mostly

being wasted. In other words, overkill. It reminds me of the camera shop that

recommended that if I wanted a Canon wide angle (before they had any good wide

zooms) that I could just buy the 14. Well, it would have been the right field of view,

but it was tremendous amount of $$ because it was made for another format.

It sounds like you are not yet experienced enough to truly understand what these focal lengths can do that are different from one another. It is that, the focal length, and not a matter of quality that differentiates these lenses. All are of superb quality. The kit you selected is a very logical variety of FL in terms of different uses. And the quality throughout is first rate.

 

You are right that the 43mm Limited is exceptionally compact and useful. But it is, on a digital body, essentially a short telephoto lens. Good for portraits without getting in someone's face and causing distortion, and for scenes where you want telephoto to bring the scene up a little closer, yet still get a little more in the frame. It is also a "fast" lens opening up to f/1.9, good for faster shutter speed in lower lighting than a lens that is not "fast", having brighter viewing in the viewfinder, and able to blur the background behind your subject.

 

The 35mm is not wide angle with digital, nor is it really a telephoto either, referred to as "normal". The 31mm is like a wide normal, alowing more in the frame. You are right, it is somewhat heavy, but this is necessary for being that wide angle and that "fast" f/1.8 aperture. It is heavier and larger than the excellent "fast" telephoto 77mm Limited, but still smaller than say a Zeiss 35mm. Both it and the 77mm Limited cost more than the 43mm Limited because it costs more to make a "fast" wide angle or tele lens than the same in 43mm.

 

Only learning from experience will eventually reveal which focal lengths best suit your own shooting style and interests. Just a simple example- if you are shooting in an average size room with interior lighting, and you prefer having a fast lens due to lower light compared to outside, your ability to move yourself away from your subject is quite restricted. So you can get a lot more in your shot with the 31mm as opposed to the 43mm. But if you want a "portrait" type shot of just one person, maybe two, the 43mm has more advantage here because you can get that shot without getting up too close to them. Also, the front-to-back "perspective" looks different when you get close. The 77mm allows you to get a fairly closeup shot of one person's face and shoulders from across the room, and its being so small and light for a "fast" moderate telephoto lens, the person may not notice you are taking their picture!

 

There are many aspects to study and gain experience using different focal lengths. You certainly have some top-quality tools to gain that experience!!!

 

In my case, I have been shooting photos a long time and I have wound up so far with skipping the 31mm, as I already have a fine Pentax FA 28mm f/2.8 for my wide normal lens. But it is not as fast. My ensemble has emerged as 21mm, 43mm, 77mm Limiteds, and FA 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm f/1.4 primes, as well as the FA 300mm f/4.5 telephoto, 105mm macro, and a fast Sigma 24mm f/1.8 wide angle. I find for myself, I hardly ever use the 35mm on digital because I generally prefer the wider normal 28mm, or moderate wide angle 21mm, and otherwise go to a short tele 43mm or moderate tele 50mm, or longer 77mm. Hardly ever in the middle. But I do like the 35mm on my film bodies, where it serves as a moderate GP wide angle. I don't use all of these lenses all the time, but when I need them I have them. I might take just one or two lenses at a given time. Maybe just the 28mm. Or maybe the 21mm and 43mm. Or maybe the 77mm as well. If shooting film as well, the combo will change. Depends on where I am going and what I'll be doing.

 

Dave and Fredrik are right about the DA 21mm Limited. If you like the compact quality of the 43mm, you will like the DA 21mm as a moderate wide angle for digital. It is a general-purpose wide angle, because it is wide enoungh to get more in the photo, but not so very wide angle that everything at some distance tends to look very small. But again, it is not as fast as the others.

 

Especially if you are getting a rebate, you could perhaps keep the 31mm Limited and see how it goes. After a couple of years or so, if you find your needs do not have you using your 31mm much, you should be able to sell it with little or no loss.

 

Shoot a lot of photos, and please do get back with us. Hope this helps.

Like Michael K., I also have but hardly ever use the FA35. I am more likely to use the FA28, as its slightly-wider-than-normal length fits in nicely between the DA21 and FA43. I have never seriously considered the FA31 as it is very pricey and lacks the svelte build of my other primes. I have also virtually stopped shooting my FA50 as well, usually either FA43 or DA70.

 

This may not be a completely popular response as this discussion is mostly concerning faster primes, but you might consider filling that gap with the well-regarded FA20-35 f/4 zoom. Compact and light for a zoom, it would very effectively fill the range between your DA14 and FA43--and with only moderate loss of speed in comparison to the DA21 f/3.2 and FA28 f/2.8, and image quality is likely to be very similar.

 

Other considerations--there is a roadmapped DA* 30 SDM that will likely appear within the next 12-15 months.

Scott: yes i did shoot the 31 and 35 side by side. The 31 had the edge on contrast, the 35 smoother bokeh, i thought. But i was slightly put off by how much heavier the 31 was for the same max aperture, and felt there wasn't enough difference between the two to justify the very considerable added cost. I put the bucks I saved towards a 70 f2.4 which i think is flat out wonderful, no downside at all.

Return the 31 and get a 28mm A series lens. It will be manual focus but it is very good and not expensive.

I have the FA43 and FA77 but could not justify the cost of the FA31. I look forward very much to seeing what the DA15 is like. I think that would make a nice triplet.

Didn't you also just buy a 5D?