Well, 28 is visually wider than 35. If you are going for a wider look, then you should probably get the 28 and just be sure to stop down a bit. I know how that "finances" thing can get in the way of wants. Good luck.
-- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, December 2, 2003, 12:52:09 AM, you wrote: P> 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. P> Thanks for the info Bruce. I find the FA 24mm out of my price range for now. If P> I had (unlimited) resources, I think I'd go for both the 24mm & 35mm plus the P> 50mm I already have. Finances being what they are, I can *look* at either a P> 28mm or a 35mm. I just don't know how big a deal (visually) 7 mm is at the wide P> end of things. P> Pat in SF P> __________________________________ P> Do you Yahoo!? P> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now P> http://companion.yahoo.com/
