I agree with Jonathan on all his points, especially regarding the 24/2.8K's
contrast and saturation. Back in 2000, I believe, I voted the SMC 24/2.8K my
favorite lens, adding that it makes me look like a better photographer than
I am. Yesterday I mentioned that I sold it, and my Zenitar 20/2.5K, when I
decided to compromise on a Carl Zeiss Jena 20/2.8K whose real focal length
appears to be 22mm. Parting was painful, but happily the winning bidder
lived in Hong Kong, where, he said, he was unable to find the 24/2.8K. I was
happy I could transfer it to a happy new owner.
Alek wrote:
>How do you assess K24/2.8 lens?
Jonathan Donald replied:
I have not done technical tests of any of my lenses, but my impressions and
observations of this lens under "real world" use are as follows:
Under magnification, it is not as sharp wide open in the corners as my K
5/3.5, (albeit 2.8 vs. 3.5). I imagine that this trend continues if examined
under a microscope, but I find it to be visually very sharp at f4 and above.
This is complimented by the fact that it has very nice, brilliant, color
rendition and a ton of contrast. The images ~look~ very crisp with fine
detail. I am also amazed at how resistent to flare this lens is. It usually
exhibits those little repeating pentagons ("ghosting" I guess) under really
bad lighting angles but dosen't tend to flare with the bright haze that
ruins the whole image. I have used it a number of times to make diffraction
sun-stars and the like with excellent results.
Lens tests aside, I love this lens and consider it to be an awesome 24mm. I
would not trade it for the FA* 24/2 because of the weight difference and
fine build quality and feel of the K 24mm. It is easy to hyperfocal, and
generally fast enough for most situations. It is my favorite wide angle, and
probably my most used lens. Period.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
