On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:14:43 -0800, Bruce Dayton wrote: > I have owned and shot both the FA 28/2.8 and the FA 35/2 lenses. Of > those two, I much preferred the 35. I found that the FA 28 had > visible light fallof until at least 5.6-8. The 35 seemed a bit > sharper, too. Of course the 28 is wider than the 35 and if you need > wide...well. I personally found 24 and 35 made a very nice combo and > I felt no need for the 28.
Thanks for the info Bruce. I find the FA 24mm out of my price range for now. If I had (unlimited) resources, I think I'd go for both the 24mm & 35mm plus the 50mm I already have. Finances being what they are, I can *look* at either a 28mm or a 35mm. I just don't know how big a deal (visually) 7 mm is at the wide end of things. Pat in SF __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
