FA-J 18-35/f4-5.6 quality

[Arnold Stark]

Actually, the FA-J 18-35 is not so bad. Optically my impression is that 
it is good enough at least for the *ist D.  With that my test shots @18 
mm show that the resolution is as high as the *ist D can use(~50 line 
pairs per millimter) even wide open, and even in the corner of the *ist 
D sensor. Barrel distortion is there, of course, but light fall-off is 
not too bad. Mechanically, the build quality of the FA-J 18-35 is 
somewhat better than that of the FA28-70 better, except for the plastic 
mount. It sure feels better than the other FA-J zooms which feel as  
cheap as they are (60$ and 130$), the focusing rings of which are a 
joke, and the front elemement of which rotate upon focusing. The 18-35 
does have a focusing ring with distance scale that one can actually use 
manually, and the front element does not rotate. I think that as a 
standard zoom for the *ist D, the FA-J 18-35  is not a bad choice. If it 
had an aperture ring, I would really consider buying it ;-)

Arnold

Mark Roberts schrieb:

Anyway, since the cameras appeal to a wider audience than the lenses
they are bound to attract more attention, scrutiny and criticism.