right on all counts, but my sharpest lens is my FA 50mm macro but only very slightly
behind it is my FA* 80-200. my FA* 24 and my FA 24-90 are noticeably less sharp.
Herb....
----- Original Message -----
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 06:30
Subject: Re: Zooms vs. primes (WAS: Re: Let's talk about the FA 28-105/4-5.6 PZ (now
abit long))
> Well, there has to be some trade-off, doesn't there?
>
> Even if we take Pal's original statement as true ("today's best zooms are every
> bit as good as primes"), a zoom is going to exact some penalty on it's user.
>
> They're bigger, heavier, slower, more complicated, take more time to use (since
> you have one more control to fiddle with), and more expensive than a prime.
>
> I'm not saying zooms are bad - I have a couple that I use quite often - I'm just
> saying that optical performance is only one thing to consider in a lens (albeit,
> a pretty damned important thing! <vbg>).
