43mm or 31mm??

I'm guessing this has been asked by people lots, but I don't seem to be able to find much of a direct comparison between the two.
I've recently acquired a 55mm vivitar macro, which I've also experimented using it as a walkabout prime and it's indeed done what I hoped for it to do, and probably a bit more!
So that's brought me to the idea of getting something slightly wider than the 43mm, as I can't really justify owning both the 31mm and 43mm, and the 55mm is also the same difference of 12mm from the 43.
I tend to shoot at a slightly wider end, and a 31mm will certainly be more suitable for my style of photography than the 43mm, as I would be able to do more landscapes or slightly wider shots than the 43mm, and what I'll miss from it, will probably be covered by the 55mm.

Would anyone who own them both be able to shed a bit of light on the differences between the 43 and 31mm? Also, would I be expecting to add on quite a lot if I'm swapping the 43 for a 31? (Guessing no one owning the 31 will be up for a swap+cash though :/ )

Thanks and sorry if I'm the logic isn't flowing :S

Do you use a standard zoom at all? If so you could use that to give you an idea of the field of view difference. You could also try reviewing your photos with that zoom and seeing what focal lengths you used. Find a folder of photos you took with the standard zoom and change the details view to display focal length. You can then sort by focal length.

I have the 18-250, and have owned the 16-45 before.
When I first started off I shot more or less exclusively at the wide end of 18-30mm, but as I went along I started to shoot more between 28-50mm. Nowadays on a mental count I tend to shoot between 30-40mm most, very rarely over 70 unless I take the 70-210 out.
And also when I'm not travelling the 18-250 gets used the least, I normally stick either the 28mm f3.5m 43mm or 55mm on the body, and take the 10-17mm fisheye along.
Hence now since I have the 55mm, I'm very inclined to swap for a 31mm, that'll most likely live on the body all the time.

The main difference is in the field of view. The 43's bokeh is sometimes harsher than the 31's, and the 43 might ultimately have a tiny (very tiny) bit more resolving power, but that's just nitpicking and a half.

From experience, it will. I have never tried a FA43Ltd, but 31mm is (for me) the perfect focal length for all day-to-day situations.

My standard kit for normal use is very limited (not DA or FA limited ) FA31Ltd + DFA100WR. I saw in another thread that you're interested in this as part of your setup and can absolutely advise it. I'm not a real wide angle man when it comes to landscapes.
DFA100WR is there to be able to zoom in a little on details and the occasional macro shot; the rest is done with the FA31Ltd.

As you're a bit unsure about the way you are favouring various lenses and want a "standard" prime lens, which is what the 31mm is on APS-C, then perhaps the inexpensive but excellent 35mm f2.4 is the ideal place to start.

If you find it's a mistake then it can be resold for very little loss and you might find it's all you need, thus saving quite a bit of cash.

I can't help with comments on the 43 but I do use my 31 very often as a walkabout lens.

thanks for all the replies and advise there guys.
John I did think about that, but I would like something that I could stick on the MZ-5 as well, and during my recent tries, I can get what I want from the 43mm out of the 55mm macro, apart from AF and probably the colours but that's mostly resolvable by editing, so I thought I'd go for the 31mm.
Might just well try starting a thread in the classfields again!

The only problem with the FA43 is that it is not wider. The only problem with the FA31 is that it is not smaller. And cheaper. And wider.

There is no problem with the FA77.

I do have both lenses, although I'll be selling 43 soon.
Like you I got 55mm (the DA*) and it renders 43 pretty much unused.

Anyway, directly comparing 43 against 31?
- 43 is smaller and lighter, but 31 is still not big
- 43 is sharper in the centre at any f stop
- 31 is sharper in the corners up to f2.8 or so, from there they are just about the same
- 31 has quite a bit more of "pixie dust" I don't know what it is but the way that lens renders is absolutely beutiful. Having said that, 43 has it's charms.
- 31 has nicer OOF IMO
- 31 focuses tad faster but might miss more often (at least when comparing my copy)
- both have hugely inadequate hoods but 31 more so.
- I prefer colours of 31

Personally, I'd recommend the swap. 43 is great lens and it's very small and portable. If you are careful with your backgrounds it delivers great shots. 31 is easier on backgrounds and seems to have better contrast and colours IMO. It's bigger lens but not really big and one really bad point is the useless hood.

Regards
Peter

The problem is everything seems to have a problem!


Not as rich, I got the 55mm Komine, but it's got macro so I'm not complaining
I had a browse for pictures taken by the 31mm and compared them to mine and came to more or less the same conclusion. I've now got a thread in the classfields, but to be fair it's probably a massively long shot! Fingers crossed...

The DA 35/2.4 will work on the MZ-5 too, although I'm not sure whether that body is able to set aperture other than by selecting Tv mode and changing shutter speeds to force the desired aperture? The lens is definitely full frame compatible however.

On the MZ-M, which is based on the MZ-5, you select aperture priority by moving off the "A" setting on the lens and setting the aperture you want. There is no way of setting the aperture on the body. As Dangermouse suggests, you have to change the shutter speed. I believe the MZ-5 works in the same way.

Al

You could use Tv or P on the MZ-5, so it's not impossible.