Fa 31 vs the Da35 macro limited.

Hello Folks,

I need some opinions on this topic please. I have after many years of trying lenses and focal lengths decided that 35mm is where my head is at most of the time. I love the 35 macro limited, but have been considering the FA 31 for all the juicy reasons I read here on this forum.
My questions are these: Do any of you own both? Are there strong differences between the two lenses? Some of you have seen my work, those that have, would you think that I could benefit from this lens, or is the pixie dust rumor mostly just that...
Also looking for a reality check, am I just hoping that this lens will make me a better photographer???


Thank you,


JMD

FA 31mm... you can't resist

Pixie dust magic, everything aplently.... its as good as they say... don't resist

It'll also hold its value reasonably well too

I've just effectively replaced my FA 35mm with it.... which in itself is not a bad lens, but doesn't quite have the magic rendering / transitions... but is still nice

The only other tempting lens [to me] was the DA 20-40mm... but I had to experience the 31mm

The FA 31mm was one of the reasons I was drawn to Pentax, I knew one day I had to get it. That day finally came recently after a few years of being in the k-mount system...

I already had the 100mm DFA WR macro duties... which is a good price right now... as is the Tamron 90mm macro

The 35mm SMC/HD macro is one heck of a lens too... but the FA 31mm has that special rendering

I like the FA 31 very much. Beautifully made with great colours and sharpness. In terms of image quality the only downside I have noticed is a proneness to purple fringing on high contrast edges. It also lacks quick shift focusing and the fixed hood restricts the choice of filters you can use.

If you don't mind the bulk I suppose the other obvious candidate to consider is the latest Sigma 35mm 1.4. I do not have one but it also gets stellar reviews.