Jonathan Donald wrote: > > 24mm f/2.8K. Also a beauty. It is 2/3 stop faster AND > a little smaller and lighter than the 24/K f3.5 (!) > but w/52mm vs. 58mm filter threads. This can cause > problems with thick filters like the older B+W etc. I > just bought a step-up ring for mine to make it easier > to filter using oversized screw-ins.
But is it optically the equal of the f/3.5? I strongly doubt that it is. The 24mm f/3.5 is a stellar performer (in my humble opinion, of course!). John
