Yeah, the focal length range is the same. Like I wrote, the 4.0/28-70 is a very good lens: sharp, small, light and focuses close - but not very confidence inspiring mechanically. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-----Alkuper�inen viesti----- L�hett�j�: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> P�iv�: 20. hein�kuuta 2003 0:36 Aihe: Re: Vs: FA 28-70 f2.8 > > >Raimo Korhonen wrote: >> >> In which way is the 4/28-70 "essentially" same as 2.8/28-70. > >Okay, if you're going to hold my feet to the fire...<g> >That seems to have been a throw away statement, by the looks of it... > >Same range, both FAs, one is an FA*, f/2.8, the other an FA, f/4.0 - >both constant aperture. >I can't find a manual focus 2.8, so, knowing the FA [star] is not at all >the same lens, the only thing in common those two lenses have is the >range and the constant aperture feature. Period... > >> And which kind of macro feature the former has? Mine did >> not have any IIRC. The 4.0/28-70 is one very good lens. > >My 28-70mm f/4.0 will focus to about 9.5" - 10" from the front of the >lens, at either 70mm or 28mm. For a zoom, that's pretty good. No, it's >not a "true" macro, that focuses to say 3 to 5". Still, not bad, for a zoom. >Will you settle for "semi-macro?" How about "Great little mid-range, >close focusing zoom?" <g> > >keith > >> All the best! >> Raimo >
