31mm or 77mm ltd's ?

Hello everybody!

After much thinking I have decided to buy these 2 lenses, and I am wondering what is the owner's opinion regarding each one of them.

I don't know which one to get first, considering that I will be doing a lot of portraiture work during a summer job, and I will start advertising for fashion shoots from the beginning of september.

In my mind the 77mm would be perfect for portraits, and the 31mm much more useful for fashion (full body) shots.

I know of the legendary quality of the 2 lenses, and I would like an opinion on the application of the focal lenght in pro work.

Also, I have been looking at ebay auctions a lot, and the prices of these 2 lenses coming from HK or Canada are very very interesting. I remember that some of you have bought a 31mm from Canada (Unlocker?) and I wanted your opinion on buying these "safe" lenses (Which really shouldn't give problems as they are fixed primes, with a high QC ..) from far away...

I would love to drive to Chris in watford and get these 2, but the price difference is now £200-£250, and it really is a lot of money for customer service...

Looking forward to your opinions,

Nathan

Where do I start!?

Yes they are good, but having been spoilt with the 2 DA*'s before I got them, how much better I'm not really sure, mainly because we haven't used them 'in anger' yet. I'm sure when printed at A3 it will be blatantly obvious, and hopefully after the wedding we are shooting in less than 3 weeks, I could give you a better answer on that.

Think you have already read about my 31mm being an import from Canada, and yes, it was easy enough, no problems only took a week. Paid £409 and £55 in importing costs (I think), probably should have been more if I remember correctly as I think they undervalued it on the customs form.

If you are shooting your portraits before the fashion shoots, I think you've answered your own question there, 77mm first!

The other thing is, if you're not sure, try them! If you can't find anywhere local to do that, and you don't mind a trip to Aylesbury, come and have a play with mine...(in the local beer garden with a free pint of course! )

I had the opportunity to borrow a 31 Ltd & 77 Ltd during an ePhotozine meet.
They are incredibly beautiful to hold and use. The quality is superb, as you'd expect.

However, the surprising thing (to me at least) was in comparison to the SMC-FA 24-90. The 24-90 held its own against the legendary 31! Unfortunately I didn't check bokeh & 3D rendering, but certainly in detail there was little between them - even with pixel-peeping.

So, yes, they are lovely, lovely lenses... but that little experiment saved me a LOT of money
Matt

I don't have the 31 but I do intend buying one soon (which should tell you how I feel about the two FA Limiteds I do actually own!). When I first got the FA43 I loved it and to this day it remains my favourite lens, when I bought the FA77 I was a little disappointed as I couldn't see any real improvement over my D-FA100 (considerably cheaper and 1:1 macro) in terms of IQ. This was based on using the lenses on my K10D.

Since I've started to use a Pentax MX the quality of the 77 (and the 43 for that matter) has been a complete revelation! These were lenses designed in a film era so it shouldn't be a huge suprise to find that they give their best results away from digital. If I was sticking to the K10D only I might have now been tempted to keep the 43, ditch the 77 (the D-FA100 is fantastic on digital) and skip the 31 altogether, perhaps adding the DA21 instead.

I hear a lot about these limited lense, however, as hefty1 said, they are designed for film. have you thought of looking at the 17-70 to combine the two focal lengths? I know it is only f4, but if you are using flash/studio lighting, that should not matter.

Also, when doing full length, you may sometimes need wider than 31 and to create that different image with an odd angle of view.

If the rumours about the quality of this lens are to be believed then I don't think you would be dissappointed.

Why don't you drive down to SRS and give them all a try?

You know what, the more I think about it, the more I'm thinking that the DA* 16-50, DA*50-135 and the FA 100mm Macro that we have is probably all that 90-95% of people will ever need.

Is it worth me having over £1k in glass sitting around hardly ever getting used? I dunno, I know the quality is better, but am I going to take advantage of that? If we do still have ambitions of shooting weddings for a living then the question wouldn't even need answering, if we don't, should I sell up and get a decent A3 printer etc. etc.

I'm really hoping these 2 babies will come alive at the wedding shoot, and justify being in my camera bag, they have a lot to live up to! The question is, with 2 of us shooting, 3 bodies available, should we just put on the 3 lenses mentioned at the beginning of this post and get on with it or, put the 31mm and 71mm on the 2x K10s and the 50-135 on the K20, or, just use the 3 Limiteds on the 3 bodies. or...........?

While shooting my one (and only!) wedding I took all my lenses and ended up using just three of them; the FA43 for indoors during the ceremony and some of the posed portraits before and after, the DA18-55 for most of the other outdoor shots (group pics, cars, candids etc) and the D-FA100 for some scene-setters (flowers, food, rings, etc). The other lenses were just ballast in the camera bag as it turned out.

The week before that I went to another wedding where I watched the pro 'tog very carefully (looking for tips) and he went the entire day using a single Nikon D200 and a 24-105 zoom, his results were also excellent as it turned out.

I guess it'll come down to your own personal preferences and you'll find as you go along what works best for you. I wouldn't mind betting though that if you left the 31 & 77 at home you wouldn't really miss them - for me I can't leave home these days without the 43, whichever camera it's attached to.

Great point hefty!

I haven't considered the 43mm for a very simple reason; I have an FA50 f1.4, and this is so close to the 43 that it really would be a matter of 1 step backwards to take the same shot. Step which i don't mind taking, as the 50 is a fantastic lens, and not only very fast, it is incredibly sharp a bit stopped down, and it works very well for portraits. So no reason for the 43 for me!

Now, your point about the film vs digital use of these lenses is a very deep one; in fact these lenses are so precise and so sharp that they become superior to the K10 10mp sensor, and it is hard to see the difference with a good zoom (Like Matt was saying with the 24-90) or an excellent zoom like the 2 DA* lenses.

POint is though, and I have been thinking about this for a while, that sensors are only getting bigger, and sharper, and more "detailed". already the K20 is beyond the quality of the old 18-55 I - so they had to make a new kit lens. According to this reasoning, the old ltd's will only see more application in the future. Because the Kmount shoud still be the same, I might be able to use them on the next K30 or the next FF camera which is going to expose for the same size sensor as the 35mm film.

Now, assuming the fact that I am not interested in the DA* zooms, and I am looking forward to replacing one of my 2 K10 bodies with something new, probably the body after the K20 in a year or so, I can only see the benefit of having 2 lenses which are usable with better and better sensors and will always produce the best possible IQ.

This can all be nullyfied by the first person that explains to me that the digital sensors are simply "different" from the old film, and therefore whatever pixel count (Sharpness definition etc..) is achieved in the future, the '35mm film purpose built lenses', will never produce such astonishing resutls on Digital sensors. (The physical difference between digital sensor and film - I know of - and the fact that there is a difference in the angle that light exposes the sensor... ) Can anybody prove though, that this is really what is happening?

Thank you for all your replies, this is all being very helpful!

Nathan

Each pixel on your digital sensor is effectively a small well that needs to catch photons, if the photons hit the well at an angle then it won't fill up as efficiently as if they were hitting it from straight on. Lenses that are specifically designed for digital should (in theory) direct all the light straight onto the sensor whereas those designed for film can be less critical as film is essentially flat and can therefore form a picture regardless of the angle the light hits it.

Having said that, I've seen many pictures on the web of Canon users who've butchered FA Limiteds to use on their 5D's and 1D's so I'm guessing they are among those lenses that do provide a "flat" image. I know Canon FF users are extremely fussy about what glass they can use on their cameras so if you're buying with a future FF Samsung sensor in mind then perhaps the 31 and the 77 would be a good investment - at this stage though it's all guesswork!

I agree with Matt that the 24-90 is an exceptional lens. On short acqaintance it might well seem to be a match for the 31 Ltd.

However, I owned both at the same time before getting my K10D (and for a short while after), so they were used chiefly on the *ist D, and even on that relatively small sensor, the difference WAS noticeable, if subtle. It's more than sharpness (the 24-90 is very sharp); it's some indefinable something that just adds up to a better final result.

Both lenses were released in 2001.

G

I'd agree with George too about the "indefinable something". It's for that reason I prefer the 24-90 over the 16-45. The 16-45 is sharper, but there's something I can't quite define about the rendition that makes the 24-90 much more pleasing.

Although a beautiful lens, for me, it's not worth the extra dosh
Matt