Any lens in the world could have taken that picture. If that's your standard then you are right, the Sigma is perfectly capable.

And "The Wall" and "The Final Cut" and "Pompeii" and...

I don't know, but I can guess.

1. Often people only write a review if they like a lens. There is a lot less incentive to write up a lens you find disappointing. For instance, the 21 different Pentax FA lenses are rated from 8.42 to 10.0, a very narrow range considering the full ten point scale. An average lens should be rated a 5, but who really does this?

2. Many people are not exacting in their lens requirements. I don't mean this to be a negative reflection on them, it's a simple statement of fact. Pretty well any lens can take a good picture and pretty well any major brand lens is good enough for most people.

3. Combined with this is a lack of perspective. Someone might buy a lens and find it sufficient and write it up as a 10/10. Likely those who rate the Sigma in this way have not tried the FA31 to compare. Given the price, I do not blame them for this either! But I prefer to take my advice from sites and individuals that have compared the lenses directly.

4. More experienced shooters tend to rate lenses lower, since they have higher expectations and more experience. This seems obvious when I look at the many average and even substandard shots folks post in defence of their favourite lenses.

5. The focal length might be dead-on what people want to use, compared with other lenses they have. This lens is near normal and so has appeal based on that fact, totally apart from how well it does as a normal.

6. The reviewer's usage might conform to exactly what the lens is good for and nothing else. In the case of the Sigma 30, low-light portraits, with the subject in the centre, would work a treat. Who cares about soft edges and vignetting then? They are actually bonuses! But one would not want to use it for shots of walls and landscapes -- in these use cases the FA31 would blow it out of the water.

For these reasons I have never given much credence to the lens ratings at Pentax Forums. The reviews themselves are far more useful than a single number.

I wouldn't disagree. I owned it for a while and thought it the best single all-rounder lens one could put on a camera. But for me it was never a matter of having only a single lens and so I grudgingly traded it on.

I think at $500 it goes for too much. The DA35 has a lot more usefulness and is built better. I don't own a single (non-Limited) FA lens since I dislike their look and feel.

I agree completely. I prefer the Vivitars to this lens, which seems antiquated.

If it was 28mm I would have bought it to go with the other two FA Limiteds in my bag. There is something about them that transcends other lenses.

This is not surprising as the Photozone tests show border performance to be the worst of any lens I can recall, even stopped down. It also has poor vignetting characteristics, twice the distortion and up to three times the CA when compared with the FA31. To top it off it is heavier, bigger and uglier (IMO). I was initially enticed by the fast aperture but after reading tests and looking at images I soon crossed it off my list.

The FA31, FA35 and DA35 are similar enough in their excellent sharpness. The FA31 is significantly larger and heavier than the other two. The DA35 has arbitrarily close focus (being a 1:1 macro) plus Quick Shift focus but is one stop slower. The build on the regular FA series cannot be compared to the Limiteds, IMO. The FA31 has the best bokeh but the DA35 is also great when focusing close.

It's a bit of a toss-up which of the three one might prefer, especially as the FA31 is closer to 32mm when measured. I personally dislike this focal length on APS-C, preferring 24-28mm.

If you can find a Vivitar Close Focus 28/2 then you might find something that compares in quality with the Pentax lenses, though it won't be as sharp unless stopped down to f/4.

Yep, two of my picks were his work, "England's Trance" and "Heaven Up Here". One of the best photogs in the industry!

Only at the borders and not enough (apparently) to make it better than the DA16-45mm. I think it is possible to extrapolate from the first version to the second with some degree of confidence.

Populism is no way to judge anything. "Dark Side" is indeed over-rated and not that good even in the Pink Floyd catalogue. It was a big retread of ideas they had already used (but then again they did that a lot... drugs don't you know.) However I would not agree with calling it "rubbish" -- give me a break!

But we are talking album covers here, and it is a good one.

Oh yes, and then the best ever album cover. Thank you Peter Saville. Thank you Joy Division. Thank you Tony.

I would certainly give the nod to "London Calling", which is not a rip of Presley, but an homage of course. And then there are these, some of which look many times better in person.

Iconic face and those asymmetrical eyes.



How to walk on water: 1. Find the Mersey. 2. Write the best album you possibly can. 3. Find a great photographer.



23 Envelope design beauty.



And raw energy.



Not your mother's Talking Heads.



An iconic city view.



Cutesy picture book for the young at heart.



And a real kids book in CD format.



Die-cut sleeve in different colour variations. Spoiled by the sticker though. In the V&A.



Overlooked brilliance. No, not that Placebo.



Fold out vinyl sleeve with various horrific images.



A metal tomb for punk.



Beautiful transparent layered CD you have to hold to experience.



Dayglo.



The reign of commercial fascism.



Interior landscape.



How to sell pop music. Maybe.



106 beats that.



Arbitrary but incredible photos in this boxed set.